Considering that unless the person is being a jerk about it, (which has nothing to do with optimization) that it is the person complaining who is at fault, so yes that isn't something to criticize.
|
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.
Adapt and overcome. Thats what you're expecting the weak player to do, the rest of the table should try as well.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the push for optimization is exaggerated by the boards: Because you can't quantitatively debate the merits of flavour and role-play, you end up discussing AC, saves, hit points, DPR, and spells you can cast instead. When you debate the merits of class A vs class B here on the boards you compare optimized builds because these are indicative of relative strengths and weaknesses, not because they are something you would actually use.
Ultimately, every character in a party should be doing something positive and useful regularly for the party success; that's my "bar" because there isn't much point being adventurers without it. Beyond that, having fun is what the name of the game is all about, and you optimize or not as you want to and as the group you are playing with prefer. However, if the mechanics of your build mean you aren't having fun (nobody likes to be beat up on every fight) - or if someone else's character outshines yours to the extent that they dominate the game and make it less fun - then there is a problem.
This. And we also have the problem of a lack of shared game experiences, specifically what is normal at one table would be considered cheese at another.
I think 95% of the problem comes from people taking criticism of a character in a made up world as personal criticism.
If I tell a player that a move is cheese, I'm not saying "You are a horrible person, be ashamed!". I'm telling them "Nice try, but no."
If you are at a table with 4 other people, and the 4 other people have less fun because of you, for whatever reason, change.
Be it playstyle or personal hygiene, if you are irritating the people around you, either you are doing it wrong or you are around the wrong people.
|
|
Considering that unless the person is being a jerk about it, (which has nothing to do with optimization) that it is the person complaining who is at fault, so yes that isn't something to criticize.
If you are irritating someone you don't intend to irritate, blaming them for being irritated rather than changing your behavior isn't going to be a very successful path to choose.
Never dump CON.
|
I think that's the key; as long as someone is reasonably useful, I don't mind; I target buffs on them a bit more to get them up to speed if I am a buffer, or just let them "do their thing".
If the high cha character is annoying and isn't actually much of a face either, and he tries to run up to the front line with paper-thin AC and lower-than average con, then yeah, I have a problem. Because he's made me make a decision... either let him "just die" or actually fighting totally sub-optimally (risking TPK) to try to keep him alive.
Because Season 4 and Season 5 in PFS is "stepping up the game", sub-optimizers have much more risk of causing TPK. My "mostly optimized" (not full mage-casters, but optimized pretty heavily for what they do, I have a combat manuever tank, a bard buffer, and a paladin/early-entry eldritch knight) have run several times with some truly terrible characters (10-12 strength rogues in leather armor), and they've nearly cost characters their lives. Since we talk about hour investment, your bad build greatly increases my chance of losing this investment, and often non-optimizers are not terribly good Roleplayers either (so they aren't even that fun to play with... I think they just get into the game less or have worse "real" social skills? Has anyone else had this experience?)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that's the key; as long as someone is reasonably useful, I don't mind; I target buffs on them a bit more to get them up to speed if I am a buffer, or just let them "do their thing".
If the high cha character is annoying and isn't actually much of a face either, and he tries to run up to the front line with paper-thin AC and lower-than average con, then yeah, I have a problem. Because he's made me make a decision... either let him "just die" or actually fighting totally sub-optimally (risking TPK) to try to keep him alive.
Because Season 4 and Season 5 in PFS is "stepping up the game", sub-optimizers have much more risk of causing TPK. My "mostly optimized" (not full mage-casters, but optimized pretty heavily for what they do, I have a combat manuever tank, a bard buffer, and a paladin/early-entry eldritch knight) have run several times with some truly terrible characters (10-12 strength rogues in leather armor), and they've nearly cost characters their lives. Since we talk about hour investment, your bad build greatly increases my chance of losing this investment, and often non-optimizers are not terribly good Roleplayers either (so they aren't even that fun to play with... I think they just get into the game less or have worse "real" social skills? Has anyone else had this experience?)
One of the many reasons I'm don't do the organized play is this very problem. Unless you are doing a regular group (which you could, but doesn't seem to be the norm) it is very hard to get the group coherence and synergy that make parties really successful.
It really is a team game.
Considering that unless the person is being a jerk about it, (which has nothing to do with optimization) that it is the person complaining who is at fault, so yes that isn't something to criticize.If you are irritating someone you don't intend to irritate, blaming them for being irritated rather than changing your behavior isn't going to be a very successful path to choose.
If they have a problem with my optimization level and I don't have a problem with theirs, then they are absolutely to blame. Them being irritated with my optimization level when I'm not irritated with theirs is indeed an unsuccessful path to pursue and they should maybe examine their own issues before taking that path.
|
|
Adapt and overcome. Thats what you're expecting the weak player to do, the rest of the table should try as well.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.
Forcing people to do something that is NOT fun for them, while reminding us that it is all only a game and that only fun should prevail is interesting, to say the least ;-)
|
|
If they have a problem with my optimization level and I don't have a problem with theirs, then they are absolutely to blame. Them being irritated with my optimization level when I'm not irritated with theirs is indeed an unsuccessful path to pursue and they should maybe examine their own issues before taking that path.Considering that unless the person is being a jerk about it, (which has nothing to do with optimization) that it is the person complaining who is at fault, so yes that isn't something to criticize.If you are irritating someone you don't intend to irritate, blaming them for being irritated rather than changing your behavior isn't going to be a very successful path to choose.
So if I said something on here that irritated you, it would be your fault for being irritated, and not my fault for saying it?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
You don't think "...attacking the moral fiber of those who use it." is a bit hyperbolic...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.
Not in the threads I'm talking about, no. Yes, there are posts that are merely "please don't do X/tone it down/etc", and that's fine, just like it's fine for an optimizer to point out that X would be a stronger choice than Y.
However, I've also seen optimizers attacked with "you're obnoxious", "you're ruining the game", "you don't want people to have fun", "you need to grow up", "you're missing what the game is really about", and plenty more.
Yes, I call that "attacking the moral fiber". Imagine if someone read something YOU said about an aspect of the game that YOU enjoy, and replied by telling you that you need to grow up and that you're what's wrong with the hobby and that you're obnoxious. Would you not feel attacked?
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?
Sometimes that is the complaint, and yes, it's something to criticize; but that applies to lots of things besides optimization, and also isn't inherent to optimization. Someone constantly announcing that he's going to pick the important NPC's pocket in the middle of an important conversation or that he's going to go have sex with his animal companion again or that starting a burp contest at the banquet hall "is what my character would do" is also making the game less enjoyable for the other players, but we don't use that as a basis for starting threads called "Bothered by Roleplaying".
|
|
@Jiggy - And I've seen threads saying it is racist to not allow players to play Drow.
Some people say dumb things.
It may apply to many things, but it also applies when one persons "Optimization" is another persons "cheese". You and I went back and forth for hundreds of pages about one hand vs two hand before the ruling came out, and lots and lots of people called me lots and lots of names for taking a position that is now the FAQ ruling.
Similarly I was completely wrong on another ruling, that you have cited and pointed out on a number of occasions.
People will disagree about what is and is not cheese vs optimization. But if you are doing something that is making the game less enjoyable for your fellow players....stop doing that.
Be it demanding to much table time and attention for role play or using creative interpretations of rules to "optimize".
Stop doing anything that makes the game less fun for your fellow players. And pay attention to how others are reacting to what you are doing.
EDIT: Also, there are a ton of "They over roll play and I hate it" threads out there. Just not in the rules forum.
"I'm sorry you don't like getting kicked in the nuts. Not my problem."
"Hey Steve, I know you are great at basketball so I hate playing with you and it's your fault not mine that I play with you."
^ so ya, definitely their fault.
|
|
"Hey Steve, I know you are great at basketball so I hate playing with you and it's your fault not mine that I play with you."
^ so ya, definitely their fault.
"Hey Steve, you never pass the ball and I think the way you play is selfish, so I hate playing with you."
Is what they would say if they didn't just decide not to play with Steve without bothering to explain rather than finding people who were more fun to play with.
"I'm sorry you don't like getting kicked in the nuts. Not my problem."I'm a great nut kicker. Not my fault. Wear a cup if you can't handle my awesome. Adapt man.
SO I guess you do no activities where the other person is better than you at them? Or do you complain every time Steve bowls a perfect game? Because that doesn't sound like that complainers fault at all (sarcasm).
"Hey Steve, I know you are great at basketball so I hate playing with you and it's your fault not mine that I play with you."
^ so ya, definitely their fault.
"Hey Steve, you never pass the ball and I think the way you play is selfish, so I hate playing with you."
Is what they would say if they didn't just decide not to play with Steve without bothering to explain rather than finding people who were more fun to play with.
How is optimization selfish? You are assuming traits that are not inherent to playing a optimized character. But yes if you can't take it to the rim and Steve can it isn't selfish for Steve to do so since its in the best interest of the team.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
SO I guess you do no activities where the other person is better than you at them? Or do you complain every time Steve bowls a perfect game? Because that doesn't sound like that complainers fault at all (sarcasm)."I'm sorry you don't like getting kicked in the nuts. Not my problem."I'm a great nut kicker. Not my fault. Wear a cup if you can't handle my awesome. Adapt man.
Because the goal of a 4+ player game with no actual score keeping is to personally "win" regardless of the enjoyment of others.
And if people don't enjoy participating in this hobby with you...not my problem, man.
|
|
How is optimization selfish? You are assuming traits that are not inherent to playing a optimized character. But yes if you can't take it to the rim and Steve can it isn't selfish for Steve to do so since its in the best interest of the team."Hey Steve, I know you are great at basketball so I hate playing with you and it's your fault not mine that I play with you."
^ so ya, definitely their fault.
"Hey Steve, you never pass the ball and I think the way you play is selfish, so I hate playing with you."
Is what they would say if they didn't just decide not to play with Steve without bothering to explain rather than finding people who were more fun to play with.
Since the interests of the team consist of "Enjoying the time we are participating in this activity" anyone who isn't making that happen isn't contributing to the best interests of the team, are they?
And the person who isn't contributing to make the game fun is the one who is complaining every time Steve does well and helps out the team. I would hate to play with a guy who complained about other people's contributions to the team, but if you enjoy playing with that sort of person well that is your call.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unless every character you play has the same stats regardless of class you have a problem with the LEVEL of optimization, not optimization itself.
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?
It's a problem because their rudeness is grounded in optimization--specifically, the attitude that there is One Best Way to build a character, and anyone who deviates from that should be criticized for doing it wrong(TM).
Optimization isn't just an activity--it's a mindset. And that mindset is problematic when it spills over into judging other people's playstyles as inadequate or inferior.
You are assuming that all optimizers criticize others (which as you can see in the thread is very rarely the case) and that is an unfair characterization on your part that makes any point you were trying to make here moot.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
But if you are doing something that is making the game less enjoyable for your fellow players....stop doing that.
Be it demanding to much table time and attention for role play or using creative interpretations of rules to "optimize".
Stop doing anything that makes the game less fun for your fellow players. And pay attention to how others are reacting to what you are doing.
Sure, but what's that got to do with what we were talking about?
You challenged my claim that I see more attack posts in one direction than another by trying to categorize a certain subset of non-attack posts as attack posts, I showed the difference, you suggested the attack posts weren't really that bad, I gave real examples...
...Then suddenly you're "replying" with generic statements of "let's all have fun"? Well, sure, of course I agree with that; but why the sudden bail-out from the topic you brought up with me? If you didn't want to discuss the subject of optimization-related attack posts, why'd you comment on it?
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
If Michael Jordan in his prime is playing basketball with me, my kid brother, and the paraplegic kid from down the street, he's going to need to tone it WAY down, or essentially he'll be playing by himself. One optimizer in a group of stooges is no good.
If I'm made center for the Celtics tomorrow, the games are going to suck, because the other team will walk all over us. The rest of my team won't be able to make up the difference. Someone unoptimized for basketball has no place in an NBA lineup, and will ruin the playoffs.
Optimization isn't bad. Lack of optimization isn't bad. The problem is when one person does one and the other people do the other, and no one thinks to try and bridge the gap.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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?
It's a problem because their rudeness is grounded in optimization--specifically, the attitude that there is One Best Way to build a character, and anyone who deviates from that should be criticized for doing it wrong(TM).
Optimization isn't just an activity--it's a mindset. And that mindset is problematic when it spills over into judging other people's playstyles as inadequate or inferior.
Not that this would ever occur with people of the anti-optimization mindset, say in their posts for example ;-)))
Never dump CON.
Odd, but that’s the example I give when the optimizers try to claim they are ONLY dumping for Roleplaying reasons. Elric, Doc Holiday, etc, we have heroes who are sickly with low CONs. So, if the dump is for RP flavor, why is it never CON?
(PS, I did dump CON once, and yes, he died quickly.)
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.
Time is a valuable asset, and when someone's character dies they see it as their time being wasted, if someone else bringing a competent character could have prevented. <-----People don't often see that as fun. In the situation you were replying to one person's fun was intruding upon another person's fun.
What I have done in the past is make my characters more powerful than normal to make up for someone else. I would give advice to avoid going this route, but if they won't help me(my character) stay alive, then it falls back on me. However not everyone has that option for various reasons.
Other players have let the sub-optimized character die rather than risk their character's life to save him in games.
Nobody has the right to tell someone else how to play a character, but if the person that is worried about dying takes selfish actions to stay alive I would also argue nobody has the right to tell that person how to play their character.
To make sure the person playing their character a certain way does not also intrude upon someone else's fun it is better to sit down and talk these things out so everyone is happy.
Calling well-rounded characters "weak" or "ineffective" is downright insulting to people who take the effort to make interesting, well-rounded personas rather than 99.99% efficient killing machines. And I don't put up with it in my games.
Depends on the campaign. If you only play non-optimized games, then you're right. But if the players all really want to be challenged to the max, and you expect them to make less than a perfectly-optimal hunter-seeker team, the problem is the lack of communication, not their style or yours.
|
|
Unless every character you play has the same stats regardless of class you have a problem with the LEVEL of optimization, not optimization itself.
Or more specifically how that interacts with the rest of the group's enjoyment.
We have a guy who digs every thing out of the books he can and always goes for the optimal build. But he makes sure he is making things that make everyone else better as well, rather than stealing spotlight.
He's a munchkin, but he's our munchkin. He doesn't endzone dance and he is just as worried about making us look good as making himself look good.
|
|
But if you are doing something that is making the game less enjoyable for your fellow players....stop doing that.
Be it demanding to much table time and attention for role play or using creative interpretations of rules to "optimize".
Stop doing anything that makes the game less fun for your fellow players. And pay attention to how others are reacting to what you are doing.
Sure, but what's that got to do with what we were talking about?
You challenged my claim that I see more attack posts in one direction than another by trying to categorize a certain subset of non-attack posts as attack posts, I showed the difference, you suggested the attack posts weren't really that bad, I gave real examples...
...Then suddenly you're "replying" with generic statements of "let's all have fun"? Well, sure, of course I agree with that; but why the sudden bail-out from the topic you brought up with me? If you didn't want to discuss the subject of optimization-related attack posts, why'd you comment on it?
I am commenting on it.
I think the attack is not on optimization but on people who try to outshine the group.
No one complains about the optimized bard who makes everyone else awesome.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's a problem because their rudeness is grounded in optimization
very often the optimization is seen AS rudeness itself, even if they don't say anything.
the attitude that there is One Best Way to build a character, and anyone who deviates from that should be criticized for doing it wrong(TM).
There's a difference between "one true way" and doing something better.. even if a dumped charisma on the players part makes that hard to see.
Optimization isn't just an activity--it's a mindset. And that mindset is problematic when it spills over into judging other people's playstyles as inadequate or inferior.
I see that far, FAR more often from the True role players!(tm) than the optimization crowd... the difference is the optimization crowd can usually show they're right.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Calybos1: you are mixing optimization with min-maxing.
Optimization is using a kukri instead of a dagger because it does a few points more damage.
Min-maxing is having 7 starting CHA for your dwarf barbarian.
Thats an insult for min maxers.
Dwarves have a -2. That should be a FIVE!!!
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.
That is not optimization. That is just bad advice. Everyone should boost perception, and dumping wis is not a good idea even if it can be replaced for saves with charisma by the paladin eventually.
If he had received good advice he would still be alive most likely, and I am sure notabot was assuming "good advice" when he wrote his comment, not bad advice.
Unless every character you play has the same stats regardless of class you have a problem with the LEVEL of optimization, not optimization itself.Or more specifically how that interacts with the rest of the group's enjoyment.
We have a guy who digs every thing out of the books he can and always goes for the optimal build. But he makes sure he is making things that make everyone else better as well, rather than stealing spotlight.
He's a munchkin, but he's our munchkin. He doesn't endzone dance and he is just as worried about making us look good as making himself look good.
So you agree with us then that anti-optimization complainers are the problem? Cause that seems to be what your saying, unless you think it would be cool for people in your group to rag on "that guy". And if you are cool with that well.., that is quite an odd dynamic.
Elric, Doc Holiday, etc, we have heroes who are sickly with low CONs. So, if the dump is for RP flavor, why is it never CON?
I suppose if the DM provides plot immunity, you'd see a lot more of it. Elric had plot immunity and did fine. John Henry Holliday didn't, was laid up in a sanitarium at 31, and died a few years later, well before completing an "adventure path."
Adapt and overcome. Thats what you're expecting the weak player to do, the rest of the table should try as well.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.
Maybe they are trying. Saying on these boards does not make it easy however.
By the way, being average is all most tables expect of you. Now "average" fluctuates by table, but most figure out when they are not average if the rest of the table is honest and civil with them.
|
|
That right there... that's the mindset that I'm referring to. The notion that optimized characters are 'better' than well-rounded ones, when in fact the opposite is true.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.
This is actually very interesting, because I see well-rounded characters as "optimized".
A good GM who wants to make challenging adventures will present all types of stories and situations, not just combat. And there should be plenty of situations where optimized combat-monsters are not only useless, but pretty much doomed to failure BECAUSE they never bothered to explore anything but combat ability.
Sounds like someone does not like characters who end up being great at combat. Do you perchance consider their playstyle inadequate or inferior ?
Calling well-rounded characters "weak" or "ineffective" is downright insulting to people who take the effort to make interesting, well-rounded personas rather than 99.99% efficient killing machines. And I don't put up with it in my games.
Isn't this what they call the Stormwind Fallacy ?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If Michael Jordan in his prime is playing basketball with me, my kid brother, and the paraplegic kid from down the street, he's going to need to tone it WAY down, or essentially he'll be playing by himself. One optimizer in a group of stooges is no good.
If I'm made center for the Celtics tomorrow, the games are going to suck, because the other team will walk all over us. The rest of my team won't be able to make up the difference. Someone unoptimized for basketball has no place in an NBA lineup, and will ruin the playoffs.
Optimization isn't bad. Lack of optimization isn't bad. The problem is when one person does one and the other people do the other, and no one thinks to try and bridge the gap.
Well said.
But there is also the problem that some people don't think the "Optimized" guy is Jordan. They think he is the guy who shows up to the touch football game and starts tackling everyone. Or the person who came to the 20 dollar buy in poker game and starts dropping 100 dollars bills.
Or worse the Coach of Cobra Kai in the Karate Kid movies telling him to sweep the leg.
If you have a group of people who showed up to have a few beers with friends while making amusing characters that they thought would create interesting stories together, and one guy is there for something else...conflict.
I enjoy build competitions on the boards. But when I game, I am not there to compete with my fellow players. I'm there to handle what the GM gives us WITH my fellow players.
And if someone shows up who isn't a team player...I'm not thinking "Oh man, I wish I was as good at the game as that guy. He's like Jordan!"
I'm thinking "Wow, what a tool. Who invited him?"
So you agree with us then that anti-optimization complainers are the problem? Cause that seems to be what your saying, unless you think it would be cool for people in your group to rag on "that guy". And if you are cool with that well.., that is quite an odd dynamic.Unless every character you play has the same stats regardless of class you have a problem with the LEVEL of optimization, not optimization itself.Or more specifically how that interacts with the rest of the group's enjoyment.
We have a guy who digs every thing out of the books he can and always goes for the optimal build. But he makes sure he is making things that make everyone else better as well, rather than stealing spotlight.
He's a munchkin, but he's our munchkin. He doesn't endzone dance and he is just as worried about making us look good as making himself look good.
Not that I'm Ciretose, but I'd say that optimizers who use their optimization to leapfrog over other players abilities (a high Con fighter who walks through traps instead of waiting for the skill-monkey to disarm them, for instance) and the GMs who design encounters to suit that optimization, are the problem. (That's assuming there's only one problem.)
|
|
So you agree with us then that anti-optimization complainers are the problem? Cause that seems to be what your saying, unless you think it would be cool for people in your group to rag on "that guy". And if you are cool with that well.., that is quite an odd dynamic.Unless every character you play has the same stats regardless of class you have a problem with the LEVEL of optimization, not optimization itself.Or more specifically how that interacts with the rest of the group's enjoyment.
We have a guy who digs every thing out of the books he can and always goes for the optimal build. But he makes sure he is making things that make everyone else better as well, rather than stealing spotlight.
He's a munchkin, but he's our munchkin. He doesn't endzone dance and he is just as worried about making us look good as making himself look good.
You missed the point entirely.
He makes things that makes all of us better and makes the game more fun for everyone.
Because that is what good players do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Optimized for combat" is not the same as "good/worthwhile character for a roleplaying game."
Flip that around, too. The game has BOTH aspects, not just one or the other. If your group wants a tactical combat game with some RPing to make things interesting, you have no business bringing in a monk/druid/sorcerer with 10 Int, 10 Wis, and a pet squirrel.
If the group all has pet squirrels and wants to focus on the roleplaying stuff and ignore combat, then your buddy has no business bringing in Rambo.
IT DEPENDS ON THE TYPE OF GAME EVERYONE WANTS TO PLAY.
Try hard to understand that PF can be used for both endpoints, and everything in the middle. Neither style is "wrong." It's a matter of what people want.
|
|
Elric, Doc Holiday, etc, we have heroes who are sickly with low CONs. So, if the dump is for RP flavor, why is it never CON?I suppose if the DM provides plot immunity, you'd see a lot more of it. Elric had plot immunity and did fine. John Henry Holliday didn't, was laid up in a sanitarium at 31, and died a few years later, well before completing an "adventure path."
Come on. All APs I know of are completed in under 6 months, game-time.