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.
the armor and healing charge thing is kinda awkward. but it's common courtesy, that if you are going to depend on a particular resource, that you contribute something to stretch that resource.
for example. i wouldn't recommend having the cleric charge for the healing from his slots, but if as a fighter, you need a lot of raisings, restorations, and healing, that you at least divert some of your own funds to a personal stash of diamonds and healing wands the cleric can use to save you. i think Teamwork is a lousy premise to selfishly force the cleric to pay for all the diamonds you require. it's at least courteous to keep a few of those diamonds for emergencies, alongside contributing your own wands, so the cleric can devote some of his freed slots to buffing you, himself, or another party member.
it's also courtesy, that if you depend on a particular spell with an hours per level duration, it is courtesy to pay for a means to supply that buff, whether a pearl of power or a wand for the caster to use on you.
just as it's part of a team effort to provide the ability to use spells on the fighter, it's part of a team effort for a fighter to supply a means to recover or replace the spells the sorcerer cast on him.
buying the fighter better armor to protect you is a completely different story. now, enchanting the fighter's armor with a higher enhancement bonus to better protect you, might make more sense if the fighter pays half the price of the enchantment process and you have the feats.
the fighter benefits from wearing his armor more than you do from him from his armor. you call it protecting? the reason the player rolled up a fighter, is because he wanted to be a damage dealer anyway.
yes, a fighter's job is to inflict damage, but a caster with crafting feats can offer half-price enhancements to the fighter's gear, but in exchange, he can look for ways to stretch the slots of the classes whom he benefits from most. buy supplying your own wand for the cleric to tap you with, you are freeing up the cleric's slots to perform tasks that contribute elsewhere.
there is more to teamwork than enhancing one or two people and letting them do the majority of the damage, rarely acknowledge they depend on your help, and soak up the resources of others willy nilly. as a team, you help each other.
i don't mean paying the cleric for his cures or buying the fighter better armor, i mean, using your crafting feats to provide the fighter a 50% discount on his gear, buying your own healing wands for the cleric to tap you with to free up their slot options for stuff that helps elsewhere, paying for the diamonds used to raise you or the diamond dust for your own restorations as needed, so that healing and buffing, aren't solely the caster's burden.
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.
the armor and healing charge thing is kinda awkward. but it's common courtesy, that if you are going to depend on a particular resource, that you contribute something to stretch that resource.
for example. i wouldn't recommend having the cleric charge for the healing from his slots, but if as a fighter, you need a lot of raisings, restorations, and healing, that you at least divert some of your own funds to a personal stash of diamonds and healing wands the cleric can use to save you. i think Teamwork is a lousy premise to selfishly force the cleric to pay for all the diamonds you require. it's at least courteous to keep a few of those diamonds for emergencies, alongside contributing your own wands, so the cleric can devote some of his freed slots to buffing you, himself, or another party member.
it's also courtesy, that if you depend on a particular spell with an hours per level duration, it is courtesy to pay for a means to supply that buff, whether a pearl of power or a wand for the caster to use on you.
just as it's part of a team effort to provide the ability to use spells on the fighter, it's part of a team effort for a fighter to supply a means to recover or replace the spells the sorcerer cast on him.
buying the fighter...
I just don't even see why there's an argument here. It's a strategy that's worked for him and apparently the group is happy with the arrangement without bringing in a master/slave paradigm to it.
i guess we have a difference in group dynamic, but in play in a group of 15 players, which tend to be very resource starved.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see no problems with buffs, and I dont see a need to ask someone to pay me, if I am a caster. If casting haste makes the fighter do better then I am dropping a haste.
If I were in a resource starved game then I would suggest what I have done in other games for years now. We have a party fund. How this is handled varies by group, but basically anything the group deems is for the group is paid for out of that fund.
somewhat off topic->Umbriere what level are you playing at, and what gear do you have. You can PM me if you want. I am just curious.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see no problems with buffs, and I dont see a need to ask someone to pay me, if I am a caster. If casting haste makes the fighter do better then I am dropping a haste.
If I were in a resource starved game then I would suggest what I have done in other games for years now. We have a party fund. How this is handled varies by group, but basically anything the group deems is for the group is paid for out of that fund.
Seconding party funds for stuff like healing wands. Usually, the only time I'd charge a party member for a spell is if it has a component cost.
However, I think the specific case Umbriere has in mind is for when a character wants several long-term buffs at the start of every day. That is a bit of a different case from casting haste at the start of a tough battle. Personally, a lot would depend on the context, but I could understand a cleric wanting something back if they're devoting a significant amount of their daily spells to helping a single character.
I would also say that, when it comes to character contribution, buffs can distort things by making just about any build look decent. A bard throwing out the one-two-three combo of haste, good hope, and inspire courage is going to pump up melee damage enough to give just about any weapon-user good DPR.
|
However, I think the specific case Umbriere has in mind is for when a character wants several long-term buffs at the start of every day. That is a bit of a different case from casting haste at the start of a tough battle. Personally, a lot would depend on the context, but I could understand a cleric wanting something back if they're devoting a significant amount of their daily spells to helping a single character.
Yeah, if I'm playing a mid-level sorcerer I cast mage armour on myself at the start of every day.
I might not be very happy if I'm expected to cast it on the cleric, fighter and rogue as well "just in case we meet some incorporeal undead".
I'm certainly not going to cast it on the wizard! (Unless the wizard had conjuration as a barred school, but I'm not sure such a wizard even exists ...)
No more than they demand I purchase better armor for them because they stand in front of me and take hits.
Just for my own education, because I haven't gone through all the feats in Ultimate Combat and so on, how does this work in PF? In 1e, we just said, "I stand in front of Bob," and that's all you needed to do. But with 3.X having an emphasis on grids and granular movement, by the rules a monster can just take a 5-ft. step and attack the wizard past the fighter (assuming you're not always in a 5-ft. corridor) -- ignoring the armored target in favor of the obviously squishy one. Is there a feat or something that enables me to be a blocker, and do in PF what I used to take for granted?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why, PRECISELY are people bothered by optimization? That's like saying you're bothered by another person's loud fashion at work, or the bragging guy at the dinner party. What would you do, in real life, if someone did something that you felt detracted from your experience?
Honestly, we can debate the application of optimization and it's definitions; we can go back and forth on our own personal experiences. But at the end of the day, who's really bothered? Who has the problem here? And once that's defined, what, if ANYTHING, is that person prepared to do about it?
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 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.
As far as how threads start, this has been my experience as well. Seems like every week there's a new anti-optimizing/powergaming/munchkinism thread, but I can't remember ever seeing a thread started in the opposite direction.
Now, once a thread gets started, I sometimes see people pop up (there's a couple in this thread as well) who start criticizing what they perceive as unacceptably low levels of optimization, and that's really not okay either. But I still think it's worth noting that they're typically not the ones starting the threads, which means they're almost always reacting to being attacked rather than being the one who starts it.
This tells me that "the optimizers" are willing to live and let live until they're provoked, while the opposite crowd is threatened by the very existence of "the optimizers" to the point that they feel the need to preemptively establish their superiority over said optimizers.
Obviously none of this will be true of everyone, it's just what my experience on the boards and at (some) tables indicates.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Loves me some Stormwind fallacy.
@ Jiggy
+1
Since there's no aggro mechanics in PFRPG, the idea of tanking is kind of...out of place. A fighter can't make a mob attack them, and an enemy trying to reduce combatants won't keep beating on the well armored guy once it realizes it's futile.
So, play your high CHA fighter, and tell them to go pound sand.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The optimizers at the table tell me "You're doing it wrong(TM). Fighters are supposed to DUMP Charisma. By not playing to your full potential (i.e., boosting your AC, damage, and HP to their theoretical maximums), you're robbing us of a good tank and forcing us to carry you. You're Not Doing Your Job and that means we can't have fun because your chaacter is useless--not just non-optimized, but USELESS. Go fix it."
Pshaw. If they don't tell you to Play a Caster Instead, their hard-mode gaming creds are revoked.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Look, I said it before, everyone needs to be on board about what kind of game you're playing.
Is it a softball Three Stooges game where you can create a monk/sorcerer/druid basket weaver with a squirrel companion and still be OK?
Or is it an Age of Worms-style hard-mode game where anyone but a full caster maxed to the eyeballs is nothing but worm food?
If the former, then everyone needs to make that kind of character, as optimized PCs are totally out of place. If the latter, there's no place for your basket-weaver, because you ARE dragging down your teammates.
The game can be played at either endpoint, or anywhere in the middle. EVERYONE NEEDS TO AGREE WHERE, and then meet there.
No more than they demand I purchase better armor for them because they stand in front of me and take hits.Just for my own education, because I haven't gone through all the feats in Ultimate Combat and so on, how does this work in PF? In 1e, we just said, "I stand in front of Bob," and that's all you needed to do. But with 3.X having an emphasis on grids and granular movement, by the rules a monster can just take a 5-ft. step and attack the wizard past the fighter (assuming you're not always in a 5-ft. corridor) -- ignoring the armored target in favor of the obviously squishy one. Is there a feat or something that enables me to be a blocker, and do in PF what I used to take for granted?
You're still going to be providing the wizard cover, at the very least.
==Aelryinth
The optimizers at the table tell me "You're doing it wrong(TM). Fighters are supposed to DUMP Charisma. By not playing to your full potential (i.e., boosting your AC, damage, and HP to their theoretical maximums), you're robbing us of a good tank and forcing us to carry you. You're Not Doing Your Job and that means we can't have fun because your character is useless--not just non-optimized, but USELESS. Go fix it."
Now here's the thing. I'm lucky in that I've never run into a player like that in a game, the only place I get to see people talking about having to "carry" unoptimized characters is on the forums - but I do see it often enough to realize some people do play like that. That's the thing that tells me they're just playing a different game to the one I am (although they're both Pathfinder.) As long as nobody ever forces me to play at a table like that, I'm happy (and I dare say those players will be equally happy that I'm not playing with them.) That doesn't mean I haven't met optimizers, just not ones that act like that.
I'm not bothered by the fact people want to play like that - as I said earlier, if it sells more Pathfinder books then it means my hobby gets to stay alive that much longer. I'll welcome an optimizer at my table as long as they're also happy to RP - they'll probably not want to play a "dead weight" RP character, but that's fine, they can play the ranger or the fighter and I can always find four horribly-built halflings elsewhere* ;) All I ask of course is that they don't give players of the "non-combat" characters in my game flak for playing those roles, as story-wise I see those characters as being just as valid.
Final point - I don't automatically assume every optimizer is automatically going to have a fit if a non-optimized character (or one built with an NPC class) turns up at the table. I'd also have warned them that's the kind of game it is when they asked to join, so they know exactly what they're getting into.
*Okay, apologies for the Tolkien-ism, but it's probably one of the best story-orientated party illustrations I can make that everyone will understand. Not every PC has to be there to fight, if someone wants to play the merchant being escorted (rather than it being an NPC), I have no problems with that (and yes, I take that into account when figuring the APL.)
You're still going to be providing the wizard cover, at the very least.
Only if I'm in his square, or if we're in a 5-ft.-wide corridor. Otherwise the monster's turn comes, it takes a 5-ft. step to the side, and attacks the wizard diagonally.
|
In regards to optimization: It has always annoyed me. I must admit that I do it to a degree but I like to think that I am creative. I hardly ever as in almost never dump stats to 7 and if I dump a stat to 8 it is usually for a thematic reason. Although I am currently guilty of a non thematic reason for a spellcaster and... I have to make sure I role play it.
And that's just it. I make people live with their class dumps. If someone dumps a stat to 7 or god forbid 5, I make them role play it. For instance one of my players has a 7 int and a 7 wisdom. I informed the player that I consider the character to have a 70 IQ which is on the verge of legally incompetent but with the 7 wisdom the edge was past and the character is essentially mentally disabled and I will enforce such with roll playing.
It is harsh but if one is going to reap the benefits of min/maxing for half the game (the board game like combat) then I think as a GM and for the sake of my table both presently and in the future I have to make sure the other half of the game (the roll playing) is challenging.
I discourage optimization or min/maxing to the extreme because it creates a race to the bottom and sets a difficulty bar that discourages roll playing. In order to keep things interesting challenges must be heroic but if one PC can take on the entire encounter the heroism melts away until other players catch up. In order to catch up, they min/max. And all this destroys the roll playing part of the game. If people are going to min/max at my tables I make them play it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd then think, What a collection of @$$h0|e$, but I wouldn't say it. And in a way, I'd be wrong, too, because it's a valid play-style.
Heh, yep. Just as valid as RP-heavy, or combat-heavy, or a game that's 90% centered around running kingdoms, a game based around trading vessels and import/export economy, an ultra-hardcore game with no resurrection magic, a game about leading mighty armies in mass combat, or a game where the GM throws away the rulebook during social encounters and RPs it all out. Different people, different preferences, different styles, and all just as valid as each other. (Oh, and I daresay a game where adventurers go into dungeons and kill things for treasure is probably valid too! ;) )
As Kirth said a few posts ago, as long as it's clear what game everyone's getting into, you can avoid people getting pissy about it after it's started.
As long as people remember that, and don't try to force the world to the One True Way, I really don't have any problems with how anyone else wants to play.
(EDIT: I just realized I've actually run all of the above other than the import/export trading one... damn I actually want to do that now!)
(EDITEDIT: How the heck did I manage to forget the game where the monsters are unbeatable and the GM has added a SAN ability to the d20 core?)
Since there's no aggro mechanics in PFRPG, the idea of tanking is kind of...out of place. A fighter can't make a mob attack them, and an enemy trying to reduce combatants won't keep beating on the well armored guy once it realizes it's futile.
So, play your high CHA fighter, and tell them to go pound sand.
It can be done, it just takes a little more thought than "stand in the way"
Trip fighters are great for keeping people away from the squishies.
Reach weapons make moving past you a dangerous proposition.
Enlarge person turns you into a 10 foot wall of meat
Currently trying out a tanky druid with ankylosaurus. TWO walls of meat! The ankylosaurus did fairly well against whats often considered a killer encounter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to make the best possible character that I can, it's part of the enjoyment I draw from the Pathfinder system. I honestly feel like I've failed the party before we even start if I haven't been able to get a given character settings cranked to 11 for that given character. This does mean that my Heavens Oracle is running about with a silly number of color sprays, yes. This also means my non-lethaling Paladin is cranking out massive amounts of non-lethal damage. When I was drug into PFS by a close friend, I told him "I'm going big or going home." and that still holds true. My point is however, this is all on my side of the fence. I like building silly, over the top characters but I expect the other party members to bring whatever they care to enjoy to play. That same Heavens Oracle can act as the party face, emergency healer or buff bot if the party needs me too. That same Oracle also has a wonderful story and in-game quirk that requires a wand of Ant Haul and Muleback Cords as he packs his enemies into boxes that he carries around with him (insofar he's gotten 12 fighter mooks, 1 summoner (minus Eidolon), 1 caster of one variety or another, a wolf and a large collection of badges he thrusts at extra-planar creatures asking if "this is enough badges to train them?"
He's also an attorney to boot. Just in case.
Is this character optimized?
You better believe it! To get my characters to work I have to spend a large amount of time optimizing to get them to work effectively and my reward is having a character that performs beautifully well.
What this boils down to is this:
I build effective characters that satisfy all three of the player psyche's within, Johnny, Timmy and Spike. Yup, they're optimized. Nope, I don't mind what you bring to the table. Your characters are called YOURs for a reason. ;)
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting and cogent ... as far as it goes. But that may not be far enough.
A more important question may be this: Why are the threads started?
A very valid question! Let's explore:
Do non-optimizers tend to be intolerant jerks, as is strongly implied above? Could it be instead that non-optimizers are harassed at table by optimizers then come to the fora to vent their frustrations, thus seeming to be the aggressors, when in actuality they're the ones first assailed? There's no need to complain here when you're the ones committing the 'offenses' (and that term's used in its broadest sense) after all.
I honestly don't know.
That's entirely possible, and like you I don't know what happens to lead up to these threads either.
But I will say this:
I've seen lots of threads (especially in the PFS forums, since organized play means sitting with lots of different people instead of a hand-picked set of "pre-approved" comrades) where someone said "I had experience X with this one person, and now I'm venting and/or asking what to do about it". Topics ranged from "My GM did X, was that right?" to "This player kept trying to pickpocket/kill every NPC we met, including our superiors" to "This guy made a druid so he could wildshape and roleplay his bestiality fantasies with his animal companion even when it made everyone else uncomfortable" to "My table had both a paladin and a necromancer then crap happened", and so on.
Now in the vast majority of these threads (in my experience), the OP takes the form of telling a specific story of a specific experience with a specific person. They had a bad experience, they talk about it. Sometimes the conversation expands as people collect their similar experiences and start to point out common themes and what to do about it, but it all starts on a personal, "I had this experience" level. And even then (at least in the case of PFS), folks are told "If there's an issue, contact your GM/organizer/VC/Mike Brock so they can fix it; you really shouldn't be publicly airing your grievances in front of everyone here on the boards".
But then there's the optimizer threads. People don't start threads to vent about a particular experience they had, they make sweeping condemnations of entire categories of people of whom they've probably only met one or two (or in some cases, they've only even heard of them). They don't say "I had this experience with this person, and it bothered me", they say "I can't stand anyone who does X". And it's important to note that "X" never seems to be "tells me my character is worthless", at least not in the first page or two. "X" will be "optimizes their own PC". Now, if enough reasonable people pile into the thread to point out that there's nothing wrong with optimizing, then you'll see the complaint change from "optimizing" to "telling other people how to play", but even then they're still talking about entire categories of people instead of an experience they had.
In short, when something bad happens at the table and someone comes to vent on the boards, they talk about that event and how it bothered them. But these frequent anti-optimizer threads take an entirely different form, which to me suggests that they don't come from that same source/experience. Nobody starts a thread titled "Is roleplaying just another term for trying to make other people join your sick fantasies?" and then offers their druid bestiality experience as supporting evidence for their claim of how big of a problem roleplaying in general is.
I think if the source of the issue was optimizers actually being disruptive at the table (like telling other people their characters are worthless), the associated threads would take the standard "I had X bad experience" form like all the other venting threads do. Since they don't, I don't think that's what's going on.
Note: I'm not saying those disruptive moments don't happen (I've been told that my character choices weren't worthwhile sometimes), I'm just saying that they don't account for the bi-weekly anti-optimization threads. Those have some other source, which I'd be happy to explore.
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.
As far as how threads start, this has been my experience as well. Seems like every week there's a new anti-optimizing/powergaming/munchkinism thread, but I can't remember ever seeing a thread started in the opposite direction.
Now, once a thread gets started, I sometimes see people pop up (there's a couple in this thread as well) who start criticizing what they perceive as unacceptably low levels of optimization, and that's really not okay either. But I still think it's worth noting that they're typically not the ones starting the threads, which means they're almost always reacting to being attacked rather than being the one who starts it.
This tells me that "the optimizers" are willing to live and let live until they're provoked, while the opposite crowd is threatened by the very existence of "the optimizers" to the point that they feel the need to preemptively establish their superiority over said optimizers.
Obviously none of this will be true of everyone, it's just what my experience on the boards and at (some) tables indicates.
I personally only respond to anti optimizing threads for one reason and one reason only. People often spread bad advice in this hobby to new players, and this forum is often where new players go to learn the hobby. Nothing is more discouraging for a new player than to spend hours making and playing a character using the advice presented and having it just not perform as well as some people on these boards say it will. People agreeing a bad build is good is going to make a new player put the lack of performance on themselves, which may lead to early exit from the hobby. Its important to have somebody there to call crap, crap, instead of the entire board spending time polishing it and placing it in the best light.
In other games I've seen quality content and good advice drowned out by the fluff bunnys and anti optimizers/no net builds ect saying "Play how you want!" While that is true the hobby is still a cooperative game, and if you play how you want to the point of making really bad choices that harm your groups enjoyment and/or chances of success, then that is not good for anybody. In MMOs you kick the person who can't play their class in an appropriate way or who are undergeared, misbuilt, or underpowered. In P&P people get hurt feelings and leave the group/hobby.
That being said you should always dial down your power level to the expectations of the group you are playing with, but that doesn't require a complete aversion to optimizing your character.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Society games are the worst. I witnessed one guy a few months ago convince someone not to use archetypes of the bard class until the person played a bunch of games with a base bard and learned how the class worked. Getting to level 5 in PFS is a 60 hour investment. The guy knew what he wanted his character to do and an archetype would have served that better and he didn't want to play every week. This awful advice came from a 5-star GM.This is excellent advice. Archetyped bards are extremely easy to mess up.
Your problem is that you are only looking at your character. Your right to bring a wimp to a fight stops where it puts your supposed allies in more danger.
I disagree, because its a GAME. It's not real combat or a life threatening endeavor. Regardless of how many "man hours" you've put into leveling your imaginary persona the goal is for everyone to sit at the table and have fun playing the GAME. If one of my guys deploys and has no clue what he's doing or which end the bullets come out of, THATS putting your allies in danger. If a player at my table is rocking a fighter in padded armor and wielding a cudgel then the rest of us have to be that much smarter and luckier to survive. All part of being a "hero" playing a GAME for FUN.
Why, PRECISELY are people bothered by optimization? That's like saying you're bothered by another person's loud fashion at work, or the bragging guy at the dinner party. What would you do, in real life, if someone did something that you felt detracted from your experience?
Honestly, we can debate the application of optimization and it's definitions; we can go back and forth on our own personal experiences. But at the end of the day, who's really bothered? Who has the problem here? And once that's defined, what, if ANYTHING, is that person prepared to do about it?
OK, let's get a basic example going: I show up at a table with my high-Charisma fighter. He does decent damage, he's got double-weapon feats and a decent AC... but he also has some social skills, like Bluff and Diplomacy.
The optimizers at the table tell me "You're doing it wrong(TM). Fighters are supposed to DUMP Charisma. By not playing to your full potential (i.e., boosting your AC, damage, and HP to their theoretical maximums), you're robbing us of a good tank and forcing us to carry you. You're Not Doing Your Job and that means we can't have fun because your chaacter is useless--not just non-optimized, but USELESS. Go fix it."
That, I think, would be clearly objectionable, correct? And it's that "you're doing it wrong" that's the core of the problem, yes?
In that example, the next few moments of your life are crucial. If you politely turn, smile and say "Ok" and then continue playing your character anyway, then said optimizer is really the one w/the problem and you win: you get your character, your way, and your zen is intact. If however you glare back and say "Chuck you Farlie!" or something then you've taken their objection into your life and thus their issue is now yours.
Again, I ask; how is THEIR optimization YOUR problem?
Now, in the above, if you shrug and accept, and they continue badgering, then you ask them to stop. If they still won't, you chat w/the GM. If this STILL doesn't do it, then you can either 1. ignore, 2. conflict (and you're right back to making their issue yours) or you can leave the game.
In any case, the mere act of their optimization hasn't ruined your fun. Now if they're RUDE, that has nothing to do with optimization...
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
All part of being a "hero" playing a GAME for FUN.
For some people, the tactical part of the game IS fun. They actually want to tweak out optimized characters so they can face hard-mode challenges and have some chance of success. If you deep-six what the other three people are trying to do, you actually ruin their FUN. Which is why you ALL have to AGREE on what style of game you all want to be playing.
No more than they demand I purchase better armor for them because they stand in front of me and take hits.Just for my own education, because I haven't gone through all the feats in Ultimate Combat and so on, how does this work in PF? In 1e, we just said, "I stand in front of Bob," and that's all you needed to do. But with 3.X having an emphasis on grids and granular movement, by the rules a monster can just take a 5-ft. step and attack the wizard past the fighter (assuming you're not always in a 5-ft. corridor) -- ignoring the armored target in favor of the obviously squishy one. Is there a feat or something that enables me to be a blocker, and do in PF what I used to take for granted?You're still going to be providing the wizard cover, at the very least.
==Aelryinth
That and it depends on the foe. Sure, some foes will try to get past the fighter to the Spellcaster. But let us say we’re in a 10’ corridor. In order to do that they have to move up to a square diagonal from the tank. Next round, 5’ step to beside the tank. Meanwhile I have 5’ stepped back. Next round they again have to 5’ step or withdraw to get at me, and of course I can move and so can the tank. The tank has thus delayed them for three rounds. And yes, there are a number of feats that will allow a tank to react to a 5’ step.
OTOH, many unintelligent foes will attack who is closest.
That and it depends on the foe. Sure, some foes will try to get past the fighter to the Spellcaster. But let us say we’re in a 10’ corridor. In order to do that they have to move up to a square diagonal from the tank. Next round, 5’ step to beside the tank. Meanwhile I have 5’ stepped back. Next round they again have to 5’ step or withdraw to get at me, and of course I can move and so can the tank. The tank has thus delayed them for three rounds. And yes, there are a number of feats that will allow a tank to react to a 5’ step. OTOH, many unintelligent foes will attack who is closest.
Granted, all this gets a lot harder to pull off when everything is flying and teleporting around, starting at 9th level or so -- and throwing spell-like abilities that only need a line of effect. I totally agree that the DM should always add some unintelligent land-bound melee monsters to give the fighter something to do, but it always seems less like an essential job to me and more like charity at that point. As DM, I usually just houserule that "anyone with movement left can interpose themselves in front of their friends at any time," making blocking what it was in 1e when we just said what we were doing!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've actually had this problem quite a bit within the past few months.
I'm gonna be honest - I am in no way experienced when it comes to Pathfinder, or RPGs in general. I recently picked them up (been playing for a little over a year now), and do not have the time to look into it all that much.
I GM using the PF Adventure Paths, which clearly do not make for much of a challenge when we have a party of 4-5, unfortunately. The issue is that one of the members of my party, who is actually a good friend of mine, has been playing for most of his life. He is no stranger to the feat list, and has been capable of over-optimizing just about any character that he's created relative to the rest of the party. He's helped another member do the same. At the moment, we have a gunslinger and druid that are effectively broken because they are solely there for damage output. They have essentially no other skills, but are able to maul anything in their path, even if I scale up the CR a bit. This has left the other 2 or 3 party members incredibly disappointed, just because they barely manage to see combat.
I have a few strategies for making things more challenging for my two OP members, but I don't know that they will work. I'd like to avoid pulling them aside and telling them to make their character worse solely for the benefit of the others, if at all possible.
It's not that the other members of the party are not well-optimized, either, it's just that their abilities seem to come up much less frequently. The issue with this is that we're all just college students looking to have fun after a long week of school, but it seems that the some have a different idea of fun.
Why, PRECISELY are people bothered by optimization? That's like saying you're bothered by another person's loud fashion at work, or the bragging guy at the dinner party. What would you do, in real life, if someone did something that you felt detracted from your experience?
Honestly, we can debate the application of optimization and it's definitions; we can go back and forth on our own personal experiences. But at the end of the day, who's really bothered? Who has the problem here? And once that's defined, what, if ANYTHING, is that person prepared to do about it?
OK, let's get a basic example going: I show up at a table with my high-Charisma fighter. He does decent damage, he's got double-weapon feats and a decent AC... but he also has some social skills, like Bluff and Diplomacy.
The optimizers at the table tell me "You're doing it wrong(TM). Fighters are supposed to DUMP Charisma. By not playing to your full potential (i.e., boosting your AC, damage, and HP to their theoretical maximums), you're robbing us of a good tank and forcing us to carry you. You're Not Doing Your Job and that means we can't have fun because your chaacter is useless--not just non-optimized, but USELESS. Go fix it."
That, I think, would be clearly objectionable, correct? And it's that "you're doing it wrong" that's the core of the problem, yes?
In that example, the next few moments of your life are crucial. If you politely turn, smile and say "Ok" and then continue playing your character anyway, then said optimizer is really the one w/the problem and you win: you get your character, your way, and your zen is intact. If however you glare back and say "Chuck you Farlie!" or something then you've taken their objection into your life and thus their issue is now yours.
Again, I ask; how is THEIR optimization YOUR problem?
Now, in the above, if you shrug and accept, and they continue badgering, then you ask them to stop. If they still won't, you chat w/the GM....
Ya this is usually my experience. If I recommend someone take Natural Spell on their Druid because I see their missing it, its like giving someone tips to improve their writing/golf swing/etc. If they prefer not to change their writing/golf swing its not like I'm going to hound them about it. But if instead of saying "OK" or "I don't want to take Natural Spell on my Druid for Reasons", the people get upset at my suggestions and then accuse my Aasimar Nature Oracle with Celestial Servant on a 9 HD Horse of being "optimized munchkinery" that really does seem to be on the anti-optimization crowd. (I can't help it my horse is amazing.)
[disclaimer]I didn't read all pages of this thread, repeats are highly likely.[/disclaimer]
- the MMO/computer game mentality of tank/healer/dps has a wide fan-base because it's a easy and obvious way to cover combat roles needed in a party. However there are other ways of spreading roles (even in MMOs: Guild Wars 2). Also in D&D/Pathfinder it's not necessarily obvious which classes would fill what roles, as many can be build to perform very differently based on feats/archetypes/... choices.
- bringing me to my next point: combat is not the only thing you should be doing in a pen&paper game. It almost sounds like these tank/healer/dps groups have next to no "social challenges"? Why is that? (group's choice, DM not willing, only 1 skill-monkey player, ...?)
I disagree with social stuff being the monopoly of rogues (this should not be their reason to exist in a group!), and I think all characters, no matter what class, should have their area of expertise for some non-combat situations, whether investigating (gathering intel), sneaky reconnaissance (scouting), preparation (knowledge/crafting), engineering (traps?), ...
(I did make a document about pathfinder and roles a while ago, maybe people might be willing to have a look? 4 roles?, I'm still looking to improve it, any/all advice is very welcome.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I personally only respond to anti optimizing threads for one reason and one reason only. People often spread bad advice in this hobby to new players, and this forum is often where new players go to learn the hobby. Nothing is more discouraging for a new player than to spend hours making and playing a character using the advice presented and having it just not perform as well as some people on these boards say it will. People agreeing a bad build is good is going to make a new player put the lack of performance on themselves, which may lead to early exit from the hobby. Its important to have somebody there to call crap, crap, instead of the entire board spending time polishing it and placing it in the best...
Yeah. And we had that happen just a bit ago. Newb wanted a Pally. Optimizers suggested dumping wis & int. Got an extra +2 to Str that way, eh? Newbs first game- fails a will save, spent all of one combat sitting out. His DM asks for a lot of perc checks (this is pretty common) and if you fail you’re surprised. Never made a one. Con man offered him a cursed magic item, with a low sense Motive check to spot something wrong. Failed it, spent all his new loot and has a curse to boot. Of course he had no Ks skills either. He had very little fun. But darn, that one combat where he could get in there, he did have that extra 1 or 2 DPR. Whoopie. Hyper-optimized AND bad build.
You know, what I find funny is that it’s the Hyper-optimized PC who thinks he’s ‘all that and a side of fries’ who more often has to be “carried”. Dump Wis to 7 , and all offense feats? You’re gonna fail all those will saves, then we have to dispel magic. Glass cannon? Who has to heal them up afterwards? 7 CHA and no social skills? Then someone has to be the face. No int or wis? Someone else has to pick up the slack for those needed Perc checks.
Look, choosing a two handed weapon, power attack and a high STR doesn’t make you hyper-optimized, it just makes sense. But if you really want to play a Sword and board tank- then do it. My Sorc is mostly a blaster, instead of battlefield control. Maybe not the very best choice, but it works (and of course he does have several battlefield control spells, and even a summons or two. ) And, not a single dumped stat.
Now sure, the one guy I saw who played a blind warrior who refused to do lethal damage- err, that’s only for a few special games. Pretty self-nerfed.
|
|
As far as how threads start, this has been my experience as well.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.
Functionally this thread which is currently going has that as the primary complaint. and I'm sure I could dig out quite a few more.
It is also generally a self-regulating punishment if your character isn't effective.
And can we not pretend people don't constantly complain on here about "x" being "useless" etc, etc, etc...
That is complaining that "steve" is underoptimized, with Steve being monk/fighter/rogue/etc...of the day.
There are absolutely no shortage of those threads...
I'd argue that anyone who fails all their Will saves isn't optimized for adventuring. If you have a weak Will save, and trade +2 to that save for +2 damage (without having a permenent 3.5e protection from evil going), then you fail at Optimizing 101!
|
|
I'd argue that anyone who fails all their Will saves isn't optimized for adventuring. If you have a weak Will save, and trade +2 to that save for +2 damage (without having a permenent 3.5e protection from evil going), then you fail at optimizing.
And a similar if not stronger argument could be made for Fort saves.
The question in my mind is what do you bring to the party, and how much more effective is the party as a result.
Quite often the "optimizing" I see looks like a lone wolf with a high fatality count if not well supported.
YMMV.
As far as how threads start, this has been my experience as well.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.
Functionally this thread which is currently going has that as the primary complaint. and I'm sure I could dig out quite a few more.
It is also generally a self-regulating punishment if your character isn't effective.
And can we not pretend people don't constantly complain on here about "x" being "useless" etc, etc, etc...
That is complaining that "steve" is underoptimized, with Steve being monk/fighter/rogue/etc...of the day.
There are absolutely no shortage of those threads...
If you think discussions about why Fighters/Monks/Rogues are weak is calling out people who play them... you have missed the point a scale that requires the use of light years. I'll be the first to point these classes are weak and in need of help, not because I don't like people playing these classes, but because these classes need serious help so that I don't have to look at Rogue and go "Well... there really isn't much a reason to play this over X, Y or Z, so I'll just play those instead and call myself a rogue."
Granted, all this gets a lot harder to pull off when everything is flying and teleporting around, starting at 9th level or so -- and throwing spell-like abilities that only need a line of effect. I totally agree that the DM should always add some unintelligent land-bound melee monsters to give the fighter something to do, but it always seems less like an essential job to me and more like charity at that point.
Well, when the foes can fly, so can we, same with T-port. In any case, even with flying, if the tank is directly in front of me, you do have to stop or take an AoO, and also charging is right out. Even a single round of blocking is enough when you’re that level. If I see the foe is lusting after squishie chitlins instead of attacking who is closest, then I can go invis, blink, t-port away, or all sorts of things. That one round of breathing room is priceless. Not to mention the tank then gets to unload a FAO on the foe, which is a LOT of hurt.
I admit, we do a lot of underground adventures. This does restrict movement. Not to mention, not that many foes can Tport or Fly. In fact, checking the encounter tables for Underground, darn few monsters can.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And can we not pretend people don't constantly complain on here about "x" being "useless" etc, etc, etc...
Yeah. Anything but two handed weapon is ‘useless”. Anything but a full Spellcaster is “useless” (which I guess means your wizard has to carry a two handed sword). Anything but a Composite Longbow is “useless”. Anything but a tiger is “useless”. Rogues/monks/fighters- all “useless”. In combat healing= “useless” . Basically it’s a way of complaining about Paizo’s choices or about your fellow players. It's annoying and childish.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
And can we not pretend people don't constantly complain on here about "x" being "useless" etc, etc, etc...
Criticizing the power level of a game option is not the same as attacking the moral fiber of those who use it.
"X is a useless option" is the former. "People who do X are obnoxious/need to grow up/don't know what the game is all about" is the latter.
It's been my experience that typically, optimizers start threads criticizing things while anti-optimizers start threads criticizing people.
Yeah. Anything but two handed weapon is ‘useless”. Anything but a full Spellcaster is “useless” (which I guess means your wizard has to carry a two handed sword). Anything but a Composite Longbow is “useless”. Anything but a tiger is “useless”. Rogues/monks/fighters- all “useless”. In combat healing= “useless” . Basically it’s a way of complaining about Paizo’s choices or about your fellow players. It's annoying and childish.And can we not pretend people don't constantly complain on here about "x" being "useless" etc, etc, etc...
If you think that raising these issues in the hopes that the overall weakness of these classes/tactics will be addressed is annoying and childish, I'd say your worldview is extremely narrow (to the point of PF is perfect and saying otherwise is whining).
Most people with high levels of system mastery are raising these points because we would like them fixed and thus help to improve the game. Criticism is a tool for improvement and there are few things that cannot use it.
Edit @ Jiggy - You explained power level critique much better then I just did +1.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I'd argue that anyone who fails all their Will saves isn't optimized for adventuring. If you have a weak Will save, and trade +2 to that save for +2 damage (without having a permenent 3.5e protection from evil going), then you fail at optimizing.And a similar if not stronger argument could be made for Fort saves.
The question in my mind is what do you bring to the party, and how much more effective is the party as a result.
Quite often the "optimizing" I see looks like a lone wolf with a high fatality count if not well supported.
YMMV.
Indeed, when people talk about "optimizing", I'm never sure whether they mean "actually making an optimally effective character" (i.e., what the word actually means) or just "maximizing damage/DCs no matter how terrible of a PC it creates and whenever I fail it's because it's a stupid mod that threw unreasonable challenges at us and not because I fail at big-picture thinking".
Yeah. And we had that happen just a bit ago. Newb wanted a Pally. Optimizers suggested dumping wis & int. Got an extra +2 to Str that way, eh? Newbs first game- fails a will save, spent all of one combat sitting out. His DM asks for a lot of perc checks (this is pretty common) and if you fail you’re surprised. Never made a one. Con man offered him a cursed magic item, with a low sense Motive check to spot something wrong. Failed it, spent all his new loot and has a curse to boot. Of course he had no Ks skills either. He had very little fun. But darn, that one combat where he could get in there, he did have that extra 1 or 2 DPR. Whoopie. Hyper-optimized AND bad build.
You know, what I find funny is that it’s the Hyper-optimized PC who thinks he’s ‘all that and a side of fries’ who more often has to be “carried”. Dump Wis to 7 , and all offense feats? You’re gonna fail all those will saves, then we have to dispel magic. Glass cannon? Who has to heal them up afterwards? 7 CHA and no social skills? Then someone has to be the face. No int or wis? Someone else has to pick up the slack for those needed Perc checks.
Look, choosing a two handed weapon, power attack and a high STR doesn’t make you hyper-optimized, it just makes sense. But if you really want to play...
In the long run dumping wisdom on a paladin isnt' going to matter, they get their CHA bonus to Will pretty quickly, and they will have over all strong saves even with taking a -2. Also IMHO its a bit of a jerk move for a GM to hit a new player with a cursed item gambit, it smacks of screwing with a player in game because the GM didn't like the fact that the paladin dumped some stats, GMs doing this sort of crap often drive new players away. As for missing the perception stuff, its actually hard for most classes to get perception, since wisdom isn't the main focus for them and perception isn't a class skill (and most classes are skill point starved, and can't afford to spend much on any one thing). Getting surprised also isn't that big a deal, because your enemy gets ONE action, not a full round action, ONE action. Paladins being a heavy armor class rather than finesse rarely lose much AC being flatfooted, and have damage mitigation pretty early as a swift action. None of the trade offs are actually a big deal most of the time (-2 isn't' a game breaker, you aren't suddenly going to see ambushes with a +2 anymore than a -2, the stealth bonuses for hidden enemies are just too high if they are designed for it).
As for the particulars of how far he took strength, if it was past 18 post racials, or 16 pre, then yes, he boosted that too much at the expense of other things. I personally will put a pre racial 16 in STR, a 15-16 in CHA, and the rest in Con after a INT dump (PFS 20pt buy). If its 15 point buy I will just 17 STR post racial, 14-16 CHA post racial (some good races can get +2STR +CHA, angel blooded Aasimar for expample), actually i would pretty much use the standard heroic array for 15 point buy on a paladin, its pretty good and you can wait till 4 to get your 18 STR, esp if you sword and board: 15, 12, 13, 8, 10, 14 pre racials. Notice the standard array has a mild dump score, an 8. Putting that in wisdom is probably a mistake, INT is better 9/10 to dump a paladin, but its not much worse than a 10 that you would put into wisdom either. Saves are pretty important, but honestly paladins have some of the strongest saves in the game, RNG are going to bite anybody however, particularly if GM is out to get a player for dumping a score.
As for the party face, every party that ever was has somebody that handles most of interactions. Even in a troop of actors there is still the spokesperson who has the most CHA and skill in it. Only when you get a party of surely dwarves is the Face going to be an issue. As for healing, any class can heal, either natively or with UMD, and its an easy check to make DC20 with not much real penalty for failing. Dumped wisdom is an issue, but honestly even spending your feats on iron will and the like isn't going to make up for the fact that will saves don't scale up worth a damn. Any fighter type is going to eventually have to resort to save enhancers or immunity items (or play a build that gets bonuses). Spending your irreplaceable feats on mitigating things largely outside of your control just waters down what your class is supposed to do. No point of having a fighter if he can't actually hurt things, might as well just taken a battle cleric instead.
Yeah. Anything but two handed weapon is ‘useless”. Anything but a full Spellcaster is “useless” (which I guess means your wizard has to carry a two handed sword). Anything but a Composite Longbow is “useless”. Anything but a tiger is “useless”. Rogues/monks/fighters- all “useless”. In combat healing= “useless” . Basically it’s a way of complaining about Paizo’s choices or about your fellow players. It's annoying and childish.And can we not pretend people don't constantly complain on here about "x" being "useless" etc, etc, etc...
Complaining about others = useless
I dream, literally dream, of the day when I hit the forums and yeah, there's an "I don't like optimizers" thread, but I click on it and the first post is
"Surprise! I was just kidding! I hope everyone finds a way to enjoy their game well and in their own way without imposing their views on others. Oh, and unicorns are real. Have a nice day!"
I know it's a longshot, but what the hey.
|
|
And can we not pretend people don't constantly complain on here about "x" being "useless" etc, etc, etc...Criticizing the power level of a game option is not the same as attacking the moral fiber of those who use it.
"X is a useless option" is the former. "People who do X are obnoxious/need to grow up/don't know what the game is all about" is the latter.
It's been my experience that typically, optimizers start threads criticizing things while anti-optimizers start threads criticizing people.
You don't think "...attacking the moral fiber of those who use it." is a bit hyperbolic...
Quite often the complaint is that the person in question is making the game less enjoyable for the other players.
That isn't something to criticize?