PDA

View Full Version : Wavin' it around one handed



KatfishKaos
2009-11-18, 07:43 AM
Now that you've come to read what the topic is about, is it possible to wield a spiked chain one handed? I have a concept of a Bard who always has one hand behind his back and in the other he does the most ridiculous stuff with his weapon of choice.

And after that, general bard thread, cause god only knows whatever your class can do we can do but with more style. :D

Ryuuk
2009-11-18, 07:44 AM
Well, you could do it with a Whip, and it aesthetically pretty similar to the Spiked Chain.

KatfishKaos
2009-11-18, 07:48 AM
Hrrmmm, whilst i'm at it. I'm planning to use Aasimar as my race, good choice? Or am I being a colossal idiot? I'm not fazed about the wisdom I just like the idea of the grandchild of a celestial to woo the princess and then run away from the scary king, red cloak flowing in the wind...

Ravens_cry
2009-11-18, 07:57 AM
Or a medium character could do it with a small spiked chain. Less damage, but it still has reach and all the other delightful qualities of spiked chains.

dsmiles
2009-11-18, 07:59 AM
Not sure RAW-wise, but I like the idea of an Aasmiar wavin' it around one-handed. I'd probably allow it.
I may be mistaken but the original rules for the spiked chain said it could be wielded as a double weapon or as a reach weapon, but said nothing about one- or two- handed use.

Vizzerdrix
2009-11-18, 07:59 AM
I could have sworn the DMG had a one handed spiked chain like weapon somewhere around the firearms.

Grumman
2009-11-18, 08:02 AM
Since an Aasimar has darkvision, you could qualify for the Cavestalker PrC from Races of the Drow. At level 4 it gives you EWP in the Spiked Chain and lets you use it as a one-handed weapon.

Mongoose87
2009-11-18, 08:05 AM
I could have sworn the DMG had a one handed spiked chain like weapon somewhere around the firearms.

Kusari-Gama, in the section about Asiatic weapons.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-11-18, 08:07 AM
The Kusari-Gama is the one-handed version of the Spiked Chain, in the DMG near the firearms. As for your choice of race, Aasimar is "unoptimal". This is largely irrelevant if you can optimize, because such a concept is obviously not designed to compete with a higher-power group. If you need a "better" race I'd suggest a mere refluffed human, perhaps with a bloodline (UA) or some relevant feats.

dsmiles
2009-11-18, 08:21 AM
Sheesh...power gamers.

It's all about the story...screw optimization.

You go, you bad-ass, spiked chain wielding, Aasmiar, Bardy Mc Bardster!

Ravens_cry
2009-11-18, 08:22 AM
I may be mistaken but the original rules for the spiked chain said it could be wielded as a double weapon or as a reach weapon, but said nothing about one- or two- handed use.
The table (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#tableWeapons) specifically puts it under two handed melee weapons.

streakster
2009-11-18, 08:40 AM
Cave Stalker Prc lets you dual wield them. So I imagine you could just drop one and be good.

That's in the Drow thing, I think...

bosssmiley
2009-11-18, 09:06 AM
One handed spiked chain = horseman's flail.

dsmiles
2009-11-18, 09:07 AM
Good call.

Ormagoden
2009-11-18, 09:10 AM
Sheesh...power gamers.

It's all about the story...screw optimization.

You go, you bad-ass, spiked chain wielding, Aasmiar, Bardy Mc Bardster!

Here here!

Optimystik
2009-11-18, 09:44 AM
Sheesh...power gamers.

It's all about the story...screw optimization.

Stormwind much? :smalltongue:

Vizzerdrix
2009-11-18, 09:50 AM
Sheesh...power gamers.

It's all about the story...screw optimization.

You go, you bad-ass, spiked chain wielding, Aasmiar, Bardy Mc Bardster!

This is my groups thoughts as well. The funny thing is, it always breaks down when I ask for an at will disintegrate/ PAO/ timestop/ Mind Rape at level 1... For story reasons.

dsmiles
2009-11-18, 09:53 AM
Stormwind much? :smalltongue:

Stormwind?

I know nothing of this..."Stormwind"...that you speak of.

Seriously, I play PnP games only.

Vizzerdrix
2009-11-18, 09:57 AM
In brief: the idea that building your character to be mechanically optimal means you're roleplaying poorly, or that building your character to be mechanically suboptimal means you're roleplaying well.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-11-18, 09:57 AM
The Kusari-Gama is the one-handed version of the Spiked Chain, in the DMG near the firearms. As for your choice of race, Aasimar is "unoptimal". This is largely irrelevant if you can optimize, because such a concept is obviously not designed to compete with a higher-power group. If you need a "better" race I'd suggest a mere refluffed human, perhaps with a bloodline (UA) or some relevant feats.

The lesser Aasimar race from Faefun has no LA and pretty much the same fluff.

Temet Nosce
2009-11-18, 09:59 AM
Stormwind much? :smalltongue:

No one remembers it anymore. :smallfrown:

It's a pity really, he explained it well but with WotC losing the original post it's fading from awareness. For that matter, I don't think I've seen him post anything for a year or two either.

Optimystik
2009-11-18, 10:07 AM
Stormwind?

I know nothing of this..."Stormwind"...that you speak of.

Basically, the Stormwind Fallacy is the belief that optimization and roleplaying are somehow mutually exclusive. Your statement - "it's all about the story...screw optimization" implies that optimization must be "screwed" in order to enhance the background of the OP's character.


Seriously, I play PnP games only.

While it shares a name with a certain Blizzard property (pun intended), "Stormwind" in this instance refers to the poster that first coined the fallacy concisely.

dsmiles
2009-11-18, 10:08 AM
In brief: the idea that building your character to be mechanically optimal means you're roleplaying poorly, or that building your character to be mechanically suboptimal means you're roleplaying well.

Being mechanically optimal and good role-playing are not mutually exclusive. I just mean that the story comes first, mechanics second. If for some reason, the gods only know why, I wanted to play a goblin bard, I would. Everyone can tell me that goblins don't make good bards (not that I care much for bards to begin with), but if the character concept strikes me that way, then so be it.

FMArthur
2009-11-18, 10:47 AM
Being mechanically optimal and good role-playing are not mutually exclusive. I just mean that the story comes first, mechanics second. If for some reason, the gods only know why, I wanted to play a goblin bard, I would. Everyone can tell me that goblins don't make good bards (not that I care much for bards to begin with), but if the character concept strikes me that way, then so be it.

See, I look at it from the other way. This is a cool concept, but unless you optimize, flavorful but unsound character concepts will hold the party back. To make an interesting character that the rules don't take kindly to, you have to optimize.

drengnikrafe
2009-11-18, 10:56 AM
See, I look at it from the other way. This is a cool concept, but unless you optimize, flavorful but unsound character concepts will hold the party back. To make an interesting character that the rules don't take kindly to, you have to optimize.

Please tell this to my friends. I have one guy who loves to play weird stuff, but at the same time, his characters are terrible, and he thinks that playing a character that weird simply excuses him from role playing at all.

Person_Man
2009-11-18, 10:59 AM
In addition to the Kusari-Gama, the Spinning Sword from Secrets of Sarlona is also essentially a one handed spiked chain, and IIRC it has slightly better stats. Also, any reach weapon combined with armor spikes, spiked gauntlets, any natural weapon, or unarmed strike is essentially the same thing until your enchanted Spiked Chain becomes sufficiently powerful to justify spending a feat on it.


Since an Aasimar has darkvision, you could qualify for the Cavestalker PrC from Races of the Drow. At level 4 it gives you EWP in the Spiked Chain and lets you use it as a one-handed weapon.

Very close. It's in Drow of the Underdark. Also, it's class abilities suck. I would never suggest taking 4 levels of a sucky PrC so that you can use a Spiked Chain like a Kusari-Gama.


Stormwind?

I know nothing of this..."Stormwind"...that you speak of.

Seriously, I play PnP games only.

Stormwind Fallacy (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=9165883&postcount=338). (It think the link might be dead. It's from my bookmarks, and I'm blocked from WotC at work. Does someone have a better link?) Well known D&D geek theory that states that you can be the best optimizer in the world, and it has no effect on your ability to roleplay, and vice verses.

I'd also say that if you think a Spiked Chain is somehow powergaming somehow, you have a lot to learn about optimizing.

UPDATE: Also, DAMN NINJAS!!!

Optimystik
2009-11-18, 11:00 AM
See, I look at it from the other way. This is a cool concept, but unless you optimize, flavorful but unsound character concepts will hold the party back. To make an interesting character that the rules don't take kindly to, you have to optimize.

Either that, or let him face the consequences of his decision. Somewhere in the realms, a crazy bard might decide to pick up a spiked chain without being good at using it, and become an adventurer. He wouldn't last very long in a story, and should do no better at a gaming table.

Now if that same bard puts effort into getting good with the weapon (represented mechanically by taking the right feats and spells), he would deserve to last longer in both places.

dsmiles
2009-11-18, 11:03 AM
See, I look at it from the other way. This is a cool concept, but unless you optimize, flavorful but unsound character concepts will hold the party back. To make an interesting character that the rules don't take kindly to, you have to optimize.


As a DM, I place story over game mechanics. The "Books of Mighty Rule-Making" aren't really rules...they're guidelines. I feel that if players are enjoying the story, that's more important than mehcanics. Most of the people I have played with in the past (I say in the past because I am currently LFG...all my local gamers got stationed elsewhere...hazards of military life, I guess) always put their character's story first. As a DM, I designed my campaigns to fit their backstories, which were designed to fit the overall campaign world vision (which we came up with together).

For all the people I have gamed with, flavorful but unsound characters were the rule, rather than the exception. But then again, many of the "encounters" that they got XP for were role-playing encounters, not combat encounters. I also award XP bonuses for good role-playing. If someone wanted to roll-play, they were slowly, gently, subverted into role-players.

I grew up on Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, and I have been playing a looooo...ooooong time. Role-playing isn't about palying a paper full of stats and feats and mechanics, yes, you need mechanics to make the game work, but it's about playing the character.


I mean...I'm just sayin'.

Androgeus
2009-11-18, 11:16 AM
Two-Handed
Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively.



Doesn't say anything about needing both hands holding the weapon to use, just that you require two hands to "free" to use effectively. The hand that is not gripping the weapon could be used to help keep the whole body balanced for instance.
I see no reason why your bard would even have to find a way to use a spiked chain properly in on-hand, as you've already set your style so that the off-hand is "used up". I do however see the reason as to why you would want to acctually want to free up the off-hand.

EDIT:



Stormwind Fallacy (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=9165883&postcount=338). (It think the link might be dead. It's from my bookmarks, and I'm blocked from WotC at work. Does someone have a better link?) Well known D&D geek theory that states that you can be the best optimizer in the world, and it has no effect on your ability to roleplay, and vice verses.


Yhea that link is dead, this (http://www.loremaster.org/loremaster-news/1084-loremaster-stormwind-fallacy.html) contains most od the post I do believe

FMArthur
2009-11-18, 11:23 AM
As a DM, I place story over game mechanics. The "Books of Mighty Rule-Making" aren't really rules...they're guidelines. I feel that if players are enjoying the story, that's more important than mehcanics. Most of the people I have played with in the past (I say in the past because I am currently LFG...all my local gamers got stationed elsewhere...hazards of military life, I guess) always put their character's story first. As a DM, I designed my campaigns to fit their backstories, which were designed to fit the overall campaign world vision (which we came up with together).

For all the people I have gamed with, flavorful but unsound characters were the rule, rather than the exception. But then again, many of the "encounters" that they got XP for were role-playing encounters, not combat encounters. I also award XP bonuses for good role-playing. If someone wanted to roll-play, they were slowly, gently, subverted into role-players.

I grew up on Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, and I have been playing a looooo...ooooong time. Role-playing isn't about palying a paper full of stats and feats and mechanics, yes, you need mechanics to make the game work, but it's about playing the character.


I mean...I'm just sayin'.

Sorry, I sometimes forget that I am an atypical roleplayer. I can love the game from any angle, and I enjoy making a story with my friends, but the main reason I like D&D is for character-building. It's like playing with LEGO to me. I shouldn't let my own D&D motivations dictate how I think others should play. Sometimes the game is not about learning how to kill monsters best. :smallsmile:


EDIT:
On the topic of one-handed two-handers, the Slight Build racial ability (Kobold-only? (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20060420a)) lets you wield a Two-Handed weapon of one size smaller than you as a One-Handed weapon without penalty. Ordinarily doing so imposes a -2 penalty. It retains its reach despite its size and all other bonuses.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-11-18, 11:24 AM
As a DM, I place story over game mechanics. The "Books of Mighty Rule-Making" aren't really rules...they're guidelines. I feel that if players are enjoying the story, that's more important than mehcanics. Most of the people I have played with in the past (I say in the past because I am currently LFG...all my local gamers got stationed elsewhere...hazards of military life, I guess) always put their character's story first. As a DM, I designed my campaigns to fit their backstories, which were designed to fit the overall campaign world vision (which we came up with together).

For all the people I have gamed with, flavorful but unsound characters were the rule, rather than the exception. But then again, many of the "encounters" that they got XP for were role-playing encounters, not combat encounters. I also award XP bonuses for good role-playing. If someone wanted to roll-play, they were slowly, gently, subverted into role-players.

I grew up on Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, and I have been playing a looooo...ooooong time. Role-playing isn't about palying a paper full of stats and feats and mechanics, yes, you need mechanics to make the game work, but it's about playing the character.


I mean...I'm just sayin'.

Shall I get off your lawn?

Heliomance
2009-11-18, 11:24 AM
Or a medium character could do it with a small spiked chain. Less damage, but it still has reach and all the other delightful qualities of spiked chains.

That was 3.0. Weapon size doesn't work like that in 3.5.

The Glyphstone
2009-11-18, 11:31 AM
As a DM, I place story over game mechanics. The "Books of Mighty Rule-Making" aren't really rules...they're guidelines. I feel that if players are enjoying the story, that's more important than mehcanics. Most of the people I have played with in the past (I say in the past because I am currently LFG...all my local gamers got stationed elsewhere...hazards of military life, I guess) always put their character's story first. As a DM, I designed my campaigns to fit their backstories, which were designed to fit the overall campaign world vision (which we came up with together).

For all the people I have gamed with, flavorful but unsound characters were the rule, rather than the exception. But then again, many of the "encounters" that they got XP for were role-playing encounters, not combat encounters. I also award XP bonuses for good role-playing. If someone wanted to roll-play, they were slowly, gently, subverted into role-players.

I grew up on Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, and I have been playing a looooo...ooooong time. Role-playing isn't about palying a paper full of stats and feats and mechanics, yes, you need mechanics to make the game work, but it's about playing the character.


I mean...I'm just sayin'.

You are correct in saying that if you don't actually roll dice, you don't need optimized characters. But down that dark path lies absurd fallacies involving parties entirely of Monks, Truenamers, and Commoners*. The problem with the vaunted 'roll-play vs. role-play' theory is that D&D is, by its very nature, a game that encourages you to roll dice, because so much of the rules is oriented around rolling said dice - and in any situation where those dice need to be rolled, no amount of playing the character will solve the problem that they will be outdone every single time, or made obsolete entirely, by any other character who is actually good at what they do.

This applies to combat as much as noncombat...a dwarf with Str8 dual-wielding his family heirloom waraxes without proficiency cannot RP hard enough to overcome his massive negative penalties to-hit...and if he can, it's effectively become a freeform game and the stats (again) don't matter. Likewise, if your actual Cha stat and ranks in Diplomacy don't matter for convincing the town guard you're not dangerous murderers, the Cha 20 Half-Elf Bard and the Cha 6 Half-Orc Barbarian are effectively the exact same character, dependent only on the diplomacy abilities of their player. Granted, freeform can be incredibly fun if you have a mature and trustworthy group to avoid letting it go out of control, but it personally always annoys me when people try to claim that they can build badly optimized characters because their penalties won't ever come into play as long as they role-play.


*Why a Commoner would gimp himself by partying with a Monk and a Truenamer, I have no idea.:smallbiggrin:

infinitypanda
2009-11-18, 11:31 AM
As a DM, I place story over game mechanics. The "Books of Mighty Rule-Making" aren't really rules...they're guidelines. I feel that if players are enjoying the story, that's more important than mehcanics. Most of the people I have played with in the past (I say in the past because I am currently LFG...all my local gamers got stationed elsewhere...hazards of military life, I guess) always put their character's story first. As a DM, I designed my campaigns to fit their backstories, which were designed to fit the overall campaign world vision (which we came up with together).

For all the people I have gamed with, flavorful but unsound characters were the rule, rather than the exception. But then again, many of the "encounters" that they got XP for were role-playing encounters, not combat encounters. I also award XP bonuses for good role-playing. If someone wanted to roll-play, they were slowly, gently, subverted into role-players.

I grew up on Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, and I have been playing a looooo...ooooong time. Role-playing isn't about palying a paper full of stats and feats and mechanics, yes, you need mechanics to make the game work, but it's about playing the character.


I mean...I'm just sayin'.

That doesn't change the fact that this whole thing was started because someone suggested refluffed human instead of Aasimar. If you argue so heavily in favor of roleplaying rather than rollplaying, why are you saying that a character can only be an Aasimar if it has the stats of an Aasimar, rather than just refluffing a better race?

dsmiles
2009-11-18, 11:36 AM
@^ I do not believe that Slight Build is kobold only, since there is more than one race with the Powerful Build ability.

Optimystik
2009-11-18, 11:36 AM
Shall I get off your lawn?

And take your "fast food," "baggy jeans" and "rap music" with you!

Seriously though:



For all the people I have gamed with, flavorful but unsound characters were the rule, rather than the exception. But then again, many of the "encounters" that they got XP for were role-playing encounters, not combat encounters. I also award XP bonuses for good role-playing. If someone wanted to roll-play, they were slowly, gently, subverted into role-players.

Your post is STILL invoking the fallacy. Can't a mechanically SOUND character be flavorful too? Does a character have to be weak in some way to roleplay well?

The primary role that a given character plays at a gaming table is an adventurer. Well, he had damn well better be able to do some adventuring - i.e. last two straight nights in the wilderness without being pwned by a grue - otherwise he's not going to really deserve the name.

Androgeus
2009-11-18, 11:37 AM
That was 3.0. Weapon size doesn't work like that in 3.5.

If you didn't get a penelty, a small greatsword is better a medium longsword (depending on your view on a -2 to attack rolls, it may still be)

dsmiles
2009-11-18, 11:42 AM
No, all I'm saying is that you should build the mechanical aspect of the character around the story aspect. Design the concept, backstory, personality, and motives. Then fit the skills and feats to the character. If it's possible to optimize his/her abilities, by all means do so, but optimizing is not all-encompassing as a lot of newer gamers seem to believe.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-11-18, 11:42 AM
That was 3.0. Weapon size doesn't work like that in 3.5.Yes it does. The weapon size rules are idiotic now, but they do work that way.

Person_Man
2009-11-18, 11:56 AM
@^ I do not believe that Slight Build is kobold only, since there is more than one race with the Powerful Build ability.

As far as I know, the variant Kobold is the only way to access Sleight Build. Fun Fact: A Kobold with Sleight Build can take the Touchstone feat (Sandstorm) and get Powerful Build as well. So you're treated as one size smaller whenever it's beneficial, and one size larger whenever it's beneficial.

I think I it would be required that we call that character Picayune Biggs, or some other puntastic name.

Optimystik
2009-11-18, 11:57 AM
No, all I'm saying is that you should build the mechanical aspect of the character around the story aspect. Design the concept, backstory, personality, and motives. Then fit the skills and feats to the character.

Why does it HAVE to be in that order? I'm perfectly capable of building the character I want to play first, then devising a powerful backstory to fit him afterward. For example, deciding to play an ex-Paladin-turned Blackguard, then fleshing out the details of my paladin character's tortured fall from grace later. Or first deciding I want to play an Eldritch Disciple, then detailing my Warlock's attempt to seek refuge from her demonic father in the clergy of Sune later.

The point is, there is no "should." The only thing the player "should" do, is what feels right for his character concept; whether that concept starts with fluff and ends with crunch, or vice-versa.


If it's possible to optimize his/her abilities, by all means do so, but optimizing is not all-encompassing as a lot of newer gamers seem to believe.

Neither is roleplaying. No matter how great a concept I come up with, if my character can't do anything without constantly being rescued by DM fiat (or rewarded primarily with roleplay XP) I wouldn't be having fun. That may be different for other players, but my assumption is that many people play D&D for the dice rolling as well as for the storywriting.

Deth Muncher
2009-11-18, 12:04 PM
And take your "fast food," "baggy jeans" and "rap music" with you!


Damn kids with their nuclear weapons and their hippity-hop music!

Anyway. An aasimar bard beating punks up with a Spiked Chain. For some reason, the old game Streets of Rage comes to mind.


I think I it would be required that we call that character Picayune Biggs, or some other puntastic name.
Shh! Don't say the P word around kobolds.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-11-18, 12:14 PM
but it's about playing the character.

Your character is a hero, yes? Heroes are competent, yes? Therefore, your character ought to be competent. And being competent means either powergaming, or having your DM "powergame" for you (i.e. give you large chunks of RP XP). As many DMs do not give adequate RP XP, sadly, to realize my vision of a competent hero I must powergame. And yes, to a negligible extent, the effort spent powergaming impedes my ability to originally characterize some characters.
But generally, I can make flavorful and mechanically sound characters; which are almost always superior to flavorful but unsound characters. Can't roleplay if you're dead.

That being said, there's nothing wrong with a goblin bard. In my experience race is far less important than feats, skills, classes, and good old cunning.


No, all I'm saying is that you should build the mechanical aspect of the character around the story aspect.
That works for you. It doesn't always work for everyone. If I make my mechanical build first, I know that the concept and backstory I make will engage all of the character's abilities. It won't be worse writing, a flatter personality, or less motivated because I made the build first. It will be less original, since I am limiting myself to certain options; but it will still be original enough.




Why are we talking about this?

dsmiles
2009-11-18, 12:16 PM
Nobody's saying that you have to get rescued by DM fiat every other melee round. That's why there are sooooooooo many sourcebooks out there to draw from, both WotC and otherwise. There are feats and skills to fit nearly every character's story.

Character creation for me starts with a base class (be it fighter, warlock, ranger, healer, whatever). Then evolves into a story and stat rolls, which evolves into feat choices and skill choices to fit the story. Just because I'm playing a wizard doesn't mean I'm going to take Spellcasting Prodigy to boost the effects of my spells at 1st level. Maybe my story calls for me to take Spellfire, or maybe I take a skill focus, or weapon focus: ray because that's what the story calls for.

So, yes, there is a certain amount of statistical data that goes into character creation, but it's not about min/maxing to get the most powerful abilities available if they don't fit the story. Different generations, different focuses.

Shademan
2009-11-18, 12:27 PM
Being mechanically optimal and good role-playing are not mutually exclusive. I just mean that the story comes first, mechanics second. If for some reason, the gods only know why, I wanted to play a goblin bard, I would. Everyone can tell me that goblins don't make good bards (not that I care much for bards to begin with), but if the character concept strikes me that way, then so be it.

I have done that. turned one of the evil NPC's with class levels into a bond girl with the power of sweet-gobbo-loouuuve

dsmiles
2009-11-18, 12:33 PM
I have done that. turned one of the evil NPC's with class levels into a bond girl with the power of sweet-gobbo-loouuuve

Personally, I don't think anything about gobbo-louuuve is sweet. However I think I hear a country song somewhere in there...

Sallera
2009-11-18, 12:34 PM
So, yes, there is a certain amount of statistical data that goes into character creation, but it's not about min/maxing to get the most powerful abilities available if they don't fit the story. Different generations, different focuses.

See, now you're just invoking stereotypes for the hell of it.


Character creation for me starts with a base class (be it fighter, warlock, ranger, healer, whatever). Then evolves into a story and stat rolls, which evolves into feat choices and skill choices to fit the story. Just because I'm playing a wizard doesn't mean I'm going to take Spellcasting Prodigy to boost the effects of my spells at 1st level. Maybe my story calls for me to take Spellfire, or maybe I take a skill focus, or weapon focus: ray because that's what the story calls for.

And this is a good example of why you shouldn't. If you followed your own demands, you'd start with the story, not the base class, since, as you say, there are enough options out there to realize any concept. Starting with a character concept and then making all mechanical choices based on that is not inherently superior, roleplay- or story-wise, to starting with a base class, or even a mechanically complete character.

Personally, I usually start with a character concept, and make all the other choices from there. But I've also based characters around a mechanical concept, and the different process doesn't make the resulting story any worse. It can, indeed, create interesting ideas and interactions that wouldn't have occured to you if you'd gone the other way.

Fawsto
2009-11-18, 01:17 PM
Well, you could always RP it. I mean. You could say that your character is wielding it with only one hand in the scene, while 2handing in reality. I would let you walk away with it, you would not, however, be able to do anything significant with the offhand.

I am actually doing this with a Charcter of mine, who, RP wise, has a one handed style for big 2 handed swords.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-11-18, 02:01 PM
Just because I'm playing a wizard doesn't mean I'm going to take Spellcasting Prodigy to boost the effects of my spells at 1st level. Maybe my story calls for me to take Spellfire, or maybe I take a skill focus, or weapon focus: ray because that's what the story calls for.

Is your story better because you took WF: Ray? Not particularly; it's just a different story. The Spellcasting Prodigy wizard does not have a more interesting story than the Collegiate Wizard, who in turn does not have a more interesting story than the Skill Focused wizard. They all have different stories, but none of the choices inherently make a better story. So, if choosing Skill Focus (for example) will make me less powerful, and not make my backstory better, why should I choose it?

dsmiles
2009-11-18, 02:08 PM
I do it because I write the story before I do anything except pick a name, a race, and a class to write about. The skill choices and the Feats flow from the story, not the other way around. If a certain Feat or skill doesn't make the story flow for me, I won't pick it.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-11-18, 02:12 PM
You do that. It works for you. That's great, and I expect that you roleplay well. However, that doesn't work for everyone; and without some supporting data, it shouldn't be claimed to be the best way to do things.

Swordguy
2009-11-18, 02:18 PM
Dude, dsmiles...let it go. This forum does NOT listen to people who prefer not to optimize. It never has. Choosing not to optimize a character is one of the "unforgivable sins" around here.

I get what you're saying, and echo your sentiments. But by and large people here think there's something wrong with you if you choose not to optimize a character.

Optimystik
2009-11-18, 02:19 PM
You do that. It works for you. That's great, and I expect that you roleplay well. However, that doesn't work for everyone; and without some supporting data, it shouldn't be claimed to be the best way to do things.

Nor should players that build their characters crunch-first be labeled "roll-players" - a pejorative term that implies that all players who optimize roleplay poorly without exception.


Dude, dsmiles...let it go. This forum does NOT listen to people who prefer not to optimize. It never has. Choosing not to optimize a character is one of the "unforgivable sins" around here.

I get what you're saying, and echo your sentiments. But by and large people here think there's something wrong with you if you choose not to optimize a character.

Wrong. Something's only wrong with you if you think something's wrong with choosing to optimize your character. Deliberately misreading our posts to appear like some kind of martyr doesn't make you any easier to sympathize with.

SparkMandriller
2009-11-18, 02:19 PM
Maybe he's trying to gently subvert the forum into being better roleplayers.

dsmiles
2009-11-18, 02:22 PM
Wow...I believe I have seen the death of role-playing...:smallfrown:*tear*

Foryn Gilnith
2009-11-18, 02:23 PM
I would strongly advise against accepting Swordguy's generalizations without some skepticism. The forum does not have a hive mind. Not all people on the forum shun people that disagree with the majority. You are not an oppressed minority, the world is not out to get you, and you don't need to defend your way of life against the munchkins.

My point is not that you are wrong for not optimizing as much. My point is that your perspective is merely different, not better.

The story comes before mechanics, yes - that is roleplaying. But there's no need to sacrifice any mechanics for story. Why make a flavorful and suboptimal character when you could just as easily make a flavorful and optimal character? Why derive entertainment solely from the story when you can enjoy both story and combat?


Wow...I believe I have seen the death of role-playing...:smallfrown:*tear*

If you're implying that we're killing roleplaying, you should expect a hostile response. If insulted with labels that imply I am killing roleplaying, I will likely return insults in kind.

Tavar
2009-11-18, 02:23 PM
Wow...I believe I have seen the death of role-playing...:smallfrown:*tear*

Stormwind much?

Milskidasith
2009-11-18, 02:25 PM
Dude, dsmiles...let it go. This forum does NOT listen to people who prefer not to optimize. It never has. Choosing not to optimize a character is one of the "unforgivable sins" around here.

Wrong. We find fault with the belief that their way is better than other peoples'. I see no problem with starting with a concept of a kung-fu warrior and going with monk, unless it hinders the other players (or if you know of Unarmed Swordsage, but that's another common topic). However, you seem to have a problem with my belief that I can start with a role I want to fill, and build a character (generally a caster) around that, then go with the backstory.


I get what you're saying, and echo your sentiments. But by and large people here think there's something wrong with you if you choose not to optimize a character.

No, we think that it is a fallacy if you think that optimizing is exclusive from roleplaying.


Wow...I believe I have seen the death of role-playing...:smallfrown:*tear*


I roleplay well, and optimize well. Do not invoke the Stormwind Fallacy, or imply we are somehow worse than you.

Sallera
2009-11-18, 02:28 PM
Dude, dsmiles...let it go. This forum does NOT listen to people who prefer not to optimize. It never has. Choosing not to optimize a character is one of the "unforgivable sins" around here.

I get what you're saying, and echo your sentiments. But by and large people here think there's something wrong with you if you choose not to optimize a character.

That's hardly what I'm objecting to. dsmiles seems to be claiming two things, neither of which makes any sense: one, that creating a character based on a mechanical concept will result in an inherently inferior story to creating a character based on a character concept; two, that anyone who hasn't been playing for several years is inherently some sort of anti-roleplayer.

...of course, seeing his last post, I'm inclined to suspect he's merely trolling.

Swordguy
2009-11-18, 02:31 PM
Why make a flavorful and suboptimal character when you could just as easily make a flavorful and optimal character? Why derive entertainment solely from the story when you can enjoy both story and combat?

Because not everybody enjoys manipulating or especially cares about numbers on a character sheet. Whether they're horrible at math (me), don't have the time or inclination to optimize (most of my group, as they're all adults with kids/jobs), or feel that mechanical benefits shouldn't drive how a character progresses, a great MANY people might create and even enjoy playing a suboptimal character.

And in the vast majority of cases, in my experience, they won't notice or even care about being suboptimal until somebody comes into the group who reads the CharOp forums, or here, and insists on playing a Tippy wizard in a group of fighters and monks and blasting sorcerers. Choosing to optimize forces and arms race between players and between the players as a group and the GM. Some of us simply choose not to get involved with that at all.

dsmiles
2009-11-18, 02:33 PM
Look, I'm not saying don't optimize. I'm just saying that feat and skill selection should be kept within the limits of the character's backstory and future goals. Yes, I pick feats that optimize my character's abilities if they fit in the story I have told and plan to tell about the character.

Maybe my rogue's goal is to steal everything in sight and his backstory has him hiding from the big bad thugs. I take minimal combat-enhancing abilities and concentrate on stealth and pilfering.

Or maybe the big bad thugs drove him to fight back...up on combat down on stealthiness and pilfering.

Or maybe the wizard was never exceptional at casting spells...just average. That means no spellcasting prodigy, and probably no meta-magic...but the probable focus is on item creation or multiclass options stand out there for me as well.

My story drives my choices. I'm not intentionally making "suboptimal" characters, I'm making characters based on a predetermined story and goals.

Zore
2009-11-18, 02:34 PM
Because not everybody enjoys manipulating or especially cares about numbers on a character sheet. Whether they're horrible at math (me), don't have the time or inclination to optimize (most of my group, as they're all adults with kids/jobs), or feel that mechanical benefits shouldn't drive how a character progresses, a great MANY people might create and even enjoy playing a suboptimal character.

And in the vast majority of cases, in my experience, they won't notice or even care about being suboptimal until somebody comes into the group who reads the CharOp forums, or here, and insists on playing a Tippy wizard in a group of fighters and monks and blasting sorcerers. Choosing to optimize forces and arms race between players and between the players as a group and the GM. Some of us simply choose not to get involved with that at all.

Then why play with the mechanics of DnD? Freeform or use one of the many free systems that are more rules lite. DnD is at its heart a numbers game, everything revolves around rolling a die. Thats how the rules are all set up so why use a framework that you're going to discard? I'm honestly curious.

Glimbur
2009-11-18, 02:37 PM
And in the vast majority of cases, in my experience, they won't notice or even care about being suboptimal until somebody comes into the group who reads the CharOp forums, or here, and insists on playing a Tippy wizard in a group of fighters and monks and blasting sorcerers. Choosing to optimize forces and arms race between players and between the players as a group and the GM. Some of us simply choose not to get involved with that at all.

The only way I see to play "wrong" is to hinder everyone having fun. It's possible to do that by telling people OOC that their characters are boring whether or not that's due to a focus on optimization and ignoring what sort of person those mechanical choices suggests. It's also possible to do that by bringing in a character who is much more effective than the rest of the party and stealing the spotlight.

tl;dr It's a game. Everyone should have fun. That's the right way to play.

Milskidasith
2009-11-18, 02:39 PM
Look, I'm not saying don't optimize. I'm just saying that feat and skill selection should be kept within the limits of the character's backstory and future goals. Yes, I pick feats that optimize my character's abilities if they fit in the story I have told and plan to tell about the character.

That's nice... for you. Do not tell me how to play, however. I make characters that fit a party role (it is a die rolling game, so having characters that are good at dice rolling in one aspect is helpful), then make the backstory based on the feats. Guess what? It still works! You could start with the concept of Blasty McBlaster, the best Blaster prodigy the world ever saw, who had particular skill with the spell Enervation and went into Incantatrix because of your story, and I could start with an optimized Incantatrix with Arcane Thesis: Enervation and then make the story of Blasty McBlaster, and it would work out the same; we both get a story that fits the feats.


Maybe my rogue's goal is to steal everything in sight and his backstory has him hiding from the big bad thugs. I take minimal combat-enhancing abilities and concentrate on stealth and pilfering.

And maybe I want a stealth focused character, and then when I see I'm not too hot in direct combat I fluff myself up as being a coward and relying on stealth. Maybe I preform thefts for a thieves guild, who knows!


Or maybe the big bad thugs drove him to fight back...up on combat down on stealthiness and pilfering.

Or maybe my rogue has a healthy mix of both, but can still do both competently, and then the backstory fits this.


Or maybe the wizard was never exceptional at casting spells...just average. That means no spellcasting prodigy, and probably no meta-magic...but the probable focus is on item creation or multiclass options stand out there for me as well.

This ones a bit trickier, because an intentionally unoptimized character isn't something I'd come by, but if I was running a one shot I could easily be a mediocre crafter wizard who was drafted up to join with the party and do X goal, using his vast array of trinkets to win despite his lack of magical skill.


My story drives my choices. I'm not intentionally making "suboptimal" characters, I'm making characters based on a predetermined story and goals.

My choices drive my story. They are both acceptable ways of doing things.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-11-18, 02:40 PM
((reasoning)),
a great MANY people might create and even enjoy playing a suboptimal character.
It wasn't a rhetorical question when I said "Why not?". Thanks for the response; it's important to represent both sides.


Choosing to optimize forces and arms race between players and between the players as a group and the GM.

No, it doesn't, at least in my experience. But...


And in the vast majority of cases, in my experience, they won't notice or even care about being suboptimal until somebody comes into the group who reads the CharOp forums, or here, and insists on playing a Tippy wizard in a group of fighters and monks and blasting sorcerers.

This is very true. It's all well and fine for an optimizing group to take optimization advice; but when optimization and lower-power groups mix, explosions result. And it is very easy for a lower-power player snooping around on the internet to become infected with powergaming. People really do need to learn to be satisfied with what they have.

dsmiles
2009-11-18, 02:41 PM
@Zore:
Hey, when I DM, I use a base of DnD, because there has to be some kind of mechanics to resolve situations that do require die-rolling, but I use many, many...many homebrews to optimize the RP portion and minimize the die-rolling.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-11-18, 02:43 PM
Look, I'm not saying don't optimize. I'm just saying that feat and skill selection should be kept within the limits of the character's backstory and future goals.

I highlighted a word. It's a word that has been causing lots of controversy. It's the single word in the entirety of your posting that has provoked people to argument. It represents telling people what they ought to be doing, and folks don't tend to like that. You're explaining the way you play - which is good, because learning about others' playstyles can give good ideas and make people more open-minded. But the second you say "should", people object.

Optimystik
2009-11-18, 02:43 PM
Because not everybody enjoys manipulating or especially cares about numbers on a character sheet. Whether they're horrible at math (me), don't have the time or inclination to optimize (most of my group, as they're all adults with kids/jobs), or feel that mechanical benefits shouldn't drive how a character progresses, a great MANY people might create and even enjoy playing a suboptimal character.

Now you're just being insulting. You're saying that people with REAL concerns (like kids/jobs) don't have time to optimize their characters... implying that those who DO have that time, don't have anything important to distract them.

Maybe your playgroup can't multitask, but mine can. I'm pretty sure this forum can too.

Guess what? The hardest part of optimization - knowing the options - can be done for you. That's the purpose behind CharOP (and even this forum.) "Hey, I want to make a monk that uses a whip exclusively, how can I make him not suck?" Then leave the thread and go to work/feed your kids/whatever. I guarantee when you come back, you'll have a plethora of ideas to choose from, whether feats, items, level dips, PrCs, skill selection and even combat tactics.


And in the vast majority of cases, in my experience, they won't notice or even care about being suboptimal until somebody comes into the group who reads the CharOp forums, or here, and insists on playing a Tippy wizard in a group of fighters and monks and blasting sorcerers. Choosing to optimize forces and arms race between players and between the players as a group and the GM. Some of us simply choose not to get involved with that at all.

There is a difference between "munchkin" and "optimizer" that you aren't appreciating here. Any optimizer that powergames out and overshadows his entire group is a fool, because all he'll end up doing is ruining the other players' fun and attracting the DM's ire. Smart optimizers never steal the spotlight, therefore your Tippy example is utterly irrelevant.

Milskidasith
2009-11-18, 02:45 PM
Hey, when I DM, I use a base of DnD, because there has to be some kind of mechanics to resolve situations that do require die-rolling, but I use many, many...many homebrews to optimize the RP portion and minimize the die-rolling.

If you've minimized die rolling so much and made RP so important, there are plenty of non D&D systems with things that have mechanics based on your roleplay. That's a lot better than saying "Hmm, this guy wanted to play a guy who was capable in everything (and didn't pick factotum) so he's a horrible multiclass mix, and this guy built a pretty good wizard and is doing a lot better while still having an acceptable backstory, so the guy who is horribly unoptimized gets heaps of bonuses and RP EXP because he went with his backstory first."

Swordguy
2009-11-18, 02:45 PM
tl;dr It's a game. Everyone should have fun. That's the right way to play.

Fair enough. In my experience, bringing obsessive optimization to the game intrudes on the fun of the 90% of my players who are willing to take the Alertness feat over Power Attack at level 1 because they used to be a city guardsman or who take Toughness as a Fighter because their PC was exceptionally tough, even beyond normal level limits. These choices are horrendously suboptimal, but as long as the whole group is playing according to the same ideals (character-driven build over "what's mechanically best"), it's not an issue...until somebody brings in Tippyzards.

Thusly, I prefer less optimization and more character-driven development in my games. The two CAN be in line, but I find that most often they aren't. How often to do hear "take 1 level of this class, 2 levels of this, this PrC, that Prc, the other PrC and you'll have great stats, and you can justify the RP however you want"?

Finally, I'd posit that telling the OP that he's playing wrong if he doesn't optimize (which has been heavily insinuated in this thread) impinges on HIS fun.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-11-18, 02:45 PM
Now you're just being insulting.
Assume good faith; you're reading too much into his arguments. I don't see any insult in that quote.


Smart optimizers never steal the spotlight, therefore your Tippy example is utterly irrelevant.
And there are a lot of dumb optimizers. They tend to be munchkins, and they tend to get a lot of press when they ruin games.


Finally, I'd posit that telling the OP that he's playing wrong if he doesn't optimize (which has been heavily insinuated in this thread) impinges on HIS fun.

It has never been insinuated in this thread. You're coloring things to your own perceptions. The OP hasn't even been involved in this discussion.

Swordguy
2009-11-18, 02:47 PM
Now you're just being insulting. You're saying that people with REAL concerns (like kids/jobs) don't have time to optimize their characters... implying that those who DO have that time, don't have anything important to distract them.

No. No I am not. I'm pointing out that RL concerns are a VALID BLOODY REASON why someone may not choose to optimize. If you're reading deliberate insult into my post, then you clearly have a guilty conscience. I suggest either reading my posts in a neutral tone, or simply utilizing the "ignore" function in your user CP.

Regardless, I'm out.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-11-18, 02:51 PM
Regardless, I'm out.

That's good. OP's question about a one-handed spiked chain has been answered and most of the posts at this point are irrelevant arguments that are doing nothing but breeding bitterness. It would be good if we all followed Swordguy's example and STOPPED POSTING.

I'm out.

Milskidasith
2009-11-18, 02:51 PM
Fair enough. In my experience, bringing obsessive optimization to the game intrudes on the fun of the 90% of my players who are willing to take the Alertness feat over Power Attack at level 1 because they used to be a city guardsman or who take Toughness as a Fighter because their PC was exceptionally tough, even beyond normal level limits. These choices are horrendously suboptimal, but as long as the whole group is playing according to the same ideals (character-driven build over "what's mechanically best"), it's not an issue...until somebody brings in Tippyzards.

But you could just pick good feats and write a story based on it, which works out fine. I mean, Alertness doesn't even do that much based on the backstory; "I've got a 10% better chance to notice things than you" isn't what you want when your character is exceptionally alert, and I'd put more points into constitution over getting less than a tenth of an attacks worth of extra HP from a feat. That's just my optimizing helping my RPing, though; just because the feats fluff might be in line with yours doesn't mean the mechanics are.



Thusly, I prefer less optimization and more character-driven development in my games. The two CAN be in line, but I find that most often they aren't. How often to do hear "take 1 level of this class, 2 levels of this, this PrC, that Prc, the other PrC and you'll have great stats, and you can justify the RP however you want"?

Well, to be annoying, never, because no PrC can be entered at level 3 (with multiclassing, anyway). But as for an optimal build; yes, you have to fluff it up. I have no problems with doing that. If I'm playing a gestalt sorcerer/sea based Sand Shaper homebrew//Factotum/Legendary Captain (for a character concept I have, leading a massive army with leadership [the game has mass combat rules]) then I'm damn sure I can fluff everything in.


Finally, I'd posit that telling the OP that he's playing wrong if he doesn't optimize (which has been heavily insinuated in this thread) impinges on HIS fun.

This was never said directly, and never insinuated at all (or at least not as heavily as you insinuated that we don't have lives because we optimize).


No. No I am not. I'm pointing out that RL concerns are a VALID BLOODY REASON why someone may not choose to optimize.

For somebody who says that seeing the insult is our guilty conscience (again, implying we are somehow wrong) you seem very hostile about this. Again, if you don't have time, you can just get other people to optimize for you, and again, if you don't like D&Ds number heavy and less RP heavy system, you can pick one of the many "I get cool powers based on RP" systems.

SparkMandriller
2009-11-18, 02:56 PM
I love how easily this forum gets offended. Somehow you can take a normal conversation and turn it into trolling each other, and I'm still not even sure how. You could turn asking what the time is into an argument, it's great.

dsmiles
2009-11-18, 02:59 PM
If you've minimized die rolling so much and made RP so important, there are plenty of non D&D systems with things that have mechanics based on your roleplay. That's a lot better than saying "Hmm, this guy wanted to play a guy who was capable in everything (and didn't pick factotum) so he's a horrible multiclass mix, and this guy built a pretty good wizard and is doing a lot better while still having an acceptable backstory, so the guy who is horribly unoptimized gets heaps of bonuses and RP EXP because he went with his backstory first."

I didn't say I give XP based on backstory. Backstory is the fluff that floats the current story. Backstory isn't RP-ing. Sitting at the table with your head in the game is RP-ing. Finding a way around an encounter, or a way to resolve it peacefully will net you just as much experience as kicking in doors and killing the monsters on the other side. Life-like interaction with NPC's; instead of just "get the quest, finish the quest, reap the rewards;" THAT's RP-ing. This isn't a video game with pre-determined conversation choices.
At my tables, backstory comes first. Players show up with a backstory, a blank character sheet, a pencil, and dice. You may get numerical bonuses out of a backstory, if it fits the campaign premise, and it's convincing enough. Not everybody does, almost nobody I've gamed with cared if they got statistical bonuses from a story. They wrote the backstory for the sake of the story. They never wrote the backstory because they had to justify their feat or skill choices.

Milskidasith
2009-11-18, 03:01 PM
I didn't say I give XP based on backstory. Backstory is the fluff that floats the current story. Backstory isn't RP-ing. Sitting at the table with your head in the game is RP-ing. Finding a way around an encounter, or a way to resolve it peacefully will net you just as much experience as kicking in doors and killing the monsters on the other side. Life-like interaction with NPC's; instead of just "get the quest, finish the quest, reap the rewards;" THAT's RP-ing. This isn't a video game with pre-determined conversation choices.
At my tables, backstory comes first. Players show up with a backstory, a blank character sheet, a pencil, and dice. You may get numerical bonuses out of a backstory, if it fits the campaign premise, and it's convincing enough. Not everybody does, almost nobody I've gamed with cared if they got statistical bonuses from a story. They wrote the backstory for the sake of the story. They never wrote the backstory because they had to justify their feat or skill choices.

I am going to finish this simply because I don't have time to counterpoint everything. That is your way to play. Stop implying that everybody else should do the same. If you have fun, that's fine. But please, please do not imply that I somehow play D&D without RPing at all just because I optimize, or that I'm wrong because I start with the mechanics first and then write a backstory based on it. That is why people are getting offended by your posts.

Shademan
2009-11-18, 03:02 PM
I ran a campaign once. one player was a mishmash of paladin/blackguard/greyguard and some other divine prestige classes. he was VERY powerful and he was a GREAT character. we all had fun.

"Live and let live, and if someone can't abide by that, then drag the ****er into the streets and shoot him."
-George Carlin-

end of discussion, peace and love, man.

Tavar
2009-11-18, 03:03 PM
Swordguy, I respect you as a poster, but I've noticed that while you are decrying the implied "you must optimize", I've never really gotten the feeling from the posts. In fact, the post that seems to have started this argument had the words unoptimal in quotation marks, and went on to say that unless you're group tended towards high tier play, it really didn't matter. dsmiles then replied with a somewhat hostile response, and then the argument really began. I find it interesting that you still blame everything on the "optimizers", even though, as I tend to find, it's the "roleplayers/unoptimizers" who tend to start these thing and tend to imply more about the other side. Perhaps you should try not reading as much into post? Or looking at the cause of the argument?

Glimbur
2009-11-18, 03:07 PM
I love how easily this forum gets offended. Somehow you can take a normal conversation and turn it into trolling each other, and I'm still not even sure how. You could turn asking what the time is into an argument, it's great.

Hey, I'm in the right time zone. The rest of you guys aren't playing RAW.

dsmiles
2009-11-18, 03:12 PM
Sorry, no, you need to move east one time zone.

The Glyphstone
2009-11-18, 03:17 PM
Yeha, who do you think you are anyways, houseruling away Daylight Savings Time?