I struggle with this all the time. I come up with these cool characters and then when I consider how it would compare against the other players characters, it just fails.
An example is the "Hulk" alchemist. Very neat concept but put a lv 10 of this against a lv 10 fighter with a greatsword and it isnt even close damage wise. Or ranger. Or ninja. Or pretty much anything.
The concept of the duelist. Same thing. Great flair and roleplay but subpar performance.
At what point, if ever, do you say the heck with it and just roll subpar?
I know the game should be about your enjoyment but when you are not really being effective and they guy next to you is, it isnt a whole lot of fun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The two aren't mutually exclusive.
You can min/max AND roleplay a "cool" concept.
I don't rate the PCs I play against anyone else's but against how much fun/enjoyment they give me. Honestly, it saddens me when people focus on just numbers. But that, I guess, is their "fun"...just isn't mine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In all honesty, while some concepts are difficult to make manifest mechanically (Swashbuckling effete kobold latherio who only uses his non-masterwork favorite weapon and is dex based), these tend to be moderate corner cases. Most concepts can in my opinion be made viable at least, if not good with the proper amount of effort and system mastery.
If you want please give me a level (10 or below please) and concept and I will see if I can get back to you in this thread. I would love to be of help.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with Cardinal...the game is already designed for a "normal" character to win...munchkins and min/maxers believe that to win a combat means that you must defeat the enemy in one round...this is not the case and is in fact no fun for myself when I play
Play your character...if anyone complains about your damage output...tell them to roleplay it out...good luck on their character explaining a difference in damage "in game" within everyone thinking they have gone mad
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
INB4 stormwind fallacy
A hulk alchemist can be pretty effective. Start with a strength of 18. At level 2, take a dip into barbarian. With mutagen and rage you now have a strength of 26. If you can combine it with Vivisectionist, your flanking damage will be massive.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
At what point, if ever, do you say the heck with it and just roll subpar?
Um...always?
When I end up on the player side of the screen, I figure out what I want to play / do, concept-wise, and then "optimize" within that concept. I do usually reference various guides / forums in the process, but not to figure out "what to do to be the 'best' character", so much as to figure out "how to be the 'best' at the thing I've already decided I want to do."
Most of my group is even less concerned with optimization than that, yet everybody manages to have plenty of fun with characters that many on these boards would cringe at. All depends on what your expectations are, I suppose.
Right to all of you.
But being subpar sucks. Im not saying that you always have to be The Man but at least you have to be decent. You dont always have to stand tall but you do need to stand up.
As for hero points, how can a GM justify giving to one PC and not the others? Because the same hero points in the hands of an optimized PC just makes it that much more of a gap between them.
The problem in my game, as in with others that I see, is that PCs are not truly punished for low ability scores. As long as they have a 10 in int or wis, it seems okay to be competent in problem solving, etc where a 10 in real life is not much more than a order taker. And a lot of times, PCs run together, even in city mode, or at least in groups of two at a time so it is hard to single out that one imbicile. Of course, those encounters are a lot less frequent than combat encounters.
The answer would be if everyone played a flair character not built for optimization but that is a hard nut to ask.
Try to balance your need to roleplay an un-optimized character against the frustration it might create for your group.
It's one thing if the group is full of unoptimized characters and the GM builds challenges that you find fun that are relevant for an unoptimized group.
However, if the rest of your party is fairly optimized and you're not, and the challenge is based upon a group of optimized characters, you're really dragging down the group and hurting them. Of course, the GM might need to lower the difficulty, but then it's too easy for the other members.
To me, knowing the optimization of the group is probably more important. I'm in a group with 4 optimized characters and 1 very unoptimized characters. I can tell you that it's frustrating when 25% of his spells don't go off because of his armor and he wastes his limited spells/day, he rarely does any damage and ends up getting attacked and needs heals from the Oracle. He's 20% of the group but demands 75% of the group's resources/attention every single fight.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you want to play a duellist, and you decide not to because you can't work out a way to make one that doesn't have low DPR, you are compromising something for the sake of optimization. Some would say that it is role-playing you are compromising - even if you go on to make an optimized character and role-play it well.
Correct Moondragon.
Matthew, I agree with you 100%. And I agree with all of you saying any character can be role played even if optimal. However, the concepts that are flair based, just arent optimal. Sure I can be the dwarven warrior son of the mountain lord but in the end, it is the same as the last 10 characters.
As for your example of the dip in barbarian, that works great...for one encounter. Being you can rage Con mod + 4 rounds a day, that doesnt give a whole lot before you have blown your use. So that means most encounters you cant concept as you have to save it for the boss.
Try running a non optimized character with an optimized Magus. You might as well hold his bags while he cleans house because your damage isnt more than a fly buzz compared to his.
You can have a high Con, you can take the feat for extra rage rounds, you can wait until you are able to full-attack before going into rage, you could take more Barbarian levels when you've got everything you need from Alchemist... If you play smart you can rage for a couple of rounds in most battles. "You wouldn't like me when I'm angry..." "YOU MAKE HULK ANGRY! SMASH!"
I like to build my character to be as good as it can possibly be, unless something really makes me happy (ie Roll With It). The major issue for me tends to be on spending my WBL.
Oh sure I can have that awesome Delving Armor with Necklace of Adaptation and it fit my backstory, OR I could realize I probably won't use it that often and a 10% boost to my accuracy is gold better spent. Efficiency usually wins out with me.
At what point, if ever, do you say the heck with it and just roll subpar?
What's important is what the shared expectations of your group are. If everyone wants to play super-high-numbers PCs and the GM will compensate for the high numbers, that works fine. If the the group wants to play lower-numbers PCs and the GM knows and works with it, that's fine.
The problem arrives when expectations are misaligned, when there are two players with PCs with vastly different numbers, or players with PCs whose numbers are significantly far away from what the content expects.
If everyone, including the GM, works together on the characters and the content, and thus everyone participates in vetting build choices and the content, this should not be much of a problem, though. It's when each character and the content are all built separately, and no expectations are set out, when problems occur, such as with the figurative non-optimized character in the same party as the optimized Magus.
-Matt
If you want to play a duellist, and you decide not to because you can't work out a way to make one that doesn't have low DPR, you are compromising something for the sake of optimization. Some would say that it is role-playing you are compromising - even if you go on to make an optimized character and role-play it well.
I agree with that stance, it does feel like something was compromised there.
on the flip side, the best thing about the system is 'concept' can be applied to multiple different character classes.
The thematic 'swashbuckler' can be effectively played as:
Fighter, Rogue, Bard, or Magus without even starting to stretch the class out of it's comfort zone.
I played an elven witch in skull and shackles that was 100% swashbuckling pirate style, only with all the mechanics and trappings of a healing-focused witch.
I think this is the heart of the above advice. character themes are essentially able to be 'skinned' on top of mechanically optimized builds without much trouble...
if you are deadset on making "this class/feat combo" you can end up in bad shape, optimization-wise
If you want to play a thematic style, nearly any class can pull it off, try not to feel restricted by the class game mechanics.
As long as they have a 10 in int or wis, it seems okay to be competent in problem solving, etc where a 10 in real life is not much more than a order taker.
Or President.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At what point, if ever, do you say the heck with it and just roll subpar?
Every. Single. Time.
An example is the "Hulk" alchemist. Very neat concept but put a lv 10 of this against a lv 10 fighter with a greatsword and it isnt even close damage wise.
Even if that's the case the alchemist can do so many other things in addition to dealing damage that he's still at least as viable as the fighter.
Just the simple fact that he can buff and heal himself, saving spells per day on other PCs is a huge deal.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know, someone is going to dance upon this thread, note how every PC they play is mechanically subpar(at best), and how they are the greatest roleplayer ever.
Then, someone will note how they like their PCs to be mechanically sound, and the foaming venomous spittle will fly.
The champions of roleplaying(self given title) will accuse anyone, that dares make a single mechanically superior choice, as being horrible roleplayers, and a stain upon TRPGs.
It will get ugly.
Even with every bit of evidence provided, showing otherwise, they will refuse to separate the two.
That concept isn't so far down the totem pole as not to be good enough.
Alchemist 2/Brawler X ?
I find that with groups/scenarios/mods there is "Enough". You need to optimize a bit past enough for when the dice go bad, and then can get whatever.
Not that I always listen to my own advice...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Right to all of you.
But being subpar sucks. Im not saying that you always have to be The Man but at least you have to be decent. You dont always have to stand tall but you do need to stand up.
I disagree with you here. You don't have to even be decent if your character concept doesn't call for it. We've had parties that included characters that were extremely weak mechanically. But that didn't change their level of participation in the story - and it made for even more interesting situations when their flaws caused complications.
So long as the table is happy there is no power level that is either too much or too little.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I'm trying to remember if I've ever seen even one post of the sort you're parodying here. I remember a few in the other direction, like when someone said that the desire to optimize was a juvenile phase that people needed to "grow out of" (his words), and more than once saying that optimization was contrary to how the game was "meant to be played" (again, their words), but I'm not aware of any examples of the above.
I'd be curious to see them, if anyone can point one out (or even suggest some search terms and which forum to search).
I'm trying to remember if I've ever seen even one post of the sort you're parodying here. I remember a few in the other direction, like when someone said that the desire to optimize was a juvenile phase that people needed to "grow out of" (his words), and more than once saying that optimization was contrary to how the game was "meant to be played" (again, their words), but I'm not aware of any examples of the above.
I'd be curious to see them, if anyone can point one out (or even suggest some search terms and which forum to search).
I'm pretty sure I expressed that sentiment here (though more tactfully) in regards to a Magus I saw that had 10 strength and dex and nothing but Skill Foci for feats. So there's at least one example.
I'm trying to remember if I've ever seen even one post of the sort you're parodying here. I remember a few in the other direction, like when someone said that the desire to optimize was a juvenile phase that people needed to "grow out of" (his words), and more than once saying that optimization was contrary to how the game was "meant to be played" (again, their words), but I'm not aware of any examples of the above.
I'd be curious to see them, if anyone can point one out (or even suggest some search terms and which forum to search).
I was just trying to be funny?
And rolling off of one of BBT posts in the thread about the arguments the two sides have.
|
|
I was just trying to be funny?
I'm trying to remember if I've ever seen even one post of the sort you're parodying here. I remember a few in the other direction, like when someone said that the desire to optimize was a juvenile phase that people needed to "grow out of" (his words), and more than once saying that optimization was contrary to how the game was "meant to be played" (again, their words), but I'm not aware of any examples of the above.
I'd be curious to see them, if anyone can point one out (or even suggest some search terms and which forum to search).
You just reminded him of someone who was not joking.
At what point, if ever, do you say the heck with it and just roll subpar?Um...always?
When I end up on the player side of the screen, I figure out what I want to play / do, concept-wise, and then "optimize" within that concept. I do usually reference various guides / forums in the process, but not to figure out "what to do to be the 'best' character", so much as to figure out "how to be the 'best' at the thing I've already decided I want to do."
Most of my group is even less concerned with optimization than that, yet everybody manages to have plenty of fun with characters that many on these boards would cringe at. All depends on what your expectations are, I suppose.
Exactly what I do. I come up with a cool concept, then try to make a good version of that that can contribute to the group. I am not 'competing" with the other PC's.
Jiggy I have seen close to that. I remember in one thread someone asked how to design a good rogue. On just the first page, no less than a half-dozen times someone came in just to say that "rouges are teh suxxor" without actually contributing. Now, sure, it's perfectly Ok to say "Hey, your concept seems to also work with this cool bard archetype, have you considered that?", but to just come in and dump on the rogue is not being helpful at all.
And millions of hampster-power units of ergs have been spent here on "why can't martials have good things" , with many basically saying that only a newb idiot would play a Fighter, it's such a "trap", and it can't contribute, etc.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I'm trying to remember if I've ever seen even one post of the sort you're parodying here. I remember a few in the other direction, like when someone said that the desire to optimize was a juvenile phase that people needed to "grow out of" (his words), and more than once saying that optimization was contrary to how the game was "meant to be played" (again, their words), but I'm not aware of any examples of the above.
I'd be curious to see them, if anyone can point one out (or even suggest some search terms and which forum to search).
I was just trying to be funny?
And rolling off of one of BBT posts in the thread about the arguments the two sides have.
Ah, sorry, I thought it was serious satire. I was hoping to get to see the posts and get a more complete picture of the social dynamics involved in this topic. I've seen others make serious posts like yours, and I enjoy knowing where people are coming from when they complain about things.
Sorry, my psych degree assassinated your humor attempt. :S
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Jiggy I have seen close to that. I remember in one thread someone asked how to design a good rogue. On just the first page, no less than a half-dozen times someone came in just to say that "rouges are teh suxxor" without actually contributing. Now, sure, it's perfectly Ok to say "Hey, your concept seems to also work with this cool bard archetype, have you considered that?", but to just come in and dump on the rogue is not being helpful at all.
Do you remember which forum (Advice, maybe?) and perhaps a searchable phrase or something?
EDIT: Also, were they using leet-speak ("teh suxxor") or similar slang, or is that something you added in order to caricature people that you don't like?
Jiggy I have seen close to that. I remember in one thread someone asked how to design a good rogue. On just the first page, no less than a half-dozen times someone came in just to say that "rouges are teh suxxor" without actually contributing. Now, sure, it's perfectly Ok to say "Hey, your concept seems to also work with this cool bard archetype, have you considered that?", but to just come in and dump on the rogue is not being helpful at all.Do you remember which forum (Advice, maybe?) and perhaps a searchable phrase or something?
EDIT: Also, were they using leet-speak ("teh suxxor") or similar slang, or is that something you added in order to caricature people that you don't like?
Look up rogue in advice lol and I never heard of Teh suxxor
|
Ah, sorry, I thought it was serious satire. I was hoping to get to see the posts and get a more complete picture of the social dynamics involved in this topic. I've seen others make serious posts like yours, and I enjoy knowing where people are coming from when they complain about things.Sorry, my psych degree assassinated your humor attempt. :S
If that is true, and you are not simply being a tool... which is known to happen when folks don't like something they read... then do a little independent research. I have seen very similar cases on both sides of the great role vs roll debate, down to the acerbic, internet-neanderthal ranting, but I don't make a habit of bookmarking spats. If you actually desire a study in social dynamics, I am sure you will be able to find both sides of the discussion in any number of threads.
As to the topic at hand, I am confused as to why a concept character has to be "sub par". While the notion that every character must be a 1 dimensional, hyper optimized specialist to be considered "viable" is extreme view nonsense... the flip side that a concept character has to be a flawed hindrance, dragging their group down with their ineptitude is equally laughable. Your concept character can be perfectly valid and effective without being min-maxed or being cripplingly gimped. I don't understand why it must be either or.
Ah, sorry, I thought it was serious satire. I was hoping to get to see the posts and get a more complete picture of the social dynamics involved in this topic. I've seen others make serious posts like yours, and I enjoy knowing where people are coming from when they complain about things.Sorry, my psych degree assassinated your humor attempt. :S
If that is true, and you are not simply being a tool... which is known to happen when folks don't like something they read... then do a little independent research. I have seen very similar cases on both sides of the great role vs roll debate, down to the acerbic, internet-neanderthal ranting, but I don't make a habit of bookmarking spats. If you actually desire a study in social dynamics, I am sure you will be able to find both sides of the discussion in any number of threads.
As to the topic at hand, I am confused as to why a concept character has to be "sub par". While the notion that every character must be a 1 dimensional, hyper optimized specialist to be considered "viable" is extreme view nonsense... the flip side that a concept character has to be a flawed hindrance, dragging their group down with their ineptitude is equally laughable. Your concept character can be perfectly valid and effective without being min-maxed or being cripplingly gimped. I don't understand why it must be either or.
There are many different ways to play the game. And there are many different types of story. It's nothing to be confused about. Different people like different things.
I've been in parties where a character was built as the ineffective comic relief. Others with a character that needed the protection of more powerful people. One story, in particular, was about a noble heir who wanted to go on adventures, but his parents were terrified for his life. So he was made a member of an adventuring party that essentially did all the heavy lifting while he imagined being the hero of his own story.
GM pulled it off brilliantly and we all had a great time.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
If that is true, and you are not simply being a tool... which is known to happen when folks don't like something they read... then do a little independent research.
Ah, sorry, I thought it was serious satire. I was hoping to get to see the posts and get a more complete picture of the social dynamics involved in this topic. I've seen others make serious posts like yours, and I enjoy knowing where people are coming from when they complain about things.Sorry, my psych degree assassinated your humor attempt. :S
I intend to; I was just hoping someone might be able to help jump-start it. Seriously, have you ever tried to research a general sentiment's presence on the boards? Don't you think it'd be easier with a starting point?
I have seen very similar cases on both sides of the great role vs roll debate, down to the acerbic, internet-neanderthal ranting, but I don't make a habit of bookmarking spats.
I've bookmarked hundreds of posts of various sorts, just not those (mostly rules-related, such as designer commentary). Other people do as well. Figured it couldn't hurt to ask, right?
Alternatively, I know that often when I get involved in a thread it's easy to think of a phrase that was used at some point that's specific/uncommon enough that searching for that phrase could easily turn up that thread. Maybe someone can remember such a phrase from a relevant thread. Again, can't hurt to ask, right?
If you actually desire a study in social dynamics, I am sure you will be able to find both sides of the discussion in any number of threads.
Yeah, it'll just be more tedious than if someone could get me started. :(
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
*Runs through the thread*
I struggle with this all the time. I come up with these cool characters and then when I consider how it would compare against the other players characters, it just fails.
An example is the "Hulk" alchemist. Very neat concept but put a lv 10 of this against a lv 10 fighter with a greatsword and it isnt even close damage wise. Or ranger. Or ninja. Or pretty much anything.
The concept of the duelist. Same thing. Great flair and roleplay but subpar performance.
At what point, if ever, do you say the heck with it and just roll subpar?
I know the game should be about your enjoyment but when you are not really being effective and they guy next to you is, it isnt a whole lot of fun.
This is something that is always going to vary from group to group and player to player because there are so many different play styles (and GMs) out there.
If you are in a group full of optimizers whose enjoyment comes from pulverizing foes as fast possible, odds are you will have less enjoyment going with a flavorful concept that lacks a bit in the mechanical department. This will likely be made worse when the GM realizes the power level of the rest of the party and tries to challenge them as it will make the mechanical "deficiencies" in the flavorful character even more glaring.
On the other hand, if you are in a group full of storytellers who love the idea of creating characters and fleshing them out and learning their story (as opposed to just "Fighter Bash! Fighter Loot!" then the flavorful character will, of course, have a good chance to shine.
Where it really gets troubling though is when you have the group that has built a lot of flavorful characters at the cost of some mechanical elements, but the GM doesn't care and keeps trying to up the challenge to the point that the group is always slinking away with their collective tails between their legs.
Personally, I love it when I get a chance to really develop a character, giving him a personality and choosing feats/powers/abilities that reflect the same. Some groups make that hard though as it will just feel as though you are the kid brother tagging along because you got nothing better to do. My advice would be to try to find some sort of a happy medium if you can. As an example, I have a monk that I am playing that I personally love. I love monks not because of their "power" but because of all the little things they can conceivably do. That said though, I am getting near the point where the monk is really starting to be outshone by the rest of the party, so I am looking at ways of upping his damage output.
The easy solution would be to take levels of Brawler (or even Weapon Master Fighter with the GLoves of Dueling) and simply stack on the bonus damage and feats. Alternatively, given my character's backstory, some levels in Ninja could really work out well too. The accuracy would still be down a bit going that route, but I would get some added damage (SA) plus some other fun little benefits (Ninja Tricks). It may not keep me up to par with the rest of the party in terms of actual damage, but hopefully the other aspects will help to even that out. Of course I am fortunate to have a group that likes the roleplay aspects too instead of just jumping from fight to fight to fight.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
At what point, if ever, do you say the heck with it and just roll subpar?I know the game should be about your enjoyment but when you are not really being effective and they guy next to you is, it isnt a whole lot of fun.
The point I do that is when the idea of my character I've formed in my head doesn't fit what the rules say they can do.
Here's the thing. I don't create my characters to be adventurers in a Pathfinder game. I create them to be people in a story. I tend to try and put the rulebook out of my head completely when I come up with their concept and bio, except for as far as it defines things I couldn't make.
My perspective: all people are not created equal, and they tend not to grow up from birth training to be the person they're destined to be. I don't have a problem with being mechanically inferior, or having "useless" abilities (which I've taken because they fit the concept of my character not because they're going to be useful to them in their adventuring life).
Now, it's possible to make a good RP character that is also mechanically optimized at what they do. The two are not exclusive. The way I do it however is to let the character concept come to me rather than actively build it. Character concepts form in my head from blobs of nothing and gradually emerge from the mists as complete ideas without me really steering them in a direction. I try not to tweak those concepts to better fit a set of RPG rules.
That's what I enjoy doing. The people I play with enjoy that kind of style. It works for us. That's why we do things that way. It doesn't work for everyone, some people want to do things different ways so that's exactly what they should do.
I get more than a little frustrated at people arguing that one way of playing the game is better or more correct than another, or attempting to prove why their way is superior. I'll stick with saying what I do and why I do it, and accept that it's a personal thing from player to player, and group to group. I know I don't know the "correct" way to play Pathfinder. Neither does anyone else, including the people that wrote it (something they thankfully tend to be very open about admitting.) There is no correct way - anyone who maintains otherwise is just cutting themselves off from part the community, and anyone that thinks the game would be better tailored to their personal playstyle at the expense of others is just pressuring for it to fail.
I'd rather enjoy the fact we all play differently, and share our experiences in a good-natured way so we can pick out ideas from others that we think we'd enjoy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I struggle with this all the time. I come up with these cool characters and then when I consider how it would compare against the other players characters, it just fails.
An example is the "Hulk" alchemist. Very neat concept but put a lv 10 of this against a lv 10 fighter with a greatsword and it isnt even close damage wise. Or ranger. Or ninja. Or pretty much anything.
The concept of the duelist. Same thing. Great flair and roleplay but subpar performance.
At what point, if ever, do you say the heck with it and just roll subpar?
I know the game should be about your enjoyment but when you are not really being effective and they guy next to you is, it isnt a whole lot of fun.
It has everything to do with you rGM... which in turn often has everything to do with the rest of your players. A group of optimizers won't be fun for a pure role-player and vice-versa... hopefully you find a group where all of its members are somewhere in between...
It has everything to do with you rGM... which in turn often has everything to do with the rest of your players. A group of optimizers won't be fun for a pure role-player and vice-versa... hopefully you find a group where all of its members are somewhere in between...
This.
Most of the arguments I see against one playstyle or the other are rooted here, not in the rulebook. Some people just can't get on the same page, and want the game itself to enforce a style for the group to compensate for that. Alternative playstyles are just causing the authors to allow for those ways of playing (*gasp* how horrible!) rather than nailing things down to their personal preference.
Here's the problems I see there:
- You can't force a playstyle on someone. If you give them rules that tell them to play a way they don't enjoy, they're probably going to stop playing. If your group can't get on the same page without the rules enforcing it, the problem lies in the group.
- You end up throwing away large portions of the game audience, in order to support people that either can't play nice together or can't bear to admit they probably shouldn't be in the same group in the first place. Great way to reduce sales and kill a game.
In turn, I don't really know what to suggest to groups that can't get on the same page. Break up and find new groups? Some people want to play together with friends, so that's not an answer. Suck it up and play a way you don't enjoy? What's the point in that? I do know it isn't the place of the rulebook to force them together, though.
I struggle with this all the time. I come up with these cool characters and then when I consider how it would compare against the other players characters, it just fails.
An example is the "Hulk" alchemist. Very neat concept but put a lv 10 of this against a lv 10 fighter with a greatsword and it isnt even close damage wise. Or ranger. Or ninja. Or pretty much anything.
The concept of the duelist. Same thing. Great flair and roleplay but subpar performance.
At what point, if ever, do you say the heck with it and just roll subpar?
I know the game should be about your enjoyment but when you are not really being effective and they guy next to you is, it isnt a whole lot of fun.
It is for this exact reason, that I wish there was some sort of standard given for expected damage per level kinda chart. That way you won't worry about comparing any said character to a super optimized character, and could instead focus on making sure your character can hit a standardized #.
Jiggy I have seen close to that. I remember in one thread someone asked how to design a good rogue. On just the first page, no less than a half-dozen times someone came in just to say that "rouges are teh suxxor" without actually contributing. Now, sure, it's perfectly Ok to say "Hey, your concept seems to also work with this cool bard archetype, have you considered that?", but to just come in and dump on the rogue is not being helpful at all.Do you remember which forum (Advice, maybe?) and perhaps a searchable phrase or something?
EDIT: Also, were they using leet-speak ("teh suxxor") or similar slang, or is that something you added in order to caricature people that you don't like?
No, I can't remember, exactly. Advice.
The "rogue/rouge" is a meme around here, and yes, I think so, at least in one post. Yes, the rest of it was a feeble attempt at humor- the posts were more long the lines of "Don't play one."
Ah I found one:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pwp6?Im-a-melee-character-now-what#8