PDA

View Full Version : Why those blinkered Grognards don't want your optimization advice



Mike_G
2009-09-11, 06:30 PM
Or,

Why we enjoy being wrong.

Many threads here focus on how to play more effectively, which is a fine and good thing, and many degenerate into the standard answers which have been exhaustively proven through number crunching.

Again, this is fine. It's one of the things such a forum is for.

But one thing that people can't seem to wrap their heads around is why some people don't want their obviously sound advice, particularly people who insist on playing sword and Board fighters who refuse to climb the Power Attack tree, or who like blaster Wizards, or God help us, prefer Monks to Swordsages.

One answer is that many of us learned D&D under the older editions, or learned with veterans of the older editions, and in AD&D, those choices made sense.

I cut my teeth on 1st edition. I know little of second, and I'm not shooting for an edition war, just trying to show ho we can be so wrong and so unconcerned.

I have helpfully broken the explanation into nice spoilered chunks to avoid the Wall o' Text.

Sword and Board


In AD&D, Power Attack did not exist (actually no feats existed) and there was no multiplying Str bonus for two handed weapons, so the damage output of a two Handed sword (we didn't have these fancy "Greatswords") was little better than Longsword and shield, (ie 1d10 + Str bonus for a two hander vs 1d8+ Str bonus for S&B.) The S&B fighter got 1 less point of damage on average, and had 1 point better AC. Pretty much an even trade. And if you used the random treasure tables, magic Longswords came along more often than magic two handers, so S&B tended to work out better.

And nobody could outfight the Fighter, because only Fighters could benefit from Strength over 18 or Con over 16. Really.

So, if you picked up 3e after years of AD&D, building a Sword and Board fighter was a perfectly logical thing to do.


Blaster Casters


In AD&D, blasting made sense. Everybody had fewer HP, so the oft maligned 17 damage from a Fireball actually meant something. Monsters didn't gte Con bonuses to HP,just straight d8 HD. The iconic Huge Ancient Red Dragon had 88 HP.

The flip side of that was that Saves were much easier to make. There was no way to bump up the DC, it was a static target number based on the enemy's HD. Your high Int did nothing to his save. We didn't have those newfangled Metamagic Feats either, so forget that. And there was no "targeting the weak save." Saves were versus Spells, or Wands or Poison, etc, so no casting Sleep on the guy with a lousy Will and Fireball on the lousy Reflex. Although Paralysation and Death Magic went under poison, so that was sort of a fort save, but that's AD&D for you. The point is. Save or Die was often a wasted action. Blasting always did something. even if it was just the half damage on a save.

Spell resistance was a flat percentage for monsters who had it. Mind Flayer, 90% SR, no way to lower it, so best to Rock To Mud the ceiling and drop it on him. Or buff the Fighter and send him in.

Add to that the fact that wizards had fewer slots, the Wiz/ftr imbalance was much less noticeable until high levels, and leveling was much slower and cost the Wizard more exp than everyone else.



Healbot Cleric


This wasn't a choice, this was the way it was. You could Heal, you could Turn or you could fight worse than the Fighter. You had worse weapons than the Fighter, and couldn't have Exceptional Strength or get more then +2 HP/die from Con, so outshing the Fighter was unlikely. Even the Archer Cleric wasn't much of an option, since all you could use for a missile weapon was a sling.

Finding a player who like playing Clerics was like finding a girlfriend whose favorite things were sports, beer and oral sex. Jackpot.

3e had to bump up the cleric so somebody would play one. This power-up led to CoDzilla.


Thief -er- I mean Rogue


This was the only skillmonkey class. Skills and backstabs. This class role has changed the least between editions. Arguably outshined by splatbook options, like Beguiler or Factotum, but less shafted than the poor fighter, and not really outdone at his own role in Core 3e.


Ok, so that's why we're wrong. The game has changed, options that worked fine thirty years ago have been made obsolete. But, when we first picked up 3e, is it any surprise that that's the party we'd make? Heck, we needed an NPC Cleric in my first 3e party, because nobody wanted to be burdened playing the Cleric.

Now, the "Old School" D&D party works just fine for 3e. It's fun. It' easy. The CR system almost makes sense if you play that way.

The problem only comes along when most of the party is playing that way, and somebody builds CoDzilla or a God wizard or what have you.

Admittedly, at high level, the system breaks even if you do play as God Gygax intended, but up through the early double digits, things work ok.

Why we don't care that we're wrong


It's been said that people who won't optimize are a burden to the party, or we're too lazy or stupid. so much so, that we're probably unemployed, or if not, we work at a job that monkeys could do.

Seeing as I work 64 hours a week as a Paramedic, I don't think lazy is it, and while optimizing a Chain tripper does take some basic math skills, it's not beyond a guy who can do cardiology and pharmacology on the fly.

The short answer is time investment. I could build an optimized Warblade, or fully tricked out Wizard, but between the job and the kid and working on my novel and fencing and maintaining my house and not neglecting my sex life, well, maybe I'll just make a Sword and Board Fighter with Weapon Focus and Dodge and then go back to the rest of my life.

The four hours per week I game is set aside carefully. To devote more in between games crunching the Power Attack cutoffs or memorizing Stone Dragon maneuvers would cut into the lifesaving or the father/son bonding or the novel or the sex, so....I'll pass.


Nothing at all wrong with the Optimized All Caster All Star party.

But some people like to play a different way. And that's why some of us reject all the "help" that the optimizers "offer."

Yukitsu
2009-09-11, 06:36 PM
Can we harass them if they A) complain that class or style XY or Z is overshadowing them or B) if they ask for optimization advice?

Frosty
2009-09-11, 06:38 PM
Some classes require more book-keeping to be powerful. Some...not so much. It takes equal amounts of effort to build a Warblade as it is a fighter, and just a tad more effort during play to...play. SoD wizards also only take a marginal amount more effort to build and play.

Now druids I can understand. WAY too much paperwork. Gotta stat out your various forms, your companion, your summons, etc.

Starbuck_II
2009-09-11, 06:44 PM
Theif -er- I mean Rogue


This was the only skillmonkey class. Skills and backstabs. This class role has changed the least between editions. Arguably outshined by splatbook options, like Beguiler or Factotum, but less shafted than the poor fighter, and not really outdone at his own role in Core 3e.



Thief never changed. Backstab was all your damage back then.
You wanted to be invisible if you could help it. Heck even if you couldn't.

Remember that meant x4-x5 damage (almost all damage bonus was increased)
This nmeant scrolls, potions, etc of invisibility.
Hope your ally Wizard cast Glitterdust (which was still pretty awesome back then).


The short answer is time investment. I could build an optimized Warblade, or fully tricked out Wizard, but between the job and the kid and working on my novel and fencing and maintaining my house and not neglecting my sex life, well, maybe I'll just make a Sword and Board Fighter with Weapon Focus and Dodge and then go back to the rest of my life.


How do you play an unoptimized Warblade?
I'm really curious here.

Eldariel
2009-09-11, 06:45 PM
Blaster Casters


In AD&D, blasting made sense. Everybody had fewer HP, so the oft maligned 17 damage from a Fireball actually meant something. Monsters didn't gte Con bonuses to HP,just straight d8 HD. The iconic Huge Ancient Red Dragon had 88 HP.

The flip side of that was that Saves were much easier to make. There was no way to bump up the DC, it was a static target number based on the enemy's HD. Your high Int did nothing to his save. We didn't have those newfangled Metamagic Feats either, so forget that. And there was no "targeting the weak save." Saves were versus Spells, or Wands or Poison, etc, so no casting Sleep on the guy with a lousy Will and Fireball on the lousy Reflex. Although Paralysation and Death Magic went under poison, so that was sort of a fort save, but that's AD&D for you. The point is. Save or Die was often a wasted action. Blasting always did something. even if it was just the half damage on a save.

Spell resistance was a flat percentage for monsters who had it. Mind Flayer, 90% SR, no way to lower it, so best to Rock To Mud the ceiling and drop it on him. Or buff the Fighter and send him in.

Add to that the fact that wizards had fewer slots, the Wiz/ftr imbalance was much less noticeable until high levels, and leveling was much slower and cost the Wizard more exp than everyone else.


Just one point. 2nd Edition AD&D had Lower Resistance which worked on anything. Sufficient castings of Lower Resistance made anything fully vulnerable to magic. Of course, until Spell Matrixes and such were available, it was really slow to pull off sufficient Lower Resistances to get through, but the tool existed.


Also, I think even with all the splatbooks, the Rogue is still the best-balanced class in 3.5 (aside from the level 20); its abilities are never totally eclipsed by any other class and it has a great progression and fills many nichés and overall just kicks ass.

Rogue gets more points (as a base; 14 Int Rogue = 18 Int Factotum) and better SA than the Factotum, better offense than the Beguiler, etc. Perfect.

Jergmo
2009-09-11, 06:49 PM
*Clears throat nervously, wringing hat* Hello, my name is Jergmo, I started D&D with 3.5, and I see no problem with making a Sword and Board fighter with Dodge after Combat Expertise.

Sinfire Titan
2009-09-11, 06:58 PM
How do you play an unoptimized Warblade?
I'm really curious here.

Never using maneuvers is a great way to start. Spamming the same low-level ones every other round is another, and taking poor feats is a 3rd. A Warblade's feat selection almost never matters if you are just trying to build a decent (read: mildly optimized) Warblade, but taking nothing but skill boosting feats is a good way to mess a Warblade character up. As long as 4 of your feats are combat-oriented (or even from the Bo9S itself; there's some decent feats in there for any martial adept), the class is nearly impossible to cripple during character creation.

Salvonus
2009-09-11, 07:06 PM
Absolutely pointless opinion of a lurker:

There's obviously nothing wrong with playing a game the way you want to. :smalltongue: The only way to "do it wrong" is not have fun. That's absolutely common sense.

If someone solicits optimisation advice, it's certainly valid to give them the best options available.

Case 1: If someone asks specifically about the "Monk" class and doesn't seem to know about the more optimised options, then a mention of Unarmed Swordsage and some advice pertaining to actual "Monk" optimisation would be best. If the person then replies that they don't wish to use the more optimised option, that should be the end of story. If they seem to be basing things off of strange myths (i.e. ToB is overpowered, oh noes!), a PM with a helpful tone (a rarity in some threads) debunking some of those myths would be a very nice thing to do.

Case 2: If someone asks specifically about the "Monk" class and specifies that, say, they don't want to make a ToB character, that's their prerogative and a helpful person would probably respect that and give actual "Monk" advice. Again, if this is based off myths, a helpful PM would be a nice idea, but it should be left at that.

If someone is seeming to be less-than-helpful (i.e. going "lol u fail" at someone for wanting to play a specific class), people need to learn to ignore them. Even if they're not intentionally trying to get a rise out of someone, it's still having that effect on some level.

That seems quite simple, no? Then again, I don't spend much time in this part of the boards... But I do see enough to witness that "lol u fail" sort of abrasiveness. That's actually why I avoid this particular section of GiantITP... So, pardon the occasional lurker, but when exactly does the problem that the OP mentioned occur?

(Also, the absolute worst way to convince a person of something is to say "you're wrong" in an abrasive manner. Basically, the "lol u fail" style of "education" is only going to further entrench someone's beliefs.)

Foryn Gilnith
2009-09-11, 07:23 PM
If help is offered, does it really cut into your real life at all? You're taking the effort to read the optimizers' posts, and it would take no more than twice the time to pay attention. Just copy+paste the build, appease your powergaming buddies, and show up to roleplay and have fun with guys you know.As Frosty commented, many "more powerful" mechanics aren't more work to keep track of.

Zincorium
2009-09-11, 07:24 PM
I've played from the original AD&D onwards, and I have no problem with new editions. Or new games.

The problem I've seen on the boards is that, if you aren't completely new and aren't looking for a more powerful character than you can build on your own, then there's no reason to even ask other people for advice.

If playing a monk/soulknife/dread pirate is your idea of a good time, then just play one. Don't expect people to give you good advice, or approve of your choice of character.

Also, anyone who believes that mechanical character building aptitude has any bearing whatsoever on roleplaying ability really yanks my chain. And I mean that both ways.

shadow_archmagi
2009-09-11, 07:34 PM
The problem I've seen on the boards is that, if you aren't completely new and aren't looking for a more powerful character than you can build on your own, then there's no reason to even ask other people for advice.


I'm trying to think of a situation in which a player who was not new and did not want advice on improving his character would solicit optimization advice.

imperialspectre
2009-09-11, 07:36 PM
Mike:

I've actually played 2e, although I started on 3.5 and still mostly play it. Between playing Baldur's Gate and PnP 2e, I can see definite parallels with your explanation of how an AD&D player would approach 3e in the way that you describe. So, in a lot of ways, the OP makes sense and I can understand where you're coming from.

The problem is, I've never seen CO people jumping into everyone else's threads and telling them they're wrong, except when the thread is a) about issues of mechanical balance, or b) requesting help in building a character. For the former, the discussion is about how the system actually works in the relevant edition, so personal preferences in terms of playing the game aren't the issue. For the latter, seems to me that if the thread is about helping build a character, those of us who did invest a lot of time and energy in learning the system really ought to be giving advice on what's mechanically optimal.

So what's your beef with us? It seems like the thread's kind of attacking a straw target, because I've never seen anyone trying to make your group play differently. If you have fun in your group of a blaster, healbot, turtle, and thief, and your DM doesn't run encounters that kill that party*, enjoy! I might even join you guys sometime.

*Mine did, just by pulling CR-appropriate monsters out of the Monster Manual. I stopped casting Fireball and started casting Glitterdust, and the group's casualty rate plummeted.

Kurald Galain
2009-09-11, 07:36 PM
Really? I think Thief/Rogue changed the most between editions. In 1E/2E, they primarily were a skill character that stayed out of combat (having mediocre offense and defense, and doing 1d6 x3 instead of 1d6 isn't that big a deal).

Whereas in 3E/4E, they are (one of) the heaviest damage dealers in the game (doing 1d6 + 5d6 sneak attack is quite a bit more, and the ways of getting Sneak Attack damage have increased manifold).

Mike_G
2009-09-11, 07:40 PM
Just one point. 2nd Edition AD&D had Lower Resistance which worked on anything. Sufficient castings of Lower Resistance made anything fully vulnerable to magic. Of course, until Spell Matrixes and such were available, it was really slow to pull off sufficient Lower Resistances to get through, but the tool existed.


I never played 2nd edition. Or maybe I played one or two adventures, but never played it as my primary system. By the time it came out we were in the phase of experimenting with other systems like runeQuest, GURPS, Harnmaster, Rolemaster, etc.

I gather that a lot of 3e ideas began as 2e options.




Also, I think even with all the splatbooks, the Rogue is still the best-balanced class in 3.5 (aside from the level 20); its abilities are never totally eclipsed by any other class and it has a great progression and fills many nichés and overall just kicks ass.

Rogue gets more points (as a base; 14 Int Rogue = 18 Int Factotum) and better SA than the Factotum, better offense than the Beguiler, etc. Perfect.

I still like Rogues. I think they've had the least overhauling between editions. Most of the hard core optimizers on the boards prefer the castery types, like Beguiler, though.

RelentlessImp
2009-09-11, 07:45 PM
I just want to say that I was that 'jackpot' player in 2E. I loved Clerics (and still do) - but they weren't *that bad*. My favorite character was a Half-Elf Ranger/Cleric. He was pretty close on par with the Fighter of the party, and could toss out some nice spells (Blade Barrier in the center of melee, for instance).

The 3.0/3.5 power up of Clerics has made me love them more.


On topic, I can see where you're coming from - but, even in 2E, optimization existed. Making the mechanically best choice for your character, and people advising you to do so, isn't something optimizers shove down your throat (unless they have Giacomo levels of hate) - it's advice, pure and simple, and when advice is asked, it's given. Take it or leave it.

Inflammatory posts aren't going to get your point across any more than the optimizers giving you advice is going to get their point across. s'all I'm going to say.

Eldariel
2009-09-11, 07:48 PM
I still like Rogues. I think they've had the least overhauling between editions. Most of the hard core optimizers on the boards prefer the castery types, like Beguiler, though.

Yeah, Beguiler is slightly stronger 'cause of the way XP works in 3.5 (suddenly all classes level at the same rate and yet they also gain abilities on the same levels as before; before Mage would be what would be our equivalent of level Rogue 6 when he was level 3 and got 2nd level spells...), which is yet another thing that made casting more insane than before.

That said, thanks to skill system of 3.5 (and the itemization of the game which skyrocketed the value of UMD), the fact that SA > Backstab and you can SA multiple times in one turn, Rogue hangs around just fine; he isn't quite as strong as Beguiler, but he has a very different set of abilities and can actually perform things nobody else can and has his role in the party.


Having an assassination-capable sneak with very solid damage output and decent capabilities to wiggle out of any problems along with great Hide/Move Silently/etc. is very, very useful. So unless someone is asking for advice from purely power perspective, I wouldn't point them away from the Rogue and indeed, I don't think it really happens a lot.


Rogues still do the Rogue-shtick better than anyone else, and Rogue 20 (well, Rogue 19 anyways; god, the lack of ANYTHING on 20 is so annoying...) is a perfectly viable build next to Rogue 16/Swashbuckler 4, Rogue 15/Swordsage 2/Swashbuckler 3, Rogue 4/Swashbuckler 16, Beguiler 20, Factotum 8/Chameleon 10/Warblade 2, etc.

Raum
2009-09-11, 07:50 PM
It's been said that people who won't optimize are a burden to the party, or we're too lazy or stupid. so much so, that we're probably unemployed, or if not, we work at a job that monkeys could do.

Seeing as I work 64 hours a week as a Paramedic...Damn, you make me feel guilty for carping about the 45-55 hour weeks I work. :smallredface:

I've seen some of the posts you're talking about...my usual reaction is "Meh, that again?" They're just bits on the ethernet. It's occasionally irritating to get the same response for the umpteenth time instead of a more creative solution but, it is easy to ignore. Or maybe I've just gotten used to being "that old fart". :smallwink:

Sinfire Titan
2009-09-11, 07:57 PM
*Mine did, just by pulling CR-appropriate monsters out of the Monster Manual. I stopped casting Fireball and started casting Glitterdust, and the group's casualty rate plummeted.

This is what I agree with most about your post. If the objective of the campaign is dying in hilarious situations, then by all means make your character sub-optimal at combat. But in a serious campaign, like the Tomb of Horrors, playing a sub-optimal character means the following:


You soak up XP for the characters who do matter.
You absorb treasure that could be put to use in other ways, mainly by converting GP into items specifically designed for your build/concept.
You waste time rerolling a new character/prowling the forums for information for a new character.
The DM has to go out of his way to include you in the party. Valuable story information is lost IC every time you bring a new character to the table.
Worse still, you waste actual money on character sheets, pencils, and printer ink every so often (I don't care how careful you are, unless you are using dry-erase boards and nothing but, you are going to need to replace a character sheet eventually, and that costs some money no matter how incignificant the price may seem. Printer ink is expensive and WotC-made sheets are just as pricey).
Finally, it's rather hard to run a long campaign if the party keeps getting killed because they don't want to optimize.


If you come to the table with a character who isn't able to survive encounters on a regular basis, be prepared to be kicked out of my group/charged for character sheets. I provide a majority of the blank character sheets for my play group, and I do not like having to replace them for any reason. If I am replacing them for you specifically, I will charge you money every session to compensate my costs.

That's the mindset I hold as a DM, and when offering optimization advice online. Party optimization is important to me for those reasons.

Mike_G
2009-09-11, 08:00 PM
Mike:

I've actually played 2e, although I started on 3.5 and still mostly play it. Between playing Baldur's Gate and PnP 2e, I can see definite parallels with your explanation of how an AD&D player would approach 3e in the way that you describe. So, in a lot of ways, the OP makes sense and I can understand where you're coming from.

The problem is, I've never seen CO people jumping into everyone else's threads and telling them they're wrong, except when the thread is a) about issues of mechanical balance, or b) requesting help in building a character. For the former, the discussion is about how the system actually works in the relevant edition, so personal preferences in terms of playing the game aren't the issue. For the latter, seems to me that if the thread is about helping build a character, those of us who did invest a lot of time and energy in learning the system really ought to be giving advice on what's mechanically optimal.

So what's your beef with us?



It's not so much a beef as an observation.

In quite a few threads, when they bog down to "Then pull out the spreadsheet and show your DM he's wrong!" the condescension gets under my skin a bit. Often, posters seem baffled when people won't accept the advice of the forum, even when it's advice they asked not to have, like "play a Warblade and call it a Fighter."

The other, particular trigger for this was the comment in the Druids and Fighter thread about how players who weren't interested in optimizing were obviously lazy or stupid.

Them's fightin' words.



It seems like the thread's kind of attacking a straw target, because I've never seen anyone trying to make your group play differently. If you have fun in your group of a blaster, healbot, turtle, and thief, and your DM doesn't run encounters that kill that party*, enjoy! I might even join you guys sometime.

*Mine did, just by pulling CR-appropriate monsters out of the Monster Manual. I stopped casting Fireball and started casting Glitterdust, and the group's casualty rate plummeted.

It's not a straw target, if you read some of the dismissive and frankly insulting comments about people who just don't want to pull out all the stops.

I could link to some, but it's not hard to find that kind of thing.

Edit: Like the one right above this!!

loopy
2009-09-11, 08:15 PM
The reason I don't necessarily want to be optomised is easy:

-I'm the only player in my group who bothers optomising at all.

The other players in my group, one will play some variant of a ranger every single game... while the other plays dwarven fighter types. I like making my character do interesting things, but it does *not* take much at all to leave those guys in the dust.

And you know what? I'm fine with that. It can be frustrating occasionally when I have a cool idea for a Swashbuckler 3/Factotum X/Yada yada, but can't play it due to the other players continuing to be fine with their ranger, but hey, I'm the one with the hours of spare time every week, I don't have kids, or a full time job.

So yeah, if I ask for your advice, please forgive me if I only adopt bits of it, and if I'm asking for, say, an optomised monk, it means that I'm using an intentionally sub-par class to cancel out some of the imba-ness I'll get through optomising, not that I want to play a unarmed swordsage variant.

Thanks!
*stops hijacking thread*

Foryn Gilnith
2009-09-11, 08:17 PM
The other, particular trigger for this was the comment in the Druids and Fighter thread about how players who weren't interested in optimizing were obviously lazy or stupid.
Then leave that damned foolishness in that thread instead of dragging it and the associated ill will out here. Leave idiocy alone, in isolation, and it will expose itself. Don't bring it out, give it its own thread, and start throwing around more fighting words.


Also, if I had a player whose character died every session, presumably even after the other players and I tried to correct the problem, and continually mooched off me for expensive character sheets, I'd be angry too.

Keld Denar
2009-09-11, 08:19 PM
I'm gonna agree with Sinfire on all points but 5. 5 is kinda stupid. D&D is a hobby, and even as much as people bemoan all of the book costs and whatnot, its actually a rather cheap one. You want an expensive hobby? Try horseback riding. Anyway, one doesn't HAVE to play, and if one chooses to play, he/she shouldn't bemoan the cost. Most forms of entertainment have costs associated with them. Watching TV, brousing the intarwebz, playing basketball on a public court, whatever, there is always a cost associated with entertainment. Even if you bum a ride to the game, don't chip in for pizza/beer/soda, get office supplies from work, borrow all the books you need, it still takes time which is essentially an opportunity cost. Entertainment has a cost. If you don't want to pay the cost, however insignificant, then you can stare at a wall and like it.

If you want to begrudge someone the cash cause their characters keep dying, you are being a bit rediculous, IMO. The rest of the points I seriously agree with. Perpetually dying characters hurts game continuity, character immersion and growth (there is a reason most Ensign Redshirts don't have more personality than their name, if that, character developement takes time!) and argueably cost a busy player MORE time building shoddy characters than it would have taken to solicite a small amount of CharOp experience from the masses.

CharOp, because its much harder to RP when you're dead.

Tyrrell
2009-09-11, 08:24 PM
Blaster Casters

Spell resistance was a flat percentage for monsters who had it. Mind Flayer, 90% SR, no way to lower it, so best to Rock To Mud the ceiling and drop it on him. Or buff the Fighter and send him in.


While I agree with the tactics my sense of pedantry must point out that magic resistance was based off of an 11th level caster (when you finally became a "wizard") it went up by 5% by every level that you were below 11 and down 5% by every level you were above 11. Which was very sad because who really played frequently above level 11 in those days? Not me, it took far too many xp to reach such "high level play", I think I had only 2 characters above level 11 for all of my years with 1rst ed AD&D and in both occasions they started fairly high.

Jergmo
2009-09-11, 08:25 PM
Rogue 4/Swashbuckler 16

Pfft, nobody takes more than 3 levels of Swashbuckler. :smalltongue:


Worse still, you waste actual money on character sheets, pencils, and printer ink every so often (I don't care how careful you are, unless you are using dry-erase boards and nothing but, you are going to need to replace a character sheet eventually, and that costs some money no matter how incignificant the price may seem. Printer ink is expensive and WotC-made sheets are just as pricey).


Why not just write in pencil and erase stuff instead of replacing character sheets?

Sinfire Titan
2009-09-11, 08:26 PM
I'm gonna agree with Sinfire on all points but 5. 5 is kinda stupid. D&D is a hobby, and even as much as people bemoan all of the book costs and whatnot, its actually a rather cheap one. You want an expensive hobby? Try horseback riding. Anyway, one doesn't HAVE to play, and if one chooses to play, he/she shouldn't bemoan the cost. Most forms of entertainment have costs associated with them. Watching TV, brousing the intarwebz, playing basketball on a public court, whatever, there is always a cost associated with entertainment. Even if you bum a ride to the game, don't chip in for pizza/beer/soda, get office supplies from work, borrow all the books you need, it still takes time which is essentially an opportunity cost. Entertainment has a cost. If you don't want to pay the cost, however insignificant, then you can stare at a wall and like it.

I'm sorry, it may not seem that relevant to you, but I get $50 a month in spending money because I do not qualify for unemployment benefits. A majority of that has to go towards food, leaving me with a cumulative $4 every month for free spending.

It may not seem cheap to those of you who have jobs/allowances, but for those of us who have to pay for our printer ink using less than $5 a month for that purpose, it is expensive.

BTW, the requirement for getting Unemployment in my city is that you need 6 months of paid income prior to being laid off. I had 2 weeks at my last job, and haven't been hired since. It's been 2 years since I had that job.

So yes, I literally live off of $50 a month. Not to complain here, but when people ask me to waste my money for the sake of a game like DnD, I very well better be getting my money's worth.

I do agree with the rest of your post, but there are circumstances where charging money for game play is reasonable.

Eldariel
2009-09-11, 08:29 PM
Pfft, nobody takes more than 3 levels of Swashbuckler. :smalltongue:

Honestly, the extra attack isn't all that horrible :smalltongue: Daring Outlaw, etc.

LurkerInPlayground
2009-09-11, 08:33 PM
This is what I agree with most about your post. If the objective of the campaign is dying in hilarious situations, then by all means make your character sub-optimal at combat. But in a serious campaign, like the Tomb of Horrors, playing a sub-optimal character means the following:


You soak up XP for the characters who do matter.
You absorb treasure that could be put to use in other ways, mainly by converting GP into items specifically designed for your build/concept.
You waste time rerolling a new character/prowling the forums for information for a new character.
The DM has to go out of his way to include you in the party. Valuable story information is lost IC every time you bring a new character to the table.
Worse still, you waste actual money on character sheets, pencils, and printer ink every so often (I don't care how careful you are, unless you are using dry-erase boards and nothing but, you are going to need to replace a character sheet eventually, and that costs some money no matter how incignificant the price may seem. Printer ink is expensive and WotC-made sheets are just as pricey).
Finally, it's rather hard to run a long campaign if the party keeps getting killed because they don't want to optimize.


If you come to the table with a character who isn't able to survive encounters on a regular basis, be prepared to be kicked out of my group/charged for character sheets. I provide a majority of the blank character sheets for my play group, and I do not like having to replace them for any reason. If I am replacing them for you specifically, I will charge you money every session to compensate my costs.

That's the mindset I hold as a DM, and when offering optimization advice online. Party optimization is important to me for those reasons.
Of course, back then, many people wrote their characters down on notebook paper. And character generation is relatively quicker because there's only so many ways that you can build a character.

So I'd say that high lethality was less of issue then.

Personally, I'd say that's part of the problem of more recent versions of D&D. If optimization becomes some sort of moral obligation, it's kind of the fault of the rules.

ChaosDefender24
2009-09-11, 08:34 PM
because the DM can declare "rocks fall everyone dies" no matter what so it really doesn't matter whether it's a warblade or a warmage as long as the DM's willing to work with you which he should.

Roderick_BR
2009-09-11, 08:42 PM
Awesome post. I agree 100% :smallbiggrin:
True, true. 3E has an awful balance, and some classes are easier to play than others, and others are easier to optmize (or make it suck).
Advice on how to make a stronger character is always welcome, but when it starts getting into the "you are doing it wrong", is when it stops being fun, and the "optmizers" become trolls.

I didn't get to play 1st edition like my friends did, but I did start on AD&D, and I was the only cleric in my party. We did have a druid, but he never optmized, he just memorized healings, and used wildshape to cross places or flee, and it always worked out to us.

Roderick_BR
2009-09-11, 08:46 PM
(Read original post)

Why so ssserious?

Wow, if you take your game SO serious, and demands money from your friends because their character "who isn't able to survive encounters on a regular basis" if they wanted to play something fun instead of playing chess/Magic the Gathering with D&D? I wouldn't be kicked from your gaming group. I wouldn't be friends with someone like you.

Keld Denar
2009-09-11, 08:46 PM
I do agree with the rest of your post, but there are circumstances where charging money for game play is reasonable.

So, stop holding the players hand. Tell him to buy his own character sheets if he's gonna tear through them, or start writing his sheets on the back of a bar napkin. Either way, its not your fault and its not your responsibility. If the player insists that he won't play unless you provide his sheets, calmly restate your employment circumstances listed above, tell said player to stop being a moochy douche, and punt him (figuratively, of course) from the gaming group.

I mean, sorry, but your story sounds the same as the one of the man going into see a doctor complaining of hand pains. When the doctor asks the man why his hand hurts, the man explains that he keeps hitting it with a hammer. Simple solution to remove hand pains? Stop hitting yourself with a hammer...

Similarly, person on internet complains that his friends poor character building skills are costing him money because he keeps giving sheets to the problem player. Simple solution...stop giving sheets to the problem player.

Raum
2009-09-11, 08:46 PM
I'm sorry, it may not seem that relevant to you, but I get $50 a month in spending money because I do not qualify for unemployment benefits. A majority of that has to go towards food, leaving me with a cumulative $4 every month for free spending.

It may not seem cheap to those of you who have jobs/allowances, but for those of us who have to pay for our printer ink using less than $5 a month for that purpose, it is expensive.

BTW, the requirement for getting Unemployment in my city is that you need 6 months of paid income prior to being laid off. I had 2 weeks at my last job, and haven't been hired since. It's been 2 years since I had that job.

So yes, I literally live off of $50 a month. Not to complain here, but when people ask me to waste my money for the sake of a game like DnD, I very well better be getting my money's worth.

I do agree with the rest of your post, but there are circumstances where charging money for game play is reasonable.When you have lots of available free time and little free money, spending lots of time getting your character 'just right' so you can save money may make sense from a narrow viewpoint. Of course the opposite is also true...time is far more valuable to me than a few dollars. After all, I have a limited amount of recreation time, I'd rather spend it getting to the actual role play and game.

I suspect that's only part of what Mike is pointing out though - a big part of what he's complaining about is due to something all of us have done at one time or another. All too often we ignore what a questioner is really asking in favor of providing our answer to our version of a similar question. It happens often enough in verbal conversation, sadly I think it's even more common in forums.

LurkerInPlayground
2009-09-11, 08:49 PM
Why so ssserious?

Wow, if you take your game SO serious, and demands money from your friends because their character "who isn't able to survive encounters on a regular basis" if they wanted to play something fun instead of playing chess/Magic the Gathering with D&D? I wouldn't be kicked from your gaming group. I wouldn't be friends with someone like you.
Dude. I was quoting the guy who said he charges for character sheets.

Pay attention.

Furthermore, the guy I'm replying to is replying to the OP already, so your response is decidedly unhelpful. Way to actually point out flaws in his logic.

Keld Denar
2009-09-11, 08:56 PM
It happens often enough in verbal conversation, sadly I think it's even more common in forums.

Like anything else in life, you get what you pay for. You pay almost nothing for internet advice, so you sometimes have to spend a little time filtering out the less helpful advice.

Also, sometimes advice solicitors don't know exactly what they are looking for, and sometimes unsolicited advice sparks something in their creative center that they never considered. Thats the glory of the internet, they do that web-cluster-brainstorming-whatever stuff for you. Mostly free too! The more precise your topic, the more precise your answers, but regardless, you'll always get some wandering around left field, and some from the bleachers behind left field, and some from the parking lot behind the bleachers behind left field. If it doesn't fit your own little model, ignore it.

Now, if I was paying a lawyer $300 an hour and he came up with some of the random rambling rants that the internet is famous for, well, I'd probably fire him and hire a new lawyer. Last time I checked, though, none of us are gettin payed (seriously, if and of you are gettin pay check from this, let me know!).

Friend Computer
2009-09-11, 08:59 PM
This is what I agree with most about your post. If the objective of the campaign is dying in hilarious situations, then by all means make your character sub-optimal at combat. But in a serious campaign, like the Tomb of Horrors, playing a sub-optimal character means the following:


You soak up XP for the characters who do matter.
You absorb treasure that could be put to use in other ways, mainly by converting GP into items specifically designed for your build/concept.
You waste time rerolling a new character/prowling the forums for information for a new character.
The DM has to go out of his way to include you in the party. Valuable story information is lost IC every time you bring a new character to the table.
Worse still, you waste actual money on character sheets, pencils, and printer ink every so often (I don't care how careful you are, unless you are using dry-erase boards and nothing but, you are going to need to replace a character sheet eventually, and that costs some money no matter how incignificant the price may seem. Printer ink is expensive and WotC-made sheets are just as pricey).
Finally, it's rather hard to run a long campaign if the party keeps getting killed because they don't want to optimize.


If you come to the table with a character who isn't able to survive encounters on a regular basis, be prepared to be kicked out of my group/charged for character sheets. I provide a majority of the blank character sheets for my play group, and I do not like having to replace them for any reason. If I am replacing them for you specifically, I will charge you money every session to compensate my costs.

That's the mindset I hold as a DM, and when offering optimization advice online. Party optimization is important to me for those reasons.

Nerd games in the basement is srs bsns!

If you really cared about how expensive charsheets are, you would get a notebook and write sheets out. You know what? It is exactly what I do.

I dunno, but maybe if people looked at D&D as a mechanism for telling a collaborative story, and not for getting hella l00tz...

*sighs*

Kelpstrand
2009-09-11, 09:08 PM
OP, let's take a serious look at the Druid thread.

There is a player. He has a character that he enjoys that is fun and good.

He has a bunch of whiny babies who demand that he stop having fun his way so they can have fun at his expense.

You decide to jump on people giving him advice on how to teach them the actual way the game is.

Do you know whether those people he is playing with have the free time to learn the actual rules? Do you know if they want to?

Maybe they'd like to learn them. Maybe when he asks for advice, the advice to teach them is actually good advice. Maybe it's only mediocre, and the real good advice is to point out that he's playing a character well within the rules and if they want to play at his level, he will happily teach them, but if they don't, they should be willing to deal with the consequences of that decision.

Your response is to basically tell everyone that they are bad wrong people for giving him advice on how to explain this to his friends, because it is bad wrong of people who optimize to do so.

What's your solution? Is your solution to have him stop playing the 'wrong way' and play like you 'grognards' who can't be bothered to read and think about the rules do?

Jergmo
2009-09-11, 09:11 PM
I think everyone should play an Ogre wizard.

Kylarra
2009-09-11, 09:14 PM
I think everyone should play an Ogre wizard.
You'd get to be blue! (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/ogreMage.htm)

Sinfire Titan
2009-09-11, 09:15 PM
Wow, if you take your game SO serious, and demands money from your friends because their character "who isn't able to survive encounters on a regular basis" if they wanted to play something fun instead of playing chess/Magic the Gathering with D&D? I wouldn't be kicked from your gaming group. I wouldn't be friends with someone like you.

Way to not even read my current situation. The printer I use happens to belong to my mother, an architect, who uses it even more than I do. She asks me to pay for as much as I can to help ease our costs around the house. I effectively get $4 a month, less than most 9 year-olds, to work with.

It isn't just character sheets I have to pay for: It's snacks and drinks. I host our RL sessions, and only a few of them ever bring food. When they don't, I offer them food out of my own pocket because I am their friend and their host. This is in addition to the character sheets, pencils, and printer ink. I've gone as far as buying dice for a player (birthday present, approximately 4 sets of dice and a decent bag for them). If I have to make it from scratch, I do so. I may do less work than the average citizen, but I am a damn decent host for my guests. Its the main reason I have a group to play with: I am very generous with snacks and drinks. I may only do this every other month or so, but I take everyone into account when I cook.

My friends happen to be very competent, and I've only presented the ultimatum to two previous players (after offering my advice for their characters). Both of them no longer play in my group, opting to spend their money elsewhere instead of playing and getting free food and drink at my house. Thanks for the insult, I don't need to talk to you any more.


When you have lots of available free time and little free money, spending lots of time getting your character 'just right' so you can save money may make sense from a narrow viewpoint. Of course the opposite is also true...time is far more valuable to me than a few dollars. After all, I have a limited amount of recreation time, I'd rather spend it getting to the actual role play and game.

If someone else in our group would host the game, I'd be sure to bring a couple of bucks when I can afford it to pay for the snacks and drinks. It may not happen very often, but in the few cases that I do end up at a friend's house for a campaign, I am sure to have some money on me.

Incidentally, I have plenty of time and little money. I'm in the opposite situation.


Nerd games in the basement is srs bsns!

If you really cared about how expensive charsheets are, you would get a notebook and write sheets out. You know what? It is exactly what I do.

I dunno, but maybe if people looked at D&D as a mechanism for telling a collaborative story, and not for getting hella l00tz...

*sighs*

I did this with my little brother. I stopped doing this because of my little brother.


I apologize, I should have pointed out the costs of snacks and drinks in that original post. I assumed it was assumed, and thus made it look like I was a penny-pincher.

On average, how much does your group spend on food alone? It adds up when you have enough time to run a session every few days. I do my part for those snacks, and I have to pay for them when the time comes for groceries. Sometimes, I don't have the money for snacks. Sometimes, I can't afford to feed my guests, like a good host. That's why those $4 mean so much to me.

LurkerInPlayground
2009-09-11, 09:17 PM
Nerd games in the basement is srs bsns!

If you really cared about how expensive charsheets are, you would get a notebook and write sheets out. You know what? It is exactly what I do.

I dunno, but maybe if people looked at D&D as a mechanism for telling a collaborative story, and not for getting hella l00tz...

*sighs*
Funny story, but D&D essentially used to be a collaborative story about getting hella l00tz. Being that the story was about freelance mercenaries.

Mike_G
2009-09-11, 09:33 PM
OP, let's take a serious look at the Druid thread.

There is a player. He has a character that he enjoys that is fun and good.

He has a bunch of whiny babies


"Cause we're not being judgmental.



who demand that he stop having fun his way so they can have fun at his expense.

You decide to jump on people giving him advice on how to teach them the actual way the game is.



No, I jump on people who say he should leave the group or teach them a lesson because they are obviously stupid and a burden to the Great Optimizer.

The "probably unemployed" comment was waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay douchebaggy. I can't be arsed to spend my free time between games in heavy optimization but I'd bet my spleen that I work more hours and have more degrees that that poster, and had strayed away from D&D to more challenging systems when he was a zygote.



Do you know whether those people he is playing with have the free time to learn the actual rules? Do you know if they want to?

Maybe they'd like to learn them. Maybe when he asks for advice, the advice to teach them is actually good advice. Maybe it's only mediocre, and the real good advice is to point out that he's playing a character well within the rules and if they want to play at his level, he will happily teach them, but if they don't, they should be willing to deal with the consequences of that decision.

Your response is to basically tell everyone that they are bad wrong people for giving him advice on how to explain this to his friends, because it is bad wrong of people who optimize to do so.

What's your solution? Is your solution to have him stop playing the 'wrong way' and play like you 'grognards' who can't be bothered to read and think about the rules do?

My solution to that poster (which I posted in that thread) is that he should work with the group to get the whole group on a par level, but that if they won't listen, I would tone down rather than screw the pooch and wreck the game to prove a point or leave.

My OP here is to answer the "Why do they ignore my brilliant advice? Ftr2/Barb4(pounce variant)/Warblade8/Swashbuckler3/Cleric3 is just as easy as Ftr 20! " question.

Raum
2009-09-11, 09:33 PM
Incidentally, I have plenty of time and little money. I'm in the opposite situation. Err, that's what I was talking about when I said "When you have lots of available free time and little free money, spending lots of time getting your character 'just right' so you can save money may make sense from a narrow viewpoint. Of course the opposite is also true..."

On a side note, it's easier to read and causes less confusion when you attribute quotes to their authors...particularly when you quote multiple people in one post. :smallwink:

Starbuck_II
2009-09-11, 09:40 PM
Now, if I was paying a lawyer $300 an hour and he came up with some of the random rambling rants that the internet is famous for, well, I'd probably fire him and hire a new lawyer. Last time I checked, though, none of us are gettin payed (seriously, if and of you are gettin pay check from this, let me know!).

But if he told, then there would less getting paid for posting jobs available. It is a tough economy after all.

woodenbandman
2009-09-11, 09:57 PM
OP I disagree with your stance on why so-called "Grognards" don't want to know about optimization. A "Grognard" comes from editions where there WAS no optimization, beyond the choice to make a fighter with high strength. Yeah there were a few obvious things like don't get hit and hit the enemy back, but other than that you rolled stats, you wrote it down, and you jumped in. If you were a wizard, then you picked spells, but there were a few spells that were cool and a few that sucked and you generally couldn't go all that wrong.

3.5 has about 50 choices to make in CORE alone, not to mention that the system was shifted in such a way that choices that were previously effective are no longer effective (doing 1d8+3 damage was respectable in 2.0, but when monsters can have +5, +10, or better constitution, as opposed to the absolute maximum of 25 for a GOD, it's nothing at all.) in 2.0 core, the choices were Race, Class, Weapon, Skills (which had little to no effect and were mostly for flavor), and if you had a generous DM, a magic item or 2. In 3.5 core, you get a feat, and there are feat chains laid out, which you're expected to be able to identify in abstract ways and map out ahead of time, in stark contrast to the plug and play nature of 2.0. FYI I've played both systems.

Jergmo
2009-09-11, 10:08 PM
@ Sinfire: Maybe you could make your players some Ramen noodles if that's not already your solution?

Roland St. Jude
2009-09-11, 10:09 PM
Sheriff of Moddingham: Please don't drag baggage from thread to thread or create metathreads to complain about what's going on in other threads. Also, if we could have a cessation of hostilities generally on this topic, that would be good for all involved. There's been plenty of harping on people who are quick to give optimization advice (even when unwanted) and plenty of harping on people who want to talk about D&D without hearing so much about optimization (even when it might be helpful).

This forum could do with a bit of a break from the conflict before goes up in flames.