But I have read the monsters by CR chart, monster design chart, seen and run years of paizo created encounters, understand their intended tactics, and what the players need to do to overcome those obstacles. Mostly on the GM side of the screen excluding society play. With that knowledge there is a certain baseline ability that needs to be reached without risking loss of too many resources and/or player death. The build of your inquisitor doesn't meet the minimums as far as I can see to be able to thrive in published APs or PFS. In a home setting with encounters tailored to the party and/or very few combat situations? Yeah, any build can do that by definition. I by no means mean badwrongfun, but if you are playing by houserules or heavy modification of encounter design as presented in the core rule book and/or game mastery guide, then complaining about people who build more in line with the APs and society play optimizing to a degree that you find excessive is perhaps misguided since your own baseline perceptions might be off.Yes, clearly you have much more experience in the FRPG field than I do. I bow to your superior knowledge and reading skills. By many standards I am a neophyte in the field. I mean, I had no hand at all in the making of the Fighting Man, Magic user or Cleric. Thief, well, yes, But hey.
But we play pretty darn standard. Almost no houserules or modifications.
Again with the "I've been playing longer than you so I know everything and you know nothing" argument...
Experience in non-Pathfinder RPGs doesn't say much about how well a person knows the Pathfinder rules. In fact, in my experience people who've played a lot of other games before Pathfinder are more likely to get the rules and game balance wrong, because their prior gaming experience colors their idea of how the game works. Some Pathfinder rules are [i]very[/e] different from 3.5 D&D rules, let alone the rules from earlier editions of the game.
To cite a relevant example, 3.5 had the Crossbow Sniper feat (1/2 Dex to damage snf double the range on precision damage), while the 3.5 version of Manyshot was far less of an instant win button for longbows compared to it's Pathfinder incarnation.
I meant, boss fights in pathfinder don't work the same way they do in a JRPG or MMO. if you want final fantasy style boss fights, you aren't finding them in pathfinder. one individual foe is begging to die by a single barbarian pounce, the closest thing you can get to the slow methodical JRPG boss fight in pathfinder, is to give the boss a mountain of minions of APL-2 until the encounter equals APL+6 or APL+8 and still watch the party slaughter it in a much shorter than expected time
I don't play Final Fantasy, so I see boss fights rather differently. Usually they are not a single foe but a single powerful foe with minions, be they summoned or otherwise.
The rulebook perhaps refers to the "average" dwarf and not the lower end of the scale?So when the CRB was describing the race in general, it was purposely excluding an entire third of the population of that race?
No Jiggy, I think it was describing the average dwarf - that is to say, the mean between the least charismatic dwarf you are likely to meet and the most charismatic dwarf you are likely to meet. By human standards, the average dwarf is less than sociable. The below average dwarf is either withdrawn and uncommunicative, or downright obnoxious. Plus you have to bear in mind that the dwarves most likely to function comfortably in human society, and hence the ones that are most likely to be interacted with by humans most often, are those that have higher than average (for a dwarf) charisma.
So describing a dwarf as "a bit gruff" from a human standpoint probably is NOT referring to a dwarf with a dump-stated charisma of 5, but with a dwarf of charisma 9 or even 10 because that is the kind of dwarf most humans are likely to meet.
I think you're searching for ways to support a position you already want to hold, rather than seeing what position you end up at when you start with the information available.
Likewise. It's a common failing of people called "cognitive bias" where we all tend to endorse information that supports what we already know and believe and reject that which contradicts it. However, people are very good at debating out the cognitive bias by analysing evidence as a group. Half the time on these boards I play devil's advocate just to test out peoples answers.
I still maintain a charisma of 7 is socially challenged, just as someone with an intelligence of 7 is intellectually challenged.
And in 3.5 every random commoner had nothing below a 10, making an 8 a major outlier. So what? This is Pathfinder. The rules have changed. We don't still use THAC0, and INT no longer has a linear tie to IQ.
Can you point to that rule saying intelligence no longer has a tie in to IQ? No? Intelligence means what it has meant from basic D&D through 3.X to Pathfinder - it's your memory, logic, reasoning, and conscious learning ability; largely all factors in an IQ test making the two scores related to one another regardless of official rules. Wisdom is intuition, perceptiveness, experience through unconscious learning. Charisma is your force of personality and ability to relate to others, your personal magnetism and social skills as well as physical beauty in some cases. An intelligence of 7 is pretty thick. A wisdom of 7 seems to never learn from their mistakes. A Charisma of 7 or less and you are definitely socially challenged - either withdrawn and not interacting much, or else acting on a standard that most people around you would find offensive.
However I will clarify one point: a charisma of 7 is socially challenged by the standards of a person with a charisma of 10. Unlike the other two scores, charisma is in some ways relative. Dwarves work fine as a society because dwarves are working along a different standard to humans.
In original D&D, IQ was 10x INT score.
No, it wasn't. That was a suggestion from a Dragon Magazine answer column. It was never a rule, and I have no idea why people keep thinking this.
If you're wondering how I know this, I was there and used to own that magazine.
Odd, I remember seeing it in one of the AD&D rulebooks, and back when I played AD&D (many years ago) it was a given in the group I played with, but I can't find it now, so I'll yield to your wisdom on the issue.
Final Fantasy boss fights, had 1 powerful and usually enlarged foe whom had a mountain of immunities. typically status ailments were either pointless in boss fights, or highly impractical. boss fights were basically slog fests where your warriors slashed at the boss, your arcane caster buffed the warriors, and your healer was a frequent target.
Final Fantasy/Dragon Quest combat started the trend for JRPG combat, which lead to the trend of MMORPG combat.
the only difference between a WoW boss fight and a Final Fantasy boss fight, other than the scale of the numbers involved, is the fact a WoW combat accomodates positioning and Final Fantasy does not.
With the Exception of their 2 MMOs, the Handheld Tactics frachise and Spinoff franchises like Revenant Wings and Chocobo's dungeon.
the only core FF game that accomodated positioning was FF12.
the FFTA franchise is on their 3rd game, FFTA1 (GBA) FFTA2 (DS) FFTA3D (3DS)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh god.
What year is this? Oh wait, it is 2013. And this is a dead horse you are beating on.
I wonder why some people still think that you have to make a weak PC in order to role-play and enjoy the game. That there still is a mentality of "Powergamers/Optimize want to ruin the game and don't enjoy role-playing but ROLL-playing!!!!".
Personally, I never play weak PCs. I like my PCs optimized and relevant in their roles. I am still an avid role-player. I also don't go overboard (in my group, we ONLY use Official Pathfinder material and nothing else, because THEN the really bad stuff starts). We don't use weird or exotic races with tons of powers that are on the verge of overpowered, unless it is a "funny" campaign.
And we never let anyone make a PC so blatantly powerful that it overshadows all the others, because that obviously detracts from other people's appreciation of the game.
Personally, the greatest challenge I have had is matching veterans with newbies. Even helpful veterans, willing to lend a hand in all aspects of character creation and role-playing end up frustrated when the newbies don't do their homework (and I don't mean reading all the PF books - just being prepared for a session and knowing the basic rules).
I'm not privy to what the devs say in private conversations, so I won't comment on that. But I have read the monsters by CR chart, monster design chart, seen and run years of paizo created encounters, understand their intended tactics, and what the players need to do to overcome those obstacles. With that knowledge there is a certain baseline ability that needs to be reached without risking loss of too many resources and/or player death.
You can play with inept characters, in baseline modules, and still "do just fine" -- and I suspect most PF players do. What happens is that the DM pulls punches: makes intelligent monsters use stupid, counterproductive tactics, for example (balors in melee); or, in more extreme cases, fudges a lot of dice rolls, hp, etc. so that the PC's "just barely win" every fight. I've played at a number of tables like that and personally didn't enjoy it much, but I'm led to believe that's pretty much how a large proportion of the fans, at least some of the staff, and presumably DrDeth play the game -- if so, I would go so far as to call his game "standard" or "baseline," and ours "aberrant."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, clearly you have much more experience in the FRPG field than I do. I bow to your superior knowledge and reading skills. By many standards I am a neophyte in the field. I mean, I had no hand at all in the making of the Fighting Man, Magic user or Cleric. Thief, well, yes, But hey.
But we play pretty darn standard. Almost no houserules or modifications.
I see grognards like you in games stores from time to time, harping on about the kids on their lawn, how if G Gygax (whom they played a game with personally) were still around he would sick an owlbear on them and make them go away.
They usually have some old ignored supplement they tried to self publish back in the day they want to you try out, complete with rusty staples from the university copy shop. They drag out old minis that had runs of less than 4 digits, from companies that haven't existed in 20 years. Talk about how in the keep on the borderlands they totally destroyed that crazy old guy in the woods with a 10 foot pole and a bit of chalk and some string. Now kids won't even go adventuring without a +1 weapon, the spoiled snots.
In all seriousness I find OD&D pretty fun, its not the same game as 3.x/PF though. In OD&D if you rolled up something with terrible stats, it didn't matter all that much because the game largely didn't give out much unless you were at the extreme of the bell curve. Most of the mechanics came from the class and not the stats. 3.x/PF stats matter much more, and how you choose to progress your character matters much more.
the fighter deals good damage and has decent armor class. if they have a good dexterity and hyper-specialize in one specific weapon. problem is, getting what they need to be effective, either requires heavy DM coddling, handwaving of gold piece limits, fudging of item availability, or casters to provide the exact equipment and buffs you need. a fighter needs help from the casters more than casters need help from the fighter. at least a summoned monster doesn't eat up so many wand charges and most of them deal respectable damage.
It’s true our fighter does hyperspecialize. But there is no “DM coddling, handwaving of gold piece limits, fudging of item availability” not even close. Yes, my Sorc does reserve one 3rd level spell for GMW and the cleric casts Vestment. Someone usually casts Haste, but that helps all of us.
But my sorc benefits just as much as I can devote my spells to things other than self-defense spells, as the fighter tanks. No spell can beat a high HP High AC tank in front of you. Summoned Monsters are problematic as they require a Full Round to cast.
We work as a TEAM.
Yes, clearly you have much more experience in the FRPG field than I do. I bow to your superior knowledge and reading skills. By many standards I am a neophyte in the field. I mean, I had no hand at all in the making of the Fighting Man, Magic user or Cleric. Thief, well, yes, But hey.
But we play pretty darn standard. Almost no houserules or modifications.
Again with the "I've been playing longer than you so I know everything and you know nothing" argument...
Experience in non-Pathfinder RPGs doesn't say much about how well a person knows the Pathfinder rules.
I agreed with you. I said "Yes, clearly you have much more experience in the FRPG field than I do. I bow to your superior knowledge and reading skills. By many standards I am a neophyte in the field."
You can play with inept characters, in baseline modules, and still "do just fine" -- and I suspect most PF players do. What happens is that the DM pulls punches: makes intelligent monsters use stupid, counterproductive tactics, for example (balors in melee); or, in more extreme cases, fudges a lot of dice rolls, hp, etc. so that the PC's "just barely win" every fight. I've played at a number of tables like that and personally didn't enjoy it much, but I'm led to believe that's pretty much how a large proportion of the fans, at least some of the staff, and presumably DrDeth play the game -- if so, I would go so far as to call his game "standard" or "baseline," and ours "aberrant."
I have several DMs. But my main PF DM rolls in public so no fudging, and the monsters use good tactics. True, he does like “challenging” encounters, and he’ll adjust the monsters HP & AC etc accordingly, but it’s usually UP, not down- and not on the fly. Mind you, we do have 20pt buy and are Mythic in the main party. But in the main party I run a Sorc. I enjoy challenging encounters also. A 2 round encounter would be boring to me.
The Inquisitor is in the party that does heavy roleplaying, problem solving, politics. His tactics are to stand behind the heavy armored Sword & Board paladin, and use Bodyguard & In harms way & teamwork feat class ability to protect the pally and Combat reflexes to keep foes from getting around the Pally to the squishies. When the foes are out of reach, he unloads his heavy repeating CB. He has a high wisdom and acts as scout. Discern Lies comes in very handy. DPR is not his thing.
It helps all of you, but it still says a lot that the fighter needs you guys throwing several spell slots per fight on him so he can do his job normally.
Put that on a class that's already quite capable and they turn into real monsters.
Sure, and I need him keeping the monsters from eating my face. That saves me many spell slots. And, he's quite capable, more so than any other fighting class we have seen. Altho the magus is a close second, and if the pally can Smite- whoa!
I've never found optimization to be a problem.
Bigger problems I find are too high of stats from rolling and when wealth by level gets too far from the guidelines in the positive. I find this problem when item crafting get abused. Optimization on when these occur makes for a tough job as GM and a party that is unbalanced.
I always optimize my character for a role first, the work backwards to get the things I want keeping in mind I need to good enough at my role.
I see grognards like you in games stores from time to time, harping on about the kids on their lawn, how if G Gygax (whom they played a game with personally) were still around he would sick an owlbear on them and make them go away.
They usually have some old ignored supplement they tried to self publish back in the day they want to you try out, complete with rusty staples from the university copy shop. They drag out old minis that had runs of less than 4 digits, from companies that haven't existed in 20 years. Talk about how in the keep on the borderlands they totally destroyed that crazy old guy in the woods with a 10 foot pole and a bit of chalk and some string. Now kids won't even go adventuring without a +1 weapon, the spoiled snots.
Hey- you've played with me! ;-) Describes me to a T!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder why some people still think that you have to make a weak PC in order to role-play and enjoy the game.
Indeed. One's ability to role-play and one's ability to optimize are completely unrelated. They are *not* inversely proportional.
Indeed. One's ability to role-play and one's ability to optimize are completely unrelated. They are *not* inversely proportional.I wonder why some people still think that you have to make a weak PC in order to role-play and enjoy the game.
True, but it’s hard for most mere mortals to be able to focus on two things at the same time. Thereby a heavy focus on optimization generally leads to a lack of focus on role-playing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For me, it's a big warning sign when one of the players starts talking about "doing your job effectively." Since when is being a fantasy-adventure hero a job?
I'm here for storytelling, not a tactical wargame. Winning the encounters is not the be-all, end-all of a good game for my group.
This pretty much sums me up too.
The majority of my characters are, however, built to do their job effectively. The thing is, their job tends to be working behind a bar, ploughing fields, or sitting at the town gate guarding against wild kittens ;)
Most of the time they're heroes because of the odds they go up against and beat, not because they've had any experience at fighting anything (okay, with an exception for Fighters as I usually use that class if it's a militia member or something.) I much prefer the story of someone that's risen from nothing than to walk in on day one as an experienced adventurer. That's just me, of course, and I'm not going to start saying that's the One True Way or anything.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
True, but it’s hard for most mere mortals to be able to focus on two things at the same time. Thereby a heavy focus on optimization generally leads to a lack of focus on role-playing.Indeed. One's ability to role-play and one's ability to optimize are completely unrelated. They are *not* inversely proportional.I wonder why some people still think that you have to make a weak PC in order to role-play and enjoy the game.
All due respect (you are a doctor) but I think that's a matter of opinion.
IN MY OPINION I've found the opposite in my games. When the players have well-optimized characters that they feel confident won't shatter like glass at the first blind corner of the dungeon, they tend to become MORE bold interacting with the fantasy world I've created for them.
And just for the record: I AM an old grognard. The first campaign I ever ran started at the KotBL - I was 8. I actively rebelled AGAINST 3x until 3.5 came out just because it was such a mind-change from the way I'd grown up gaming. As a result I'm STILL learning how to utilize the resources in PF for PC and NPC creation.
Just a few months ago a friend said he was interested in dusting off the old 1e books, rolling up some throw-away characters and running a hack-n-slash game. I respectfully declined. Despite over half my gaming life devoted to playing that way, I'm sticking with PF because this allows me to customize and streamline my character, game and homebrew world in a way I never could before.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, the people I know who optimize the most are the ones who are most interested in the game overall, and they tend to create the most original characters and immerse themselves in the role-playing the most. The people who don't optimize their characters, in my experience, seem to have a more casual approach to the whole hobby, and are less likely to do much role-playing and more likely to want to play angry birds during game time.
YMMV, but that's what I've seen: a strong positive correlation between optimization and role-playing, as opposed to the inverse one people tell me about.
And, yeah, we're all mostly grognards here. I played a lot when "elf" was a class, and played the most with "weapon type vs. AC modifier" tables on the character sheets, and still remember THAC0 as a major innovation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, the people I know who optimize the most are the ones who are most interested in the game overall, and they tend to create the most original characters and immerse themselves in the role-playing the most. The people who don't optimize their characters, in my experience, seem to have a more casual approach to the whole hobby, and are less likely to do much role-playing and more likely to want to play angry birds during game time.
YMMV, but that's what I've seen: a strong positive correlation between optimization and role-playing, as opposed to the inverse one people tell me about.
And, yeah, we're all mostly grognards here. I played a lot when "elf" was a class, and played the most with "weapon type vs. AC modifier" tables on the character sheets, and still remember THAC0 as a major innovation.
I only started in 2nd ed AD&D, so I'm just beginner. THAC0 was a bit of a pain in the butt, but I remember making a fighter, my very first character, rolled 3d6 in order, first stat was 18 STR, rolled 00 on the bonus strength. Witnessed by the GM and all players. Got 17 dex, and everything else was 7-11 range. GM made me retire character after only a few sessions because it was "to strong". He was really upset about the negative AC more than the high strength though. He didn't want to run monsters with good thacOs against the party since everybody else was like AC2-5 range.
To the OP....yea...I hate it more than anything else I can ever express about playing RPGs.
[
True, but it’s hard for most mere mortals to be able to focus on two things at the same time. Thereby a heavy focus on optimization generally leads to a lack of focus on role-playing.All due respect (you are a doctor) but I think that's a matter of opinion.
IN MY OPINION I've found the opposite in my games. When the players have well-optimized characters that they feel confident won't shatter like glass at the first blind corner of the dungeon, they tend to become MORE bold interacting with the fantasy world I've created for them.
And just for the record: I AM an old grognard. The first campaign I ever ran started at the KotBL - I was 8.
True, but a character that is a useful part of the team and is survivable is not the issue. Mostly, what folks are talking about here are optimized Min/maxed PC’s, all out 100% for DPR, with dumped CHA,. INT & WIS so as to get more DPR. So, when I say “Hyper optimized’ that’s what I mean.
I don’t consider a “well rounded, wellbuilt, survivable character who contributes as part of the team” to be Hyper-Optimized. Hyper- optimized is generally the opposite of ‘well rounded”.
Of course, like with Min/Max, Munchkin, etc, “optimized” has a different meaning to many. Which is why I say “heavy focus on optimization” or “Hyper-optimized”.
As for the rest- “get off my lawn, ya kid!” ;-)
And, yeah, we're all mostly grognards here. I played a lot when "elf" was a class, and played the most with "weapon type vs. AC modifier" tables on the character sheets, and still remember THAC0 as a major innovation.
“Kid…lawn...., etc, etc” ;-)
You called me a kid... ha ha! It's been a long time since anyone's used that to describe me. I'm reminded of the old Brisk Iced Tea commercial:
Claymation Bruce Lee: "Karate Kid??!!!"
Clamation Karate Kid: "Kid? I'm 35!"
I'm even older than 35... :0
Anyway, I get it; min/maxers with dump stats taking a dwarf's Cha to 5 in favor of squeezing every last ounce of DPR out of that Greatsword/2H/Power Attack/Furious Focus/2h Fighter build. Here's the thing though; I have a player in my games right now who, last campaign, ran a barbarian like that. He dump statted his Cha to 7, cheesed on Dex instead of Str, and had RIDICULOUS fighting and Acrobatics skills, even just at level 1. He then proceeded to rock the "Loner/outsider" role - not to the point of disruption, but in fact ADDING to other people's roleplaying by adding his own Mongo-like reflections to their interactions.
NOT Hawk the Barbarian!
The player shouted "Foul dragon-whelp will never escape the wrath of the Hawk!" and hurled himself through the guards (Acrobatics check) then up a tree and back down, onto a narrow wall. He ran that wall accepting the -10 and then dropped into the crowd, making them move with Intimidate. Sure, he had a crappy Cha, but he'd pumped the skill with 3 ranks at level 3. We were using hero points at the time, so he spent his...on the intimidate!
So the crowd parts, now giving Hawk a straight shot at the fleeing kobold sorcerer in the cart. The next round he SPRINTS, as fast as his barb speed will carry him, and freaking CATCHES UP to the cart! Round 3 sees him THROWING himself on the freaking thing and battle on a runaway cart ensues. Here's the kicker: Hawk has virtually NO way to stop the thing. He gets the sorcerer to abandon ship, takes the reins, and at this point the rest of the party has found a way to catch up so they board. All fail the multiple handle animal checks I gave them, but only by a couple, so they manage to keep from killing anyone as they drive the vehicle out of control into the river.
All in all one of our most memorable scenes. It could've ended poorly; the BBEG could've gotten away, Hawk could've gotten cut down in that initial leap away from the guards. But because he had his guy pumped specifically to try feats like these he went for it and fun was had by most. There was still that one guy who grumbled that Hawk was just a bunch of brainless numbers but there'll always be that player at the table.
Bottom line; I'm just going to have to leave it for me as:
1. My fun is not impacted by the optimization of others, but rather in the interaction with others at the table (why I prefer to play live instead of online)
2. Optimized characters, in my own experience (may vary for others) lead to players feeling more comfortable with/less frightend by immersion and thus I see better RP.
Of course, now, this might also lead to definitions on what is Roleplaying and what does "good roleplaying" look like, but that's probably another thread...
1) The stat arrays given in the book are suggestions for easiness in character generation for NPCS. If you are creating each NPC using the character creation rules, then there is going to be a lot more variability in the stats. Even if you are not, the PCs of any given story are 1 in 1,000,000. So having a bard who is way more charismatic than most people will ever be, but a lot less able to plow fields every day makes a lot of sense.
2) Optimization does not and cannot happen in a vacuum. If you have a "killer GM" who runs encounters at 3+APL, has no magic marts, etc, you need every number advantage you can get. If you have a GM who tailors your encounters perfectly, so you all can be playing with a 10 point buy and still have a fun game, then you do not need every numeric advantage you can get. Optimization for all circumstances is different than optimization for one aspect, and both are extremes.
If one is in a sandbox style game, they can seek out challenges they think they can defeat, and only occasionally run into random stronger enemies, so any power level is ok. The only problem with optimization is when the party is out of whack; you cannot have all players contribute when their ability to contribute is impaired.
3) I agree that there are two scales, one for RP ability, one for mechanical ability. I think that Gardner would say there are lots of axes: social ability would be a different axis, ability to picture what is being said is a different axis, organizational ability, preparation ability, auditory comprehension etc. All in all PnPRPGs require a lot of different skills, and it is almost impossible to master them all. All it takes is to be majorly deficient in one area and some people will assume you are a problem player
3) I agree that there are two scales, one for RP ability, one for mechanical ability. I think that Gardner would say there are lots of axes: social ability would be a different axis, ability to picture what is being said is a different axis, organizational ability, preparation ability, auditory comprehension etc. All in all PnPRPGs require a lot of different skills, and it is almost impossible to master them all. All it takes is to be majorly deficient in one area and some people will assume you are a problem player
Very much agreed (I've actually been trying to map them out every time I see a new forum discussion ;) ), with the exception that some of them don't necessary have a "good" and "bad" end, just two different extremes (e.g. "adherence to rules as written" and "level of player permissiveness in campaign background design")
Right, but Matt a player used to lots of player permissiveness will be seen as a trouble-maker in a adherence group, and a strict adherent will be seen a problem in a permissive group.
Right, but Matt a player used to lots of player permissiveness will be seen as a trouble-maker in a adherence group, and a strict adherent will be seen a problem in a permissive group.
True. So... hmm... we flip the direction of some axis depending upon the preferences of the audience?
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Right, but Matt a player used to lots of player permissiveness will be seen as a trouble-maker in a adherence group, and a strict adherent will be seen a problem in a permissive group.True. So... hmm... we flip the direction of some axis depending upon the preferences of the audience?
Or maybe, the people who can't fathom the idea of an axis that doesn't have one end pointed at "bad" are the only true "problem players"?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And this is why the GM and the players need to establish some basic ground rules and expectations before they start playing. If you can align everyone's expectations (I will be running this at 3+APL, so be careful; I will be running this as a sand-box, there will be random encounters; this will be a social based campaign all set in one city), you are less likely to run into these issues.
~~~~
For players who have only played super-combat hyperoptimization, they might need it explained to them that since social rolls will be a part of the game, someone who always fails the rolls will lead to the party's downfall just like a fighter who puts all skills into fleshing out their backstory in an APL+3 game. Also, letting people know that it will be at APL, so they have room to invest some points and feats into outside interests is perfectly fine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or maybe, the people who can't fathom the idea of an axis that doesn't have one end pointed at "bad" are the only true "problem players"?Right, but Matt a player used to lots of player permissiveness will be seen as a trouble-maker in a adherence group, and a strict adherent will be seen a problem in a permissive group.True. So... hmm... we flip the direction of some axis depending upon the preferences of the audience?
You could look at it that way too. I tend more towards "some players just weren't meant to mix at the same table." which is kinda disappointing I admit, but I'm yet to find an alternative I prefer.
(and dumb mistake, apparently I forgot axes was the plural form... meh!)
the fighter deals good damage and has decent armor class. if they have a good dexterity and hyper-specialize in one specific weapon. problem is, getting what they need to be effective, either requires heavy DM coddling, handwaving of gold piece limits, fudging of item availability, or casters to provide the exact equipment and buffs you need. a fighter needs help from the casters more than casters need help from the fighter. at least a summoned monster doesn't eat up so many wand charges and most of them deal respectable damage.It’s true our fighter does hyperspecialize. But there is no “DM coddling, handwaving of gold piece limits, fudging of item availability” not even close. Yes, my Sorc does reserve one 3rd level spell for GMW and the cleric casts Vestment. Someone usually casts Haste, but that helps all of us.
But my sorc benefits just as much as I can devote my spells to things other than self-defense spells, as the fighter tanks. No spell can beat a high HP High AC tank in front of you. Summoned Monsters are problematic as they require a Full Round to cast.
We work as a TEAM.
so you drain a 3rd level spell from the cleric and a 4th level spell from the sorcerer ever 8 hours?
you call that teamwork?
maybe if you supplied the appropriate pearls out of your own pocket
but here is a case of the 4th circumstance i mentioned, the casters "providing the exact equipment and buffs you need."
the fact you are leeching off the sorcerer and cleric to do your thing, proves your fighter has difficulty overcoming his own shortcomings
This pretty much sums me up too.The majority of my characters are, however, built to do their job effectively. The thing is, their job tends to be working behind a bar, ploughing fields, or sitting at the town gate guarding against wild kittens ;)
Most of the time they're heroes because of the odds they go up against and beat, not because they've had any experience at fighting anything (okay, with an exception for Fighters as I usually use that class if it's a militia member or something.) I much prefer the story of someone that's risen from nothing than to walk in on day one as an experienced adventurer. That's just me, of course, and I'm not going to start saying that's the One True Way or anything.
Me as well, ill make the best out of the concept im playing sure. But that concept could be a fighter / barbarian who uses a greatclub, a rogue who fights einhander with a short sword, or any other concept you would never find on a "guide".
Cant say Ive ever given a seconds tought to optimization, wasnt even familiar with the term until reading it on a forum. Ive always thought about what my character is like, then picked the closest skills, traits and feats to fit my vision. From what Im hearing they are FAR from optimized but then I dont play to win anyting, I play to experience the world, enjoy the adventure. Optimizers are playinga a very different game obviously.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Cant say Ive ever given a seconds tought to optimization, wasnt even familiar with the term until reading it on a forum. Ive always thought about what my character is like, then picked the closest skills, traits and feats to fit my vision. From what Im hearing they are FAR from optimized but then I dont play to win anyting, I play to experience the world, enjoy the adventure. Optimizers are playinga a very different game obviously.
Unless you are picking your stats/feats/skills/class/magic items/etc. out of a hat, you are probably optimizing. Putting your highest stat in STR when you play a Barbarian - That's optimizing. Using Power Attack with a Two-Handed Weapon - Welcome to the optimatrix.
The problem is everyone is optimizing, (Taking high INT on your fighter so you get knowledge skills to fit your build, thats optimizing to I hate to tell you, just not optimizing for damage) but some people get offended when they realize that their level of optimization isn't up to snuff with someone elses level of optimization and they in a great indignant fury make this thread proclaiming "HOW DARE THEY BE BETTER AT THIS THEN ME!" when the problem is with them the whole time.
TLDR - MTG analogy = "Casual decks are decks that are worse then mine, competitive decks are decks that are better mine."
I think people get far too caught up in what other folks are going. If your character is fun to play and good enough at these things you want him to be good at to contribute, it shouldn't matter if somebody else does better damage. As long as everyone is playing within the rules you should all get your time to shine.
The only caveats to this, is if someone has a super character that can do everything better than everyone, giving nobody a chance to do anything....but again that goes back to playing within the rules....
...but some people get offended when they realize that their level of optimization isn't up to snuff with someone elses level of optimization and they in a great indignant fury make this thread proclaiming "HOW DARE THEY BE BETTER AT THIS THEN ME!" when the problem is with them the whole time.Alternately, some people get offended when they realize that their concern over level of optimization isn't shared by others, and they in a great indignant fury proclaim, "HOW DARE THEY NOT CARE ABOUT PERFECTION AS I DO!" when the problem is with them the whole time.
Like it or not, admit it or not, it works both ways.
Or as they say on Star Trek, "Hoist on your own Picard."
I have never seen a single thread that started with "Man I hate how under-optimized Steve is".
However, I have seen.... a lot of the opposite. Really seems to be just a one way issue I'm afraid.
(Plus if I'm carrying them what do I care as long they don't complain, I mean sure their weight, but it not like I can't let them die and just steamroll the encounter solo; others low-op seems inconsequential for a highly enough optimized character.)
the fighter deals good damage and has decent armor class. if they have a good dexterity and hyper-specialize in one specific weapon. problem is, getting what they need to be effective, either requires heavy DM coddling, handwaving of gold piece limits, fudging of item availability, or casters to provide the exact equipment and buffs you need. a fighter needs help from the casters more than casters need help from the fighter. at least a summoned monster doesn't eat up so many wand charges and most of them deal respectable damage.It’s true our fighter does hyperspecialize. But there is no “DM coddling, handwaving of gold piece limits, fudging of item availability” not even close. Yes, my Sorc does reserve one 3rd level spell for GMW and the cleric casts Vestment. Someone usually casts Haste, but that helps all of us.
But my sorc benefits just as much as I can devote my spells to things other than self-defense spells, as the fighter tanks. No spell can beat a high HP High AC tank in front of you. Summoned Monsters are problematic as they require a Full Round to cast.
We work as a TEAM.
so you drain a 3rd level spell from the cleric and a 4th level spell from the sorcerer ever 8 hours?
you call that teamwork?
maybe if you supplied the appropriate pearls out of your own pocket
but here is a case of the 4th circumstance i mentioned, the casters "providing the exact equipment and buffs you need."
the fact you are leeching off the sorcerer and cleric to do your thing, proves your fighter has difficulty overcoming his own shortcomings
I am the sorcerer. I give one of my six spells willingly and happily, as it benefits the team, and thus myself. In fact I throw a similar spell on another PC, too.
So does that change how I am "leeching"?
Cant say Ive ever given a seconds tought to optimization, wasnt even familiar with the term until reading it on a forum. Ive always thought about what my character is like, then picked the closest skills, traits and feats to fit my vision. From what Im hearing they are FAR from optimized but then I dont play to win anyting, I play to experience the world, enjoy the adventure. Optimizers are playinga a very different game obviously.Unless you are picking your stats/feats/skills/class/magic items/etc. out of a hat, you are probably optimizing. Putting your highest stat in STR when you play a Barbarian - That's optimizing. Using Power Attack with a Two-Handed Weapon - Welcome to the optimatrix.
The problem is everyone is optimizing, (Taking high INT on your fighter so you get knowledge skills to fit your build, thats optimizing to I hate to tell you, just not optimizing for damage) but some people get offended when they realize that their level of optimization isn't up to snuff with someone elses level of optimization and they in a great indignant fury make this thread proclaiming "HOW DARE THEY BE BETTER AT THIS THEN ME!" when the problem is with them the whole time.
TLDR - MTG analogy = "Casual decks are decks that are worse then mine, competitive decks are decks that are better mine."
Well I dont pick them out of a hat, as stated I match them to my vision. My fighters done necessarily have STR as their highest stat, nor my wizards their INT. They are what they are, the way I see them. I find out later how that effects their character rules wise and work around it, the way we do in real life.
TLDR - MTG analogy = "Casual decks are decks that are worse then mine, competitive decks are decks that are better mine."
From a guy who played magic at Nationals in 2006, this isn't really true. You can make a killer casual deck, one that is more tuned than a competitive deck even.
Competitive decks exist in a tournament metagame, and have to make choices that actually harm what the deck is doing to be able to counter the known competition. Often tourney decks have to change so much from week to week that they never really find the optimal list, they just find the right list for that week, or as close to it as they can with time and card resources (scrambling for the right card can nuke your wallet or trade binder, one of the reasons why I cashed out).
Casual decks can be tuned to a greater degree, because you aren't worried about making top 8 or having a hard counter vs your deck like a competitive deck is often worried about. They aren't concerned about wining as much as doing their "thing" whatever that happens to be. Taking a tuned casual deck against a tourney deck can actually be eye opening, often casual decks can crush a good portion of the meta. But the reason why they stay casual is they can't stand the rigors of a tourney season, either through meta swings or having hard counters that are also popular. Sometimes casual decks actually make the transition to competitive, some really crazy ideas have been meta breakers after being tuned by casual players.
Basically what I'm saying is even though the casual deck is doing things that the tourney player thinks is not tourney worthy, it doesn't' mean that the casual player isn't building their decks optimally. Playing casual isn't an excuse to be lazy. I don't want to play against a guy who has a deck that is more like a pile of draft rejects any more than I want to build such a deck myself. Nothing is more frustrating than watching your opponent flounder with his poor deck design/play while you beat him without even trying hard.
Which is really where I stand on optimization. Just because you are playing a low power, RP heavy, or suboptimal character style doesn't mean you shouldn't optimize with what you have. If nothing else if you over build for an adventure, you can always choose to self limit things. When things get dangerous, you can swap your sword to your right hand, and declare "I'm not left handed!"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you have a 7 Int, you are dumber than Forrest Gump. 7 charisma and you are practically autistic, or else horribly obnoxious. 7 wisdom and you may as well be blind and deaf, with the willpower and drive of a concussed slug. To reduce one score that low is bad...two, and you have a seriously mentally defective character.
Dabbler, autism is not a CHA penalty, as I can tell you from on the spectrum. The iconic druid Lini is roleplayed as autistic, but she has at least 15 CHA. If you had to represent autism mechanically, it might be best represented as a drawback giving a penalty to Sense Motive, Bluff, and Diplomacy, or one making you dazzled by some sensory stimulus, paired with a trait boosting senses or a knowledge skill. I am somewhat offended by the idea that autistics are "seriously mentally defective."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The key thing is understand your own paradign that of the people you play with and the core assumptions of the game (particularly premade adventures).
There is nothing wrong with optamizing but if your trying to play like the us olympic basket ball team but your friends and he game is written to play highschool basket ball your either not going to hsve fun or they wont.
the fighter deals good damage and has decent armor class. if they have a good dexterity and hyper-specialize in one specific weapon. problem is, getting what they need to be effective, either requires heavy DM coddling, handwaving of gold piece limits, fudging of item availability, or casters to provide the exact equipment and buffs you need. a fighter needs help from the casters more than casters need help from the fighter. at least a summoned monster doesn't eat up so many wand charges and most of them deal respectable damage.It’s true our fighter does hyperspecialize. But there is no “DM coddling, handwaving of gold piece limits, fudging of item availability” not even close. Yes, my Sorc does reserve one 3rd level spell for GMW and the cleric casts Vestment. Someone usually casts Haste, but that helps all of us.
But my sorc benefits just as much as I can devote my spells to things other than self-defense spells, as the fighter tanks. No spell can beat a high HP High AC tank in front of you. Summoned Monsters are problematic as they require a Full Round to cast.
We work as a TEAM.
so you drain a 3rd level spell from the cleric and a 4th level spell from the sorcerer ever 8 hours?
you call that teamwork?
maybe if you supplied the appropriate pearls out of your own pocket
but here is a case of the 4th circumstance i mentioned, the casters "providing the exact equipment and buffs you need."
the fact you are leeching off the sorcerer and cleric to do your thing, proves your fighter has difficulty overcoming his own shortcomings
I am the sorcerer. I give one of my six spells willingly and happily, as it benefits the team, and thus myself. In fact I throw a similar spell on another PC, too.
So does that change how I am "leeching"?
sorry if i made the mistake of getting confused and thinking of you as the fighter.
so you have 2 martial guys leeching 3rd level spells from you and the cleric left and right.
have they considered eventually purchasing pearls of power for each you and the cleric? one for each buff they use?
sorry if i made the mistake of getting confused and thinking of you as the fighter.
so you have 2 martial guys leeching 3rd level spells from you and the cleric left and right.
have they considered eventually purchasing pearls of power for each you and the cleric? one for each buff they use?
No more than they demand I purchase better armor for them because they stand in front of me and take hits. Or the cleric ask me to pay him for his healing.
I am a 12th level sorc with high CHA. I have lots of spells. I consider those spells a wise investment towards overall team effectiveness. If they kill the foes quicker, that saves me spells too.
We're part of a TEAM. It's called teamwork.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have never seen a single thread that started with "Man I hate how under-optimized Steve is".However, I have seen.... a lot of the opposite. Really seems to be just a one way issue I'm afraid.
(Plus if I'm carrying them what do I care as long they don't complain, I mean sure their weight, but it not like I can't let them die and just steamroll the encounter solo; others low-op seems inconsequential for a highly enough optimized character.)
I have seen one, but after reading the guys completely worthless self-gimped build that didn;t pull any weight at all (let along their own), I had to agree with the OP. Sheesh.
But yeah, generally the issue is with over optimized characters, not just well balanced medium power builds.
For the purposes of this thread, let's keep in on "hyper-optimized", since "optimized" can mean different things to different people. I don't mean the fighter with a 18 str and a greatsword, who maybe dumps a stat. I mean the fighter with a 20 str with 7's in wis, int & cha, and who'd laugh at the idea of taking any feat that doesn't increase DPR. Hyper-optimized.