I take back most of what I said about you. Your presentation implied the opposite because of the way you wrote it.I am ok with everyone getting a ribbon... not the race. Because this should not be a competition. It should be everyone build their character, play their character based on the ability of their character and have fun. But if you didnt build your character for dps, dont be mad when the points you put up dont compete with someone elses.Im thinking about how no matter the event, every kid brings home a blue ribbon. It shouldnt be that. Not everyone can be best at damage, not everyone should be best at skills, not everyone should be best at ________. I think you should just play the character to have fun. I think you are wrong for trying to be the best at anything specific. But if you are by happenstance, then you shouldnt be penalized because people didnt realize what they wanted to play.Actually Roleplaying is a "race where everyone gets a ribbon" since the ribbon is fun & everyone should have it. If your phrase was correct, that implies you can "win" at Roleplaying - which shouldn't be the case unless you define winning as having fun, then everyone should win. Co-operative, not competitive.Don't be hating when after all is said and done, what you really wanted was to be good at combat and blah blah blah.. Well guess what! You can't get everything you want. This is not a race that everyone gets a ribbon. Be responsible for your choices instead of being mad at other players.
If this is not you ignore rant. Or blast me.. its OK. My Touch AC is 34!
No problem as long as you dont talk bad about my family, I wont get upset about what people say. Everyone should be allowed their thoughts and ideas regardless of how strong I feel about my own. And I'e been wrong before.
You were not talking about my mom were you.
...
Well, can almost agree with what you said. The only change is that everyone should be willing to make adjustments if necessary. Meaning everyone should take a look at how they are playing and what they are playing with before making someone else change. If everyone will take the responsibility of making sure that there is nothing they can do to make it a better play experience for everyone. Then I doubt there wont be so many problems. This definitely includes the DM.
YOUR MOM IS A CLASSY LADY!
Just had a Ron Burgandy moment.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm willing to alter my playstyle to a certain extent. I know it's a rpgs are both a team activity that involves cooperative play. That being said one also has to be good at what he does on his own. It's entirely possible that sometimes one does not have fun at the table because of a better designed. I'm playing a Bard again in another PF. The two melee characters Monk and Paladin while not optimized doe a lot more damage then I do. Would I like to do the same amount sure. My character is not designed for that. I built the Bard as a support stay in the back kind of character. Next game I want to play a melee class. As I have played Bards too often.
Responsability is a two way street though. For one player not to dominate the table. Yet for the others to while not do the same at least have characters that can keep up. I refuse to dumb down my character simply to make others feel good at the table. There comes a point that if one character is not contributing that one take a look at how the character is designed and accept part of the blame as well. If the Fighter hits well and can take damage well I won't fault a player for doing that. No one saying optimize. Yet if if one makes a character any which way toss him into a game and fails. that's one fault not mine.
I'm overweight. I could do more exercise and eat less sweets. I'm nort blaming the chocolate companies for making chocolate that is too sweet. Nor macdonald for making food that is for the most part unhealthy. Now if both hid the fact that their products were bad for me I would have a cause to complain. I know full well what the effects are. Again one is not asking for the perfect character at a table. One does not even have to use a optimzation guide. Yet if one makes a Fighter that dumps con and str even when told not to by the dm well the fault is one the player. Not the group or the dm. Being new to the system works only a few times as a reason. Then it becomes a excuse. If one does not want to use the online guides then ask the dm or players for advice. Not cry foul when the Fighter who has a decent str and con does more damage.
Even then I have to wonder what exactly are dms and players who don't like characters who overshadow others. Allow the players at the table. If I tell the group upfront that I'm not dumbing down the character why be surprised if he is mpre effective at the table. The same thing with players who do not optimize at all join a table that does. Or one where the dm is upfront about not doing favors to players despite the build. Then get angry when their character is not keeping up. It's almost like asking for trouble then shifting the blame to someone else. If I join a group where the group and game is combat oriented. I'm stubborn and I make a character that is skilled at social situations yet can't hit or take damage . It's my fault for doing that. Their seems to be a segment of the gaming community that poor choices when it comes to character or not. It's everyone else fault but their own.
|
|
Why do only gamers say "full stop"? Normal people don't talk that way. I see it all over these boards, and it's just annoying....
Agreed and seconded. The only term I have seen used a lot when I do gaming. Everythin else like "full stop, rollplaying, murderhobo" etc.. Seems to mainly show up on rpg forum. Anyone who uses those terms at our gaming table is just trying too hard.
"Full stop" is what periods are called in British English. Ethnocentric twits.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The mechanics you choose to use make a big difference to the variety of characters that can be built, the results you generate, the way the game feels, and therefore the kind of stories that can (and can't) be told.
Even staying within the D&D family of games, and focussing only on the very narrow subject of skill/task resolution, there is a vast gulf between the systems.
Original D&D, Holmes D&D, Moldvay B/X, and Mentzer BECMI avoided the issue entirely. There was no skill resolution system. Your character basically had whatever skills you could personally blag the DM to allow them. You were presented with a problem, you the Player came up with a solution, and you argued your case why that should work. Bonus points if you had a science or engineering background (or could fake one).
Games of this period explicitly tested the ingenuity of the players, not the skill bonuses of their characters.
1st Edition AD&D (up to mid-80s); still no skill system that would be reconisable to a modern player, but a table existed to roll your 'secondary skill' that you had picked up in adolescence.
Task resolution was much the same as before, but you had the safety net of being able to say 'actually, I am trained as a teamster, so I would be able to calm the animals', or similar. Some DMs began using a houseruled variant of the system below, which eventually became official. 'Give me a [stat] roll' became a common tiebreaker, when competence couldn't be guaranteed.
1st Edition (using Dungeoneers Survival Guide or Wilderness Survival Guide) or 2nd Edition; the introduction of 'non-weapon proficiencies', much like the secondary skills method, but you had more areas of expertise, and could choose your focus. Resolution was a matter of rolling under the associated stat value on d20 (subject to DM modifiers), so you came to the table very proficient, even at level 1.
Victory still went more often to the loudest players who could best argue their position, but now everyone had official skills to fall back on.
3rd Edition/Pathfinder; a codified skill system, with a budget of points to purchase individual ranks in specific skills. Target numbers set in the rules for most common tasks.
Good points: the ability to learn a wider spread of abilities than before, the jack of all trades PC became a possibility. A defence against hardass DMs, as you can point at your sheet and say 'I do know how to do that; I've purchased ranks in that skill.'
Bad points: the flipside of the above; Depth of knowledge was severely capped by class level, impossible to build a character who was capable at their job unless they had several class levels. Also it became a rule that could be used against you. 'If you don't have the ranks, you know nothing.'
Overall, this is very much a system that was made for convention play, as it codified PC abilities, and reduced table variation from harsh or lenient DMs. But it's not great for representing the majority population of a world.
Mix up players and GMs from the different periods, and you get fireworks.
The old-school players don't see why their sensible, well-researched, historically-accurate plans should be dismissed just because they have a level 1 PC.
Newer players don't see why they can't just 'roll for it', and have to explain what they're doing.
|
|
I agree it goes both ways. If someone brings a brokenly bad character or even a baseline one to a game with hardcore optimizers, then it's their problem and they need to find a way to keep up or find a different group.But you're claiming that the whole rest of the group has to "at least have characters that can keep up" with whatever standard you think is appropriate. If there's a table of people who enjoy playing fighters who dump strength and con (without being archers or other dex paths), then you don't get to make them keep up with your carefully tweaked DPR monster. If they're all having fun playing their way, why do they all have to change to meet your standard? Maybe it's you who should go look for another group, if you can't adapt to this one.
Mind you, I doubt many people really enjoy playing characters that incompetent, at least for anything other than short term experimental games. We played an NPC class game back in 3.0 that was a ton of fun, but it's not something I'd want to do regularly.
You're far more likely to run into single really badly built characters or mixes of baseline and highly optimized. At least in my experience
Unless I told upfront that the group is playing Fighters who dump strength and con. Then I'm not going to do the same. I need guidelines given from the dm and/or players. If I know it's a more soical type of game I make a skill monkey. If a more combat oriented one I make a more combat oriented character. I try to go with what the table does. By all means they can have fun playing their way. I also should have fun playing my way as well. If I make a Fighter that can hit and do more damage then everyone else the party should accept that as well. Just as I will accept the rest doing less damage and being able to take it. It's a two way street. Espcially if I'm not given any guidelines. I will of course ask when I join a table. If no one says anything or ignores my questions. Then it's on them if they are not having fun.
Well, I think the reason the Stormwind Fallacy doesnt' always hold up is that many optimizers ARE bad at roleplaying. Optimizers as I'm putting it are DIFFERENT than your normal roleplayer, as I'll put down later.
Edit: many aren't going to read this, as it's TLDR. The reason the angst against optimizers exists, isn't because the Stormwind fallacy exists. Stormwind fallacy is valid, but affected by what I'll call, the GWL Fallacy (as explained below). It exists because there's a trend that has arisen from what people have observed from optimizers. So while they may be good roleplayers too, the trend that many have observed among those called optimizers, shows something that they believe makes optimizers poor roleplayers. [end edit]
It's very easy to kill an optimizer if one wants...just to spite them.
The reason is optimization is NORMALLY based around COMBAT...not roleplaying.
Because of this, you have characters that are specialized at fighting things, but not at roleplaying things out.
Hence, you get one that can smash things, but not much else.
Hence, they easily fall into rpg traps/tricks due to bad abilities to utilize diplomacy, bad ways to avoid things like poisoning in intrigue, and many other items.
In fact, the bane of most optimizers is the trap dungeon.
By trap dungeon, I mean a dungeon where you aren't going to fight as much as avoid, such as some classic tournament dungeons. An optimizer will be able to kill anything that is their CR or greater, sometimes by 4 to 7 times.
But when the creatures aren't supposed to be fought at all...and if you do, they'll kill you (think that ancient Red dragon sleeping there, or the CR 30 critter), the one that optimizes for combat normally can be at a loss. They WANT to use this optimization, that's what their character is built for. It isn't built to avoid that challenge...they are built for conflict.
They aren't built for diplomacy where massed individuals hit from a point of advantage (remember 1/20 shots hit statistically, and with the right numbers and type of weapons [sometimes you need magically], most low and mid level characters are going to be dead no matter how optimized) and upsetting that merchant or king is not adviseable, and straight up trying to kill them is simply the end of that character.
SURE...there are those that are optimized for diplomacy, or skills, or some other arena, but if you go on the boards...you don't see them very often.
Normally it's going to be optimization for combat, and for a game which is a typical dungeon crawler, or the usual combat heavy, that character will shine. Many may say it's overpowered, or other items.
But for the games which combat takes a much smaller slice...optimization can be the touch of death as the characters are not built for that type of play.
I suppose what I'm saying is sure, the Stormwind fallacy is true in some instances, but in MANY instances, the way someone designs their character explicitly shows how they play the game and how they see the game.
If the character is optimized as some would call it, it's normally a combat build rather than anything else...and that shows someone who's more interested in the combat aspect, then anything else.
The excuse that everyone optimizes (which IS true for the most part) and hence optimization shouldn't be shunned, is in itself a fallacy.
What people are talking about isn't simply optimization, but those that optimize to such an extreme, they sacrifice everything else to be the super powered individual in something. Normally they sacrifice being well rounded as a character in return for being such a dominant character in combat.
Hence, in conjunction with the Stormwind fallacy, another fallacy should be also shown. Simply optimizing which is usual, does not mean one is an optimizer, and is not synonymous with what people call optimizers. Nor does it mean that this means optimizers are their equivalent.
With the extreme optimization builds, and with the focus of those who do them, it should be obvious what their focus of the game is. When one is that focused on a single portion of the game to the exclusion of all else, then it's that focus (so not necessarily the optimization itself) which indicates the problem. They may be so focused on that single portion of the game (normally combat) that they do very poorly at any other part of the game.
So the Stormwind fallacy still is true, BUT...most who try to defend it use another fallacy which I indicated above in regards to stating everyone optimizes, even most of those that purely roleplaying, and so all of what people call optimizers are also good at roleplaying.
Which is similar to stating, cheap violins and expensive violins are both made out of wood, so cheap violins can sound just like expensive violins. Where it is true, a cheap violin can sound great and just as good as an expensive one...experience can show that due to the what they are...this is not the true in many instances. There is a TREND that can be seen, and that's where the reputation for many of the more expensive violins vs. the cheap violins come from.
And that's where this entire discussion stems from. It's not that optimizers are BAD at roleplaying, in fact you can have a genius of a roleplayer as an optimizer.
However, there is a TREND that some people observe...and that's where the stereotype comes from. Sure the Stormwind Fallacy holds...but the reason someone even had to state it is because there was an observable trend between the Optimizers (meaning extreme optimization) and others.
PS: (and perhaps this is why I DM...I have a tendency to try to optimize things occasionally...for example in 5e, where people are talking about a +14 at max to hit and +22 armor at max, I'm at the point at seeing a +22-23 to hit and 39 to 40 AC at this point...which some would simply say it's impossible...which is true if your DM won't cooperate...but in theory...it could be done, especially by an optimizer like me. I'm also the guy who built that 3.5 Rogue [well mostly] that did 500-700 dmg per round [in the right situation of course] which perhaps isn't as great as some...but still means most normal players aren't going to get there...and the amount of damage can drop most creatures). Maybe this is written because of how I play when I have an optimized character. I'm more interested in letting that character show what they can do with what I've done with them...than choosing other options at times. I feel this is human nature though...and others also have this desire when they optimize something. The difference - I at least am aware of this change in my playing style when I do this, and admit it. I don't think many optimizers will or do this.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
1. It's not true that most harcore optimizers are too focused on DPR to roleplay. In fact, in my experience, the exact opposite is true. People who are really into the game roleplay the most, but they also spend the most time playing and reading rulebooks, which makes them better at optimizing. People with only a cursory interest are generally not invested enough to roleplay, and also don't know enough to optimize, either.
2. A really hardcore optimizer will realize that direct-damage is a fool's ploy when it comes to the action economy at higher levels. They'll generally opt for a full caster instead who can use summons and/or pets as "free" martials. This can make trap dungeons a joke -- spammed summons and/or divinations and transportation spells negate that threat. Sure, you can optimize a martial character, but it takes a lot more savvy and the cap is lower; you end up with AM Barbarian on a dire bat, whom you can still roleplay, but eventually you end up rolling up a more interesting caster.
Games with lots of options tend to end up having only some of those options being strong. Designers do (and should) spend a lot of time trying to make more options viable, but with a complex game it is inevitable that there will be strong and weak options.I think a perfect balance, everything operating at 100% of the average efficiency, plus/minus 0-1%, will never be reached, but it should be an ideal to aim for.
I'd be happy to accept options operating within a range of 80%-120% of the mean, because that would mean a player could make a character at short notice, picking options that fit a theme, and be confident their character was still viable, if not the superstar quality of someone who had spent days scouring multiple sources. Worst-case scenario, a player who unwittingly picked all '80s' would still be 'worth' two-thirds of a character that took nothing but '120s'.
Or to look at it from the other direction, the idealised SuperCharacter wouldn't be trivialising scenarios, but merely be pulling the weight of one-and a half members at most, even in a team where everyone else had picked options based on flavour text and cool name.Unfortunately, what we currently have is more like
0% - options that do literally nothing, or simply change flavour with no increase in effectiveness,
20% - pointless non-synergistic prerequisites for non-intuitive ability chains (see Expertise, because apparently you need to be a college grad, to knock someone on their ass, and Spring Attack, because you have to be skilled at hit and run attacks, before you can root yourself to the spot and whack everything in arm's reach.),
40% - the flavourless gruel options which add a 'meh' +1/+2 to some roll,
100% - ability to do something actually above human norms, with increased chance of success; modifiers that matter; serious resistance to common tactics,
120% game-changing abilities, like being able to cast when grappled or choked, rerolled saves to shrug off effects, spell resistance high...
I agree with you, that would be ideal.
You didn't actually address the root cause of the problem that I outlined in my post though. You went after my conclusion and seem to have misinterpreted it.
I want what you want. I am pointing out the difficulties in achieving it.
The crux of the issue is partly one of perception. For one, different people have a different concept of what 100% efficiency is. Second, people have a different concept of what 95% efficiency is. Third, as you eliminate/fix options that are above or below 100%, you will alter people's perceptions of how far off from 100% remaining options are.
Example:
X is thought to be 100% efficiency
Y is thought to be 80% efficiency
Z is though to be 60% efficiency
We remove Z, or fix it to be 90% efficiency.
As time passes, our brains will start to sort them out like this:
X = 100%
Z = 80%
Y = 60%
As the absolute space between abilities becomes smaller, our perception of that difference becomes more acute. We still see the good and bad choices. You might get it to 100-99-98 eventually (compared to the original), but players will still see the 'giant gulf' between them, unless there are other abilities outside that margin to compare them to.
With complicated games it is an inherently comparative process we use to determine the strength of one ability compared to another. Unless you make all abilities identical in mechanical impact (everything gives a +2 that doesn't stack) there's no way to change the perception of players that there aren't good and bad choices.
I agree that game designers should strive to make the game as balanced as possible. I'm saying that we also have to be aware of how our perceptions affect how we view the game and options within it. Regardless of whether designers intentionally put in Timmy cards or not, we will perceive the least efficient options to be that way anyways.
Do not construe my highlighting this fact to mean that I want it. Just like realizing that my car needs new timing belts doesn't mean I WANT to pay to replace them.
Wraithstrike, nobody makes a deliberately gimped character that is pure straw man. Even in a recent 0 PB game the fighter had a 14 str 13 Con.
I have no idea what you are talking about. Could you provide a quote?
You are using semantics here. You say "the mechanics are the game". I would say "the story is the game". For you the mechanics seems to be the most important part. For me it is the least. I choose the mechanics that my players know, and it will be easiest to get them on board (is there where I would use "full stop?" Nah, I wouldn't use it.) Then I make the rules work to serve the story I want to tell.
The mechanics are the ruleset and that is the game, not the story.
If I try to run Rise of the Runelords it is a story that can be played in more than one game/gamesystem(ruleset). People will assume I am using Pathfinder rules. Now that I think about it if the story was the game then Rise of the Runelords which is a story would have a ruleset, but it does not. It is a story that uses the rules of the Pathfinder game.
Going back to what I was going to say if you say you are running Pathfinder's Rise of the Runelords and you use Exalted rules people are not going to be happy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I think the reason the Stormwind Fallacy doesnt' always hold up is that many optimizers ARE bad at roleplaying. Optimizers as I'm putting it are DIFFERENT than your normal roleplayer, as I'll put down later.
I would argue that many so called "roleplayers" are not good roleplayers either.
Edit: many aren't going to read this, as it's TLDR. The reason the angst against optimizers exists, isn't because the Stormwind fallacy exists. Stormwind fallacy is valid, but affected by what I'll call, the GWL Fallacy (as explained below). It exists because there's a trend that has arisen from what people have observed from optimizers. So while they may be good roleplayers too, the trend that many have observed among those called optimizers, shows something that they believe makes optimizers poor roleplayers. [end edit]
The reason is optimization is NORMALLY based around COMBAT...not roleplaying.
Actually since the goal of many optimizers is to not fail, as is anyone else I find this to be false. If they really know what they are doing they will prepare for more than just combat so we might need a new term for someone focused strictly on combat. The term "optimizer" is definitely not it.
Hence, they easily fall into rpg traps/tricks due to bad abilities to utilize diplomacy, bad ways to avoid things like poisoning in intrigue, and many other items.
More bad information but carry on.
In fact, the bane of most optimizers is the trap dungeon.
Since getting jumped in a surprise round is bad for combat, and not losing in combat according to you, is the goal why not boost perception which also detects traps, even magical ones? <---rhetorical question.
But when the creatures aren't supposed to be fought at all...and if you do, they'll kill you (think that ancient Red dragon sleeping there, or the CR 30 critter), the one that optimizes for combat normally can be at a loss. They WANT to use this optimization, that's what their character is built for. It isn't built to avoid that challenge...they are built for conflict.
You do know that not losing involves not fighting things you can not defeat, so it kinda makes sense to have more options than "I stab it in the face". But like I said keep going.
You know what. I am going to stop right here since there are way to many false statement in this post you made.
Actually, go to the forums, 99% of those "optimization" posts are about combat builds. They have nothing to do with really building a good or rounded character.
Once again, in those forums stories abound about how some person with a build couldn't roleplay and were being harmful to a group.
In the forums, you have people who are the ONLY one in their group, or so they claim, that have an effective character and everyone else stinks...and what can they do (hint, it's not them, it's you).
These things about optimizers don't come around simply because...there's a reason behind the claim.
As with most claims.
And it's because there's a noticeable trend with many optimizers...it's also one...as one who occasionally optimizes, that I recognize.
You optimize focused on certain areas (almost ALWAY combat...), and you know what...you want to use that. I know I do. I may know of people that may be good optimizers and roleplayers, but I don't know a SINGLE ONE that would be happy to never use their character as designed. In fact, most would be unhappy (and as you see some complaint posts on these very forums) and some would even complain about how unfair their DM was for not allowing their character to shine.
It's seen on these forums all the time...it's not even something you have to really search hard for.
(Off topic of the posts...I have wondered if some of these optimizers that show up actually roleplay in groups as much. One reason I started playing around with the numbers in 3.5 was that I travelled a lot. On my travels I'd mess with the numbers and create "builds" as it were. It was something I did since I obviously wasn't roleplaying on a plane or on the bus or elsewhere. I enjoyed it, for me it was part of the roleplaying experience.
I find it absolutely legit. In that light, I also wonder how many do solo roleplaying but are afraid to state that is so. I have no problems with it, and just recently posited trying that as I would like roleplaying more often than the groups I rpg with meet. I have no doubt that there are those out there that do solo rpging all the time, and come to the forums as an expansion of that. In fact, I'd say some of the best optimizers and numbers guys probably do something like this...but are afraid to say it because they are afraid of how people may accept that idea.
I find it perfectly acceptable, but I think the social conundrum to condemn that type of roleplaying is prevalent on these forums. Personally, it's something I'm strongly looking into myself, as it gives more rpg experiences and you can flex all those "optimization" muscles you want with no fear of what others may think of it).
I don't consider players who consistently leave their PCs with a huge, obvious, gaping Achilles Heel to be optimising, either.
To me, the word 'optimal' means exactly that. Not too low as to be ineffective, but not so needlessly high to be a waste.
and yet on the advice forums, you constantly see these builds around combat and yet weak in many other areas.
People don't go for 12 skill point monkey rogues...as the rogues are "weak" in other areas, especially combat and hence a "lower tier" character.
This entire "optimized" for combat is one of the reasons you see Rogues, Monks, and others as a "lower tier" and Wizards as a "higher tier." Despite the fact that for lower level games (and I believe they've stated multiple times that the higher the level you go, the fewer gamers and games you have, which is one of the reasons Paizo has fewer high level modules and adventures, and more low and mid level ones) many of the "builds" are really lacking in most areas except for combat.
Don't get me wrong...I like optimization, but I'm not going to be blind and try to defend it as to say there is no trend. There is one and that's why they have the entire stereotype to begin with.
It's for the exact reason I stated. When I created a Rogue at high level that did 500-700 DPR (in the right situation), do you think I just wanted it to go to waste. That I built it for no reason at all?
People who create their builds WANT to use what they've created. And since most are focused on combat (as a simple perusal of many of the advice things go, especially when you analyze the builds they suggest), it stands to reason most people WANT to use what they've created their character to do.
When a game is combat oriented, they get to do that (and the assumption of many on these forums, IS a combat oriented game). When it is not, many of those builds are seriously gimped...but that's because most of the optimizers don't focus on a non-combat focused game.
The assumption is a combat focused arena (and as XP comes from overcoming obstacles, most assume that's combat...but it doesn't have to be a combat focused game). Builds are built accordingly.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't consider players who consistently leave their PCs with a huge, obvious, gaping Achilles Heel to be optimising, either.
To me, the word 'optimal' means exactly that. Not too low as to be ineffective, but not so needlessly high to be a waste.
and yet on the advice forums, you constantly see these builds around combat and yet weak in many other areas.
People don't go for 12 skill point monkey rogues...as the rogues are "weak" in other areas, especially combat and hence a "lower tier" character.
False argument. IF the choice was "have skill points" or "be weak in combat" you might have something.
But the fact is you can have your cake and eat it too. You can be a wizard and have more than enough skill points. You can be a bard and have more than enough skill points. You can be multiple other classes and have plenty of skill points.
What is not so easy to do is be a rogue with lots of skill points (we are talking about 8+1 human+1 favored class+2 int mod) and be a substantial contributor in combat.
Also most builds are not 'weak' in other areas. They have good saves, and other applications than 'just damage' unless they are specifically in the "damage counter" threads where it's an exercise in game mechanics instead of the actual building of a real character.
The problem is the rogue offers skills... and literally nothing else. If you want to fill the archetype you can do so with other classes and have a stronger character in almost all other areas too.
|
|
People don't stay away from Rogues, because they don't value the role of the 'skillful guy'; they avoid the Rogue, because the Rogue's only contribution is skills, and isn't even the best class at that.
'Having 8 skill points' is not a substitute for real class abilities. Your skill ranks are still capped by level. Traits can turn any other PC's skills into class skills. Versatile Performance means the Bard is effectively an 8-skill class, despite spending 6. And they can use other skills untrained, giving them respite through the early levels, so they don't spread too thin.
I do have a Rogue in Pathfinder Society, but I made him in Season Zero, and so deliberately made a simple character to go easy on GMs I didn't know, and which would be less likely to be invalidated when inevitably transferring him from D&D to PF rules.
If I were to make the same character today, I wouldn't use the Rogue class, I'd use something completely different, which did most if not everything equally well, plus other abilities on top, and he could still be the same character, as in personality, background, faction, goals, mannerisms, voice.
If anything, I'd be able to play him more convincingly, since the abilities on the page would more closely match the acrobatic, charming, learned scoundrel that existed in my head.
People don't stay away from Rogues, because they don't value the role of the 'skillful guy'; they avoid the Rogue, because the Rogue's only contribution is skills, and isn't even the best class at that.
'Having 8 skill points' is not a substitute for real class abilities. Your skill ranks are still capped by level. Traits can turn any other PC's skills into class skills. Versatile Performance means the Bard is effectively an 8-skill class, despite spending 6. And they can use other skills untrained, giving them respite through the early levels, so they don't spread too thin.
I do have a Rogue in Pathfinder Society, but I made him in Season Zero, and so deliberately made a simple character to go easy on GMs I didn't know, and which would be less likely to be invalidated when inevitably transferring him from D&D to PF rules.
If I were to make the same character today, I wouldn't use the Rogue class, I'd use something completely different, which did most if not everything equally well, plus other abilities on top, and he could still be the same character, as in personality, background, faction, goals, mannerisms, voice.
If anything, I'd be able to play him more convincingly, since the abilities on the page would more closely match the acrobatic, charming, learned scoundrel that existed in my head.
And I've shown that in many cases Rogues DO and CAN have more skills than others in general. Sure you can build an exception, but most don't simply because they want a combat build, and if you have another class that tries to be the skill monkey, they are even more seriously gimped then the Rogue is in other areas in many cases.
In fact, your is an excellent example of why people focus on COMBAT instead of SKILLS.
That said, a skillful player can make a Rogue deadlier than most can make their characters (referencing most to martials, but even spellcasters couldn't keep up with my one round kills in certain situations) if given the right situation (and that's the key, the RIGHT situation, as opposed to others who don't need that RIGHT situation). Sure, I can optimize...and the Rogue is actually not a bad class...
But, I haven't seen that many posts in the forums that focus on optimization not be seriously gimped in non-combat situations. Most of those so called "builds" would do great in my combat focused games, and be the worst character in any game that I run not combat focused.
It's because the optimizers don't optimize for anything but combat most of the time.
And they WANT to use those super powered up characters for what they were designed to do. They don't want to boost up the CHA of a Fighter, even if it's a Kingmaker type campaign where diplomacy of the ruler and knights is going to be key. In fact, most of the Kingmaker builds I've seen, unless the character is going to be a CHA base prime, don't have CHA as that important.
However, ironically, the Sorcerer or others with the high CHA aren't the ones they want ruling and using the CHA based checks the most...because for them, their Kingmaker isn't so much about the CHA and diplomacy, as it is killing all opposition.
It's the stereotype that optimizers play a certain way is built off the observations (NOT BY ME, I might add, this trend came around LOOONG before any comments I have made) by many multiple others.
This is why it's so hard to try to convince people otherwise...because when they've seen it with their own eyes, experienced it in their games...they know that many (that's not all...but there are many out there) optimizers simply don't do well roleplaying...
And to try to convince those who have already experienced it otherwise, is like trying to convince them they didn't experience what they experienced.
Which leads me to another thing, a LOT Of these optimizers don't appear in the games that I've seen. In fact, I see more of them on these forums than anywhere else. Which led me to the offtopic musing that maybe most of these optimizers played like I did no my travels where they have no one else to play with.
Or, and this is what I think would be even cooler, if most were solo roleplayers and played in their games on their own. This is something I'd like to actually see and get advice on in forums...as personally, that would be a great way to play. Plus, with playing that way, you'd have more time to utilize the rules, get familiar with them, and show much of the system mastery that many of the optimizers show in their builds.
PS: And yes, though I haven't seen it much in my games, it seems others have seen this in THEIR games...who knows, maybe I was one of those optimizers that gave them a headache. I know I've probably already given people major headaches in 5e already, and that's a game that I don't even care for all that much. Even for me, I can say there IS a distinct difference in my playstyle when I optimize the heck out of something just to do it, and when I actually sit down to roleplay a character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Skills are easily trumped by spells, even from cheap wands. Why have Climb ranks when you can spider climb? Why does invisibility provide a +20 bonus to Stealth, rendering all but an extreme number of ranks in that skill superfluous? And when it comes to magic traps, Preception is trumped by a cantrip. Therefore, "skill monkey" was very intentionally designed to be inferior in all respects to "spellcasting," whether in or out of combat.
Also, bard gets skills (more than the rogue, when you include Versatile Performace) AND spells, making them indisputably better than the rogue in that role.
|
|
Even then one has to be careful with some of the optimzation guides. One of them suggests a low strength I think it's a value of 9. The player in my group ignored that because once he built the character complete with equipment he was encumbered. As in his character could not move. Were not talking someone who had a lot of items either.
I suppose what bothers quite a bit is that the assumption that the player with the good build needs to somehow know without being told that he should not step on any of the other players toes so to speak. I can adapt to what is needed. I'm dead set on building a optimized character or even a good build. Just give me a heads yup. The assumption seems to be "well you made a good build because you know the rules. You must have done it on purpose"
|
|
And I've shown that in many cases Rogues DO and CAN have more skills than others in general. Sure you can build an exception, but most don't simply because they want a combat build, and if you have another class that tries to be the skill monkey, they are even more seriously gimped then the Rogue is in other areas in many cases.
You just ignored what I wrote.
Rogues do not have the most skill ranks.Bards have an effective 8 skill ranks/level, due to Versatile Performance, which gives the benefits of 2 skill ranks per level.
Thus if you are aiming for a class who is 'good at skills', a bard does the exact same thing a rogue does, plus numerous other skill-enhancing abilities on top, which allow them to make checks untrained, add level to knowledge rolls...
We haven't even begun to discuss the spellcasting...
That's a terrible indictment of the rogue, when another class is just flat-out better than you at your entire reason for existence, and still would be, even if you stripped the other class of all their casting ability.
Any feats that Rogues can choose to increase skill ranks, can be chosen by any other class; any equipment they can buy to be good at skills can be bought by every other class; any buff spell they can beg to increase their skill use could be better cast on another skilled class.
None of those things are relevant to the matter at hand.
When making a class comparison, only material that is present in the class description is valid for consideration.
I built a rogue for PFSoc, for simple reasons, which had nothing to do with combat. We were told PFSoc scenario success conditions would be very reliant on skill use, and some of the skilled classes like bard were still in a state of contention. It was during the transition year, when the Alpha/Beta PF rules were still in flux, and my assumption was that, given the rogue was the class still waiting for its revamp, and the one most in need of a lift, they would be given more abilities to make them viable, and other classes would have some of their new shinies scaled back, so there would be some parity. That didn't happen; I've had to wait a further 5 years to see the changes I would have expected to see in 2009 being used for the Investigator.
So I have a character that mainly comes out when I need to make up a table at a specific subtier. Not one that I'm champing at the bit, going "Ohboyohboyohboy! I can't wait to get started so I can show everyone the amazing things that this character can do, that only his class can do!"
I still can enjoy the scenarios he takes part in, but that is very much more dependent on having a good mix of NSFW players to riff off, and a steady flow of booze, than anything inherent in his capabilities.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've had to wait a further 5 years to see the changes I would have expected to see in 2009 being used for the Investigator.
At the rist of derailing, wow -- I just looked at the Investigator
In short, why anyone would play a rogue when this class is available is beyond me entirely -- it would be like playing a warrior instead of a fighter.
Investigator is what you go with when you want to be rewarded for being useless in combat.
I might argue that a bard can be better at this, if you try.
|
It really seems they split the rogue concept between investigator and slayer, giving the skill focus to the first and the combat focus to the second. However, even with different focuses, they both still hold their own in the other area. It's like if they were combined you would have 3x the rogue, not just the expected 2x. And on top of each one being 1.5x the rogue, they are also more focused, which is a positive trait in pathfinder.
The mechanics are the ruleset and that is the game, not the story.
You are using semantics here. You say "the mechanics are the game". I would say "the story is the game". For you the mechanics seems to be the most important part. For me it is the least. I choose the mechanics that my players know, and it will be easiest to get them on board (is there where I would use "full stop?" Nah, I wouldn't use it.) Then I make the rules work to serve the story I want to tell.
Mechanics are vital to something being a "game" in general, whereas storytelling is not. But that's a very different thing from "the mechanics is the game". Mechanics may be necessary, but they are certainly not alone sufficient for something to be a game such as D&D/Pathfinder. For that, storytelling is also necessary. Otherwise, you're playing Risk, not D&D.
The mechanics are the ruleset and that is the game, not the story.
You are using semantics here. You say "the mechanics are the game". I would say "the story is the game". For you the mechanics seems to be the most important part. For me it is the least. I choose the mechanics that my players know, and it will be easiest to get them on board (is there where I would use "full stop?" Nah, I wouldn't use it.) Then I make the rules work to serve the story I want to tell.
Mechanics are vital to something being a "game" in general, whereas storytelling is not. But that's a very different thing from "the mechanics is the game". Mechanics may be necessary, but they are certainly not alone sufficient for something to be a game such as D&D/Pathfinder. For that, storytelling is also necessary. Otherwise, you're playing Risk, not D&D.
Just because you link a logical fallacy does not make your analysis true.
Mechanics do define the game. Storytelling is defined and included within the game, it's just that there are no obvious mechanics included within Pathfinder, so the definition and execution of storytelling differ widely from table to table. That is actually a very purposeful feature of the game and not a mistake.
There are lots of other games that do include mechanical features that impact the story telling of the game. There are even board games that do that (tell a story).
Your position also excludes the concept that mechanics can (and do) impact story telling. Fiasco is massively different from D&D, but they're both roleplaying games. In Fiasco, I do horrible, horrible things to my characters. I kill them off, ruin their careers and abandon them to live in sex dungeons as someone else's slave quite regularly. The mechanics of that game encourage me to tell that kind of story.
Another example that's a favorite of mine is Mythender. It's a game about power, survival and free will. You can grab the power of a god quite easily in that game, but you risk losing your free will by doing so. If you don't take enough power though, you risk dying. The game's mechanics purposely push you into this kind of story. There's different ways to interpret that story, you can have a heavy metal song about ripping the earth asunder, or you can have an emo shoe gazing song about how hard your life is. I've played both and enjoy both, but the fundamental themes of the game remain: power, survival and free will.
In Pathfinder, it's more subtle, but the impact on mechanics is still there. For one, it dictates player choice. The game is highly focused on combat and using violence to achieve one's ends. The primary reward drivers (XP and money) are gained from fighting. The game rewards you for being good at combat (a big reason why a lot of people try to optimize).
Second, the game also dictates reality with it's rules. Everything from skills, feats, classes to spells and magic items define what is and is not possible within the game world. That impacts how reality is shaped within the story.
Mechanics are the fundamental driver of how we shape and interact with our stories in RPG's. I agree they aren't the sole factor, the people sitting around the table have a lot to do with it as well, but the game they choose and how they use that game is massively important.
Greywolf just because some people do things that does not mean others with similar view points are exactly the same. As an example no optimizer that I know leaves these glaring weaknesses you speak of. Anyone can write a character guide so that is not even a convincing argument. In addition being unhappy because the GM has nothing to do with being an optimizer. Commonly they might be referred to as munchkins depending on the severity of the case. Yeah I am convinced that you really dont know what that word means.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have always thought of an optimiser is someone who is specialized with a specific build in mind. Yet the are not super weak in any certain area.
A min/maxer is someone who is so focused that all other parts of their character are very lacking. They are gambling that they can end encounters quickly enough or other characters will cover their gaping holes.
Actually a min/maxer is someone who takes the maximum amount of weaknesses he can have with the minimum impact on his character's power or survivability. The term was coined for point buy systems, but it has exploded in popularity and now is sometimes used synonymously with power gamer or optimizer.
Edit: A good example is dumping a stat you will not need to 7.
I think min-maxing is what Triomega describes but some GM's hate stat dumping.
Optimizing is really nothing more than building to accomplish a certain thing, which everyone does, but we tend to associate with trying to make a powerful build which may not always be true.
Munchkins bend/break rules or try to push them as far as the GM will allow.
I don't think we have a word for people who try to make powerful characters but end up with glaring weaknesses in the process. --->"Hey I can do 500 damage per round at level 10, but I have a -5 for my will save." <---Most people who optimize do not want to be that guy, and yes that is hyperbole, so don't take it literally.