PDA

View Full Version : Rant: High-Op Man, Low-Op World



AtwasAwamps
2010-06-14, 09:47 AM
This is just another pointless rant triggered by a phone conversation with one of my fellow DMs.

TLDR: I am a high-op guy in a low-op group. Rant with me about your own “Odd-Man-Out” features in your group!

I know I seem to complain a bit about my group, but I’ll be fair, they’re good folks and an absolute blast to play with. This rant comes from pretty much nowhere beyond petty annoyance, but its still there.

See, I’m the newest player in my group by a long shot. By YEARS of experience in DnD 3.5, at least. For a while, I took what they said at face value, but then I got my hands on the books and started making my own assessments, then I started looking online…and then I realized that Good Gracious Mary, these guys are bad at the “game”. Understand that by the “Game” I don’t mean the actual process of playing, I mean the numbers behind the system that govern DnD.

The problem is that I am, at heart, an extremely numbers person. I love my numbers and I love cracking the whip and getting the feats and class features and tricks to fall into place and give me the most hilariously fun bang for my buck. This comes off of being a hardcore WoW player, so I generally try to temper it back, but its always going to bleed through a little bit. Now, to be fair, I also love roleplaying and do it quite a bit and absolutely love doing it, but I ALSO love mechanics.

The fellow who DMs when I’m not DMing is totally used to this and helps me play without going too far out of bounds. At our mutual silent agreement, my character is sort of the “buffoon” of the party. Because of that, he’s viewed as harmless. It works INCREDIBLY well, even after its become clear that my character has the highest damage potential in the party. It helps that the character in his game was created the first time I opened a book, but it uses Tome of Battle now and holds it own quite well. The issue is that other players have a tendency to bait me into arguments, especially when I’m running my own game.

Example: Someone building a chain tripping fighter asks me for build help as the DM. I outline the basics of a chain-tripper build and suggest things such as Combat Reflexes, Stand Still, and so on as gravy. Another player dips in and says “Before you take those, you want weapon focus and weapon specialization.” Despite my arguments, the other player remains adamant and my advice-seeker listens to him over me due to his experience playing a fighter and the fact that they are currently in a relationship. The party proceeds to have an ineffective front liner for the majority of an early level game, causing quite a few near-tpks as nobody was able to defend “the squishies”. Clever play from the psion player (the other DM mentioned above) has been the consistent savior of this party.

NOTE: After I “took the gloves off” in a session that killed three of seven characters, players in my game have asked for rebuilds to create slightly more effective characters. The chain tripper now has Combat Reflexes. Thank. God.

Example 2: My Imperious-Command based Champion of Gwynharrawyf is considered broken. My intimidate-to-cower ability is considered “Stronger than casting” and the fact that I can cast minor divine spells while raging is “very broken.” And, in addition? They gave me crap because “your barbarian can read.”

Example 3: The other “optimizers” at the table constantly challenge me because I absorb information quickly and they believe they have better “opti-fu” than me. I hold back repeatedly during these arguments, but tend to drop bombs when players get dismissive on me, such as when I was told I was stupid for positing that clerics and druid were both better frontliners than fighters, that at equally perfect levels of play a rogue would never beat a wizard, that banning evocation only really cost you contingency, that mystic theurge was a weak class, and so on.

The result of all this has been…odd. See, the group now knows I’m the “optimizer” in the group and come to me for advice on their builds and getting their characters to do what they want. They also vaguely resent my advice if it disagrees with their own (AKA, warning the guy making a warforged fighter that focusing on sundering may not be the greatest idea got me an irritated “Whatever”). When someone else is DMing, they ask me to hold back (which isn’t necessary, I always DO hold back and only encourage optimization in my own games). I do have an absolute blast playing with these guys and I’ve no intention of stopping, but every once in a while…I just want to bust out a ridiculous character or a half-optimized wizard, stomp a battle zone flat, and then go back to our regularly scheduled game.

Anyone else in a situation like this, where they have just one thing out of whack with everyone else in the group?

Gnaeus
2010-06-14, 10:05 AM
A couple of games ago I made a character in a new game. A dwarf fighter-wizard gish. Simple build, Fighter 1/Wizard X. Plate mail. I just used spells with no somatic components (Blindness, Blur, True Strike, Displacement) or still spell and then hit things with my dwarven waraxe. No PRCs, all core. (OK, I probably had some non-core spells, but all my feats and all the spells I used often were core. Maybe Benign Transposition).

2 players left the game because "Wizards casting spells in armor is so broken" and "How can we compete with this cheesegrinder build?"

mikej
2010-06-14, 10:07 AM
Wow, what you have there is a good rant.

Yeah, I'm the "Odd-Man-Out" in my group as well. Although, I don't find it really necessary to rant online about it. That's just me though, but I'am amused with the similarities.

AtwasAwamps
2010-06-14, 10:11 AM
Although, I don't find it really necessary to rant online about it.

I have some steam that needs venting.



Yeah, I just needed to vent after a conversation about a session that was nearly a TPK because of a combination of clumsy houserules, bad play, and a Monk.

Another_Poet
2010-06-14, 10:11 AM
I understand you frustration. I don't have nearly enough splat books to be a true optimizer but even just the fact that I built a conjuration-specalized wizard with a controller focus and batman capabilities puts me miles ahead of the group. We're in Ravenloft. Every session my wizard with his 30 AC (5th level!) runs out on front line and tanks. Every battle, I am the one who doesn't need healing (I might need to re-cast False Life but that's it). But these numbers may as well not exist. The cleric chides me ever turn, the rogue won't settle down until I read off my AC to him, etc. The fighter has learned to let me be because I give him an Enlarge Person or Haste every time he wants it.

My favourite is that the rogue jealously guards the privelege of opening doors or chests or walking first into new rooms. It doesn't matter that I'm immune to fire, immune to missile weapons, can absorb cold damage, have higher saves than him and just as good an AC; it would be a disaster in his mind to let the squishy wizard spring a trap. He also is not a fan of me using invisibility to come along on scouting runs (I partly understand that one because I might still make noise with less Stealth ranks than he has.)

However I try to stick to the roll of buffing the others and that earns me a lot of props. They are getting used to this wizard who does more than Fireball and can fit in anywhere there is a need. Like you said for your group it is a grudging acceptance, where they may not like it but then they're asking for build advice.

One thing I will say though is not to let it offend you that they don't take your build advice when you are GMing. Sure your point about Stand Still and Combat Reflexes was spot-on but there is something weird about taking the advice of the guy who is trying to kill you. Ultimately they have to make a team that works well as unit and that might be better serviced by the trust they show by taking each other's advice and having a shared idea of what a good build is. More fun to die together than to win while resenting each other, basically. In general I try to bite my tongue and not give build advice when I am GMing, though sometimes I can't help myself....

boj0
2010-06-14, 10:12 AM
A thousand times yes!!!
My optimization is usually crude but very blatant (a high damage output warblade or a ridiculous stealth droid in SAGA) and my group considers anything I do to be grounds for suspicion (the party wizard who took leadership for a sorcerer cohort called my goliath warblade "broken" because of IHS and Strike of Perfect Clarity).

I mean it's not even that I try that hard to optimize, my knowledge of truly crazy thing is attributed to forum lurking, but everyone considers me the king of cheese in my group (well taking out an enemy base by myself was kind of extreme, but I could stealth and assassinate really well so hey, why not?)

So my plan is in the evil campaign that we start soon, I'm going full wizard possibly core-only just to show how bad(ass) a caster can really be. :smallcool:

So yes, I feel your pain of being the only one who cares about numbers as much as plot.

mikej
2010-06-14, 10:20 AM
Yeah, I just needed to vent after a conversation about a session that was nearly a TPK because of a combination of clumsy houserules, bad play, and a Monk.

Trust me I sympathize with you.

PId6
2010-06-14, 10:23 AM
Similar feelings here, though with me it's less of a me vs the world and more of a half vs half. Basically, half the group were new when they started and let me build their characters for them, leading to extremely optimized characters. The other half, who already knew the rules, have been playing for a while, and think dwarven defenders are good, have much less optimized characters. These guys kind of resent my advice (like when I say that Mind Flayer Monk isn't such a great combination) and end up getting overshadowed as a result. Had I known this beforehand, I probably wouldn't have set the optimization level as high as I did, but now it's a bit late barring a TPK reset (which is unlikely, with our characters). Oh well, next campaign.

AtwasAwamps
2010-06-14, 10:23 AM
One thing I will say though is not to let it offend you that they don't take your build advice when you are GMing. Sure your point about Stand Still and Combat Reflexes was spot-on but there is something weird about taking the advice of the guy who is trying to kill you. Ultimately they have to make a team that works well as unit and that might be better serviced by the trust they show by taking each other's advice and having a shared idea of what a good build is. More fun to die together than to win while resenting each other, basically. In general I try to bite my tongue and not give build advice when I am GMing, though sometimes I can't help myself....

I don’t give it unless its asked for. If a player comes to me and asks me “Why isn’t my concept working out,” I’m happy to tell them how to fix it. I’ve warned them ahead of time that I’m using everything and they should too. They’re learning.

Umael
2010-06-14, 11:14 AM
*read*

...

*wisely bites tongue*

AtwasAwamps
2010-06-14, 11:25 AM
*read*

...

*wisely bites tongue*

"Roleplay don't rollplay", "Why don't you just let people play the way they want?" "Numbers aren't everything?"

Remember, I happily play my tendencies down and really really enjoy playing with these guys. Advice is only given when asked for and I only start talking hardcore op if I'm goaded into it by the other "optimizers".

I'd appreciate not being treated like some kind of callous and NUMBERS ONLY guy. I actually like the plot MORE than the numbers in any game I play. It just frustrates me that sometimes I am the only person thinking about the numbers.

Of course, if that wasn't the point of your post, my apologies. And yes, I know I have an ego. ::shrug:: Also I'm pretty.

Umael
2010-06-14, 11:51 AM
"Roleplay don't rollplay", "Why don't you just let people play the way they want?" "Numbers aren't everything?"

Remember, I happily play my tendencies down and really really enjoy playing with these guys. Advice is only given when asked for and I only start talking hardcore op if I'm goaded into it by the other "optimizers".

I'd appreciate not being treated like some kind of callous and NUMBERS ONLY guy. I actually like the plot MORE than the numbers in any game I play. It just frustrates me that sometimes I am the only person thinking about the numbers.

Of course, if that wasn't the point of your post, my apologies. And yes, I know I have an ego. ::shrug:: Also I'm pretty.

((Oh, look, I just deleted my first response. That was annoying.))

No, it was nothing like that, although those are all good points to keep in mind.

It was more along the lines of "When in Rome..." and "You brought this on yourself".

They play Low-Op game. You are a High-Op person. There is going to be a clash if you try to get them to play the game your way.

If they play it their way, and have fun, no issue. If they play it their way, and get slaughtered, oh well.

It's a game. Roll with it.

AtwasAwamps
2010-06-14, 12:00 PM
((Oh, look, I just deleted my first response. That was annoying.))

No, it was nothing like that, although those are all good points to keep in mind.

It was more along the lines of "When in Rome..." and "You brought this on yourself".

They play Low-Op game. You are a High-Op person. There is going to be a clash if you try to get them to play the game your way.

If they play it their way, and have fun, no issue. If they play it their way, and get slaughtered, oh well.

It's a game. Roll with it.

Yeah, that was kind of my point >< I'm rolling with it as best I can and frankly having a ball. Most of the optimization stuff comes OUTSIDE of the actual game, I peel back my character concepts, etc. etc. I'm PLAYING the low-op game and having fun with it. In the game where I am a bit ahead in party power level, it was partially at the DM's request because our front line was extremely weak and he wanted to be able to play challenging fights against us.

I just wanted to vent some steam, was all :(

EDIT: IE, I'm not trying to change my group or anything. I love them, love to play with them, love to DM for them. Just sometimes I want to bang my head on the table because they are really, really bad at the numbers side of it.

EDIT2: TELL ME I'M PRETTY.

Umael
2010-06-14, 12:16 PM
I just wanted to vent some steam, was all :(

EDIT: IE, I'm not trying to change my group or anything. I love them, love to play with them, love to DM for them. Just sometimes I want to bang my head on the table because they are really, really bad at the numbers side of it.

Totally understandable. Which is part of why I held my tongue - I'm in a somewhat similar situation myself.



EDIT2: TELL ME I'M PRETTY.

Oh, ye gods, you're pretty!!!11!

(Happy? :smallwink:)

AtwasAwamps
2010-06-14, 12:23 PM
Oh, ye gods, you're pretty!!!11!

(Happy? :smallwink:)

Yes. We are BFFs now. Will you come over and have cupcakes and Tippyverse with me?

(The cupcakes are strawberry!)

jiriku
2010-06-14, 12:35 PM
'Wash, tell me I'm pretty...'

'Were I not married, I would take you in a manly fashion.'

'...cause I'm pretty?'

'Cause you're pretty.'

Mongoose87
2010-06-14, 12:38 PM
Did you really have to say "The Game?"

mostlyharmful
2010-06-14, 12:59 PM
The one you lost you mean?

yeah, I can get behind this. I've got a friend who thinks that because he's been roleplaying since he was six he's the most knowledgable in the group. I try to point out that the games been through three and a half editions and innumerable splats since then and that he hasn't even read half the books I've got let alone all the webmaterial out there and yet he's 100% convinced that core is balenced and Wizards are squishy, Fighter feats are worth as much as casting, etc.... meh.

Umael
2010-06-14, 01:03 PM
Yes. We are BFFs now. Will you come over and have cupcakes and Tippyverse with me?

(The cupcakes are strawberry!)

Oooo! Strawberry!

Lycar
2010-06-14, 01:36 PM
EDIT: IE, I'm not trying to change my group or anything. I love them, love to play with them, love to DM for them. Just sometimes I want to bang my head on the table because they are really, really bad at the numbers side of it.
Uh... have you ever considered that your pals might be thinking along those line:

- We are here for the game
- The numbers are a tool, a means to an end, nothing more
- If the numbers get in the way of the game, they need to be taken behind the shed and shot

In other words: As long as the game works, don't fix something that isn't broken.

Seriously, you are mad at them because they don't care for the numbers. But remember what a game is about: Having fun. And you say yourself that you and your buddies are having a blast, mechanics be damned. You guys are already winning D&D. Do you really want to risk this by bringing all the problems that optimization can cause to your table? Optimization might well be the forbidden fruit. :smallfrown:


EDIT2: TELL ME I'M PRETTY.
Fine. You are pretty. Your avatar is butt-ugly though. Happy? :smalltongue:

Lycar

AtwasAwamps
2010-06-14, 01:45 PM
Uh... have you ever considered that your pals might be thinking along those line:

- We are here for the game
- The numbers are a tool, a means to an end, nothing more
- If the numbers get in the way of the game, they need to be taken behind the shed and shot

In other words: As long as the game works, don't fix something that isn't broken.

Seriously, you are mad at them because they don't care for the numbers. But remember what a game is about: Having fun. And you say yourself that you and your buddies are having a blast, mechanics be damned. You guys are already winning D&D. Do you really want to risk this by bringing all the problems that optimization can cause to your table? Optimization might well be the forbidden fruit. :smallfrown:


Fine. You are pretty. Your avatar is butt-ugly though. Happy? :smalltongue:

Lycar

Was I seriously that unclear in my post? It says, right there, I'M NOT TRYING TO CHANGE THEM OR ANYTHING ABOUT THE WAY WE PLAY. I'm just venting my frustration, NOT to them so that they don't get offended or think I'm trying to change anything. I am having fun, winning DND, and don't have a problem with it. This is an irritating fly in the ointment, I just wanted to rant and see if anyone else felt like ranting about the same situation.

I need to cliff-notes my posts, don't I?

And if you really want to get into it, I'm not "mad" so much as "frustrated" and if you check my post again, you'll see that there are already members of the group who consider themselves "optimizers" and my frustration with them comes from the fact that they are REALLY BAD AT IT ("Warmage is a wizard+awesome!"). I'm the least powergamey of the group IN PRACTICE, and the most IN THEORY.

EG: You and I are not even remotely in disagreement. Irritation is not the same as "OMG YER DOIN' IT WRONG."

EDIT: I do encourage optimization in the games I run because I think that's fun and that's my DMing style. If they do not enjoy it, they are always welcome to sit out my games. I am currently the most requested DM in the group and I can still make our resident Beatstick-player crap his pants when he catches sight of the re-occurring ninja/swordsage that's been harassing the party on and off, both because she's mechanically dangerous and because it's absolutely terrifying to be briefly strangled by shadows before hearing a voice say "Toodle-oo" and suddenly realize she stole your pants.

Lin Bayaseda
2010-06-14, 02:00 PM
You know, the party I'm DMing consists of:
1. Multiclassed Fighter/Paladin who has Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization for every weapon she uses. She also has Power Attack, but it's only used as a prerequisite for Cleave; she never actually Power-Attacked in the character's life.
2. Cleric, who adamantly refuses to understand what DMM is, and once upon a time took Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Bastard Sword), because the 1d8 damage of a Heavy Mace was just too little.
3. Arcane Trickster, who entered the prestige class as a Sorcerer, not Wizard, and thus lost a whole level, more or less.

And you know, I got used to it. I wouldn't exchange those players for anything or anyone else for the world. I love them. (I., P., and L., if you're reading this, I love you).

I bet you can get used to it too.


I know I seem to complain a bit about my group, but I’ll be fair, they’re good folks and an absolute blast to play with.
Isn't that what matters?

Tavar
2010-06-14, 02:06 PM
Isn't that what matters?

Not really. Doing in person DnD is a whole set of different social interactions. In this case, it seems that playing with the group isn't a problem. It's other stuff. Like their insistence that the OP doesn't know what he's talking about in terms of optimization.

AtwasAwamps
2010-06-14, 02:09 PM
I'm going to be over here, bashing my head against my office desk.

I apologize. I think a lot of what I was saying was missed because of the instinctive need to defend the "non-numbers" part of the game, especially as part of the backlash of the heavy optimization present on these boards.

I am used to it. I am happy with my group. I would not trade them for anything ever. That doesn't mean their (MINOR) failings does not cause me to go "Nyaargh!"

EDIT: Case in point…half the people who have posted are well-meaning and have made very well-thought-out posts about why I am wrong about the thing I am agreeing with them about. They are polite and nice and I like them. But since they missed the point of the OP and the other posts I made afterwards…

NYAAAARGH!

Knaight
2010-06-14, 02:15 PM
Another voice towards high op characters in a low op world. Only in my case, its by accident, I try to cripple them and drag them down to the level of the rest of my group (on those rare occasions I play D&D), but I can't. And this is from optimizing defense and playing front liners, which only works because the DM never uses the kind of tactics that make it hard to resist. My group finds good saves, high AC, and a decent miss chance more palatable than an offensive monster, and are fine with me using highly defensive options for near invulnerability, but then battles take forever. And I'm not even that good at optimization, the guys I'm playing have no right to be above anyone in power.

Of course, the fact that half of my group has little interest in role playing is a bigger problem, but that is slowly changing, and most of my gaming is done over Skype or chat with people who are die hard role players now anyways, so no harm done.

Swordgleam
2010-06-14, 02:16 PM
At least you have that other DM around. That's my release valve, too - the guy who DMs our Iron Heroes group can sympathize with me about the problem players in my 4e group, since we play with the same people.

I'm apparently pretty good at optimizing. At least, my man-at-arms (I only get to play in Iron Heroes) can regularly out-damage the party's berserker and has some of the highest social bonuses in the group even though we have a hunter. The rest of the group's solution has been to pretend not to notice either of these things. We need two high damage characters and two good face characters for most of the situations we get into. Everyone wins.

I think it's only really a problem when people start yelling "broken" and viewing the game as a competition between PCs.

Sliver
2010-06-14, 02:16 PM
- The numbers are a tool, a means to an end, nothing more
- If the numbers get in the way of the game, they need to be taken behind the shed and shot

I didn't get that impression. If they wouldn't care for the numbers, they wouldn't ask for advice, others won't give bad advice and would just let the OP help, wouldn't pretend to know better than the OP nor would the DM ask the OP to optimize a bit more than the rest so he can send something challenging without risking a TPK.

erikun
2010-06-14, 02:21 PM
For a while, I took what they said at face value, but then I got my hands on the books and started making my own assessments, then I started looking online…and then I realized that Good Gracious Mary, these guys are bad at the “game”. Understand that by the “Game” I don’t mean the actual process of playing, I mean the numbers behind the system that govern DnD.
I hope you don't mind if I rant myself here a bit, but this is one of the most annoying parts of D&D that I've seen. I find that most people who are interested in playing a roleplaying game are interested in the roleplaying, and in playing the game while roleplaying. They aren't interesting is the system as much, and certainly aren't interesting in playing a character creation "mini-game" in order to be any use during the roleplay. They wish for the system to work so that they can sit down and play the game, not to spend a large amount of time adjusting the system so that it finally works well enough for them to sit down and play the game.

Optimization is present and possible in pretty much every system I've seen; people wishing to tweak or optimize a character have had no problem in systems like GURPS or World of Darkness. It is honestly quite annoying when you sit down to play D&D only to discover that Fighters have difficulty fighting, or that the Healer is really bad at healing, or that the Druid renders everyone else pointless.

And back to your regularly scheduled thread.


This comes off of being a hardcore WoW player, so I generally try to temper it back, but its always going to bleed through a little bit.
I've found that trying to be competitive in MMOs is fairly difficult. You need to be as good as the highest level players, or at least as good as the most popular builds, to be any use as a character. You could ignore all that and just spend time with a group of friends, but that isn't exactly playing competitively.

In D&D, by contrast, the only competition you have is the four other people at the table. You could play a Monk wielding a Longspear and still be competitive, because your challangers are not the most powerful builds D&D has to offer, but just the other builds at the table.

In short, why not optimize something unusual? If you're good at number crunching, then taking something poor and turning it into something useful - like a TWF rogue wielding daggers/bastard sword/gnome battle cloak for someone who can freely switch between TWF, THF, and sword-and-board. It's honestly a bit more difficult that trying to see how strong you can make your buffing wizard.


My favourite is that the rogue jealously guards the privelege of opening doors or chests or walking first into new rooms. It doesn't matter that I'm immune to fire, immune to missile weapons, can absorb cold damage, have higher saves than him and just as good an AC; it would be a disaster in his mind to let the squishy wizard spring a trap. He also is not a fan of me using invisibility to come along on scouting runs (I partly understand that one because I might still make noise with less Stealth ranks than he has.)
To be fair, what is the rogue going to do if you trigger all the traps and do all the scouting? Although you could always just make the Rogue invisible, or immune to missile weapons, or whatever else would make him better and his job.


EDIT2: TELL ME I'M PRETTY.
YOU ARE A PRETTY LITTLE BALLERINA thanks to your Bard multiclassing with Warblade with the Song of the White Raven feat, going into Sublime Chord and then Jade Phoenix Mage for 9th level spellcasting with the highest level maneuvers.

Tengu_temp
2010-06-14, 02:25 PM
I understand you OP, I really do. Even when you are well-integrated with your group and everyone's characters are on roughly the same power level, it still can feel a bit annoying when you're an optimizer and the others aren't. Fortunately, usually not more than a bit, especially if you're all good friends and the game is great despite that little fact.

AtwasAwamps
2010-06-14, 02:27 PM
I've found that trying to be competitive in MMOs is fairly difficult. You need to be as good as the highest level players, or at least as good as the most popular builds, to be any use as a character. You could ignore all that and just spend time with a group of friends, but that isn't exactly playing competitively.


Ooof, yeah. It's why I quit. I have an extremely competitive nature and would spend far too much time on number crunching as a mental exercise. I now do that in DnD. Ugh.



In short, why not optimize something unusual? If you're good at number crunching, then taking something poor and turning it into something useful - like a TWF rogue wielding daggers/bastard sword/gnome battle cloak for someone who can freely switch between TWF, THF, and sword-and-board. It's honestly a bit more difficult that trying to see how strong you can make your buffing wizard.


This is pretty much what I do. Go Go Tower Shield Paladin! One day you will hit something! Though honestly I have to avoid this a little bit too because I can't step on anyone's toes in "party role" because they'll get touchy and no matter what I do, I'll probably do it slightly better.



YOU ARE A PRETTY LITTLE BALLERINA

Goddamn right I am.

stenver
2010-06-14, 02:28 PM
Every session my wizard with his 30 AC (5th level!) .

HOW CAN YOU GET AC OF 30 AT LEVEL 5 WITH A WIZARD!?!?! I want a complete spell rundown!!!!

Also, how did you get high saves??

Eldariel
2010-06-14, 02:31 PM
HOW CAN YOU GET AC OF 30 AT LEVEL 5 WITH A WIZARD!?!?! I want a complete spell rundown!!!!

Outsider (there's plenty of LA +1 Outsiders and some LA +0 ones) Alter Selfs into Ravid; 10 min/level for +15 Natural Armor. Add your Dex and Mage Armor and you're above 30 already. Mind, you aren't exactly trying yet.

Fawsto
2010-06-14, 02:32 PM
Does anyone ever thought of founding a GiTP club about this? I would certainly participate on it.

AtwasAwamps
2010-06-14, 02:32 PM
I can’t stress enough the absolute skill of the other DM in managing a party of disparate power levels and game knowledge. He’s great. I WISH I had his abilities as a DM. While my character is slightly ahead of the general power curve, because he’s focused on defending the party and because my DM crafts situations to make him both buffoon and badass, nobody gets upset (I have, in the course of two sessions, rolled a 30 on diplomacy to make a blacksmith feel better about his wares and accidentally made him feel worse by complimenting all the work that wasn’t his, and then saved the entire party in an absolutely epic Crowning Moment of Awesome that I posted here and will not link cause I’m trying not to be that vain). My ability to constantly hand out hit-points has saved our reckless players and my ability to take punishment has saved the party, but my inability to succeed in a social situation despite high social skill keeps everyone happy (especially our half-elf swashbuckler who…look, I don’t know what she’s doing over there besides 2-4 damage a turn).

Umael
2010-06-14, 02:40 PM
I'm going to be over here, bashing my head against my office desk.

NYAAAARGH!

Does... does this mean no strawberry cupcakes? :smallfrown:

Gametime
2010-06-14, 02:40 PM
Optimization is present and possible in pretty much every system I've seen; people wishing to tweak or optimize a character have had no problem in systems like GURPS or World of Darkness. It is honestly quite annoying when you sit down to play D&D only to discover that Fighters have difficulty fighting, or that the Healer is really bad at healing, or that the Druid renders everyone else pointless.


To be fair, the Healer is fine at healing. It's the complete lack of ability to do anything else, combined with the fact that a Cleric or Druid can heal nearly as well while also heavily buffing the party and contributing to melee combat, combined with the fact that a cheap magic item of healing is better than wasting your spells on healing anyway, that makes them a poor choice of class.

Similarly, the fighter is fine at fighting. A decently built fighter can take out half the creatures in the Monster Manual. It's his inability to do anything, at all, ever about the other half, as well his inability to invest in skills that would allow him to avoid combat (either by stealth or sociality), that makes him a load so often.

AtwasAwamps
2010-06-14, 02:43 PM
Does... does this mean no strawberry cupcakes? :smallfrown:

Of COURSE not, BFF. See, you got it. Eventually. So you get a cupcake.

::gives cupcake::

Mordar
2010-06-14, 02:59 PM
I understand you frustration.

I read the OP, and I understood that he was "playing nice" without "playing down", so that seems like a good situation.

Here, though, is the frustration for me...the CharOper that wants to be everything because they can be everything.



I don't have nearly enough splat books to be a true optimizer but even just the fact that I built a conjuration-specalized wizard with a controller focus and batman capabilities puts me miles ahead of the group. We're in Ravenloft. Every session my wizard with his 30 AC (5th level!) runs out on front line and tanks. Every battle, I am the one who doesn't need healing (I might need to re-cast False Life but that's it). But these numbers may as well not exist. The cleric chides me ever turn, the rogue won't settle down until I read off my AC to him, etc. The fighter has learned to let me be because I give him an Enlarge Person or Haste every time he wants it.

My favourite is that the rogue jealously guards the privelege of opening doors or chests or walking first into new rooms. It doesn't matter that I'm immune to fire, immune to missile weapons, can absorb cold damage, have higher saves than him and just as good an AC; it would be a disaster in his mind to let the squishy wizard spring a trap. He also is not a fan of me using invisibility to come along on scouting runs (I partly understand that one because I might still make noise with less Stealth ranks than he has.)

Why even bother with having the rest of the characters? You want to take on all of their roles (tank, skill-monkey, remove the need for the healer)...so play a solo game. Now, I don't know you from Adam, and I don't think you actually want a solo game...but that's the message that is being broadcast by the player who wants to "horn in" on even the established character "niches" of chest-opener and trap-checker.

I've played with a few too many CharOp types that did exactly this, and it greatly diminished the enjoyability of the game (before anyone asks, stayed and played because of the social group, and generally tried to steer the group towards non-RPG gaming).


However I try to stick to the roll of buffing the others and that earns me a lot of props. They are getting used to this wizard who does more than Fireball and can fit in anywhere there is a need. Like you said for your group it is a grudging acceptance, where they may not like it but then they're asking for build advice.

[snip] More fun to die together than to win while resenting each other, basically. In general I try to bite my tongue and not give build advice when I am GMing, though sometimes I can't help myself....

See, this all says you get my point...buffing says "I want to help you do your job and see your character be fruitful"...and that says we're all in this together (but not the High School Musical way). Almost everyone likes to be the best at something, but its seldom as enjoyable an experience to be in a group with someone who wants to be (or *is*) the best at everything.

Remember the Indiana Jones RPG...the first one that came out way back when, where you could play as Marion, Sallah, Short-Round or Indy? Remember why you didn't want to be anyone besides Indy? That's how a whole lot of players feel when being the low Ops with a high Op in the crew.

Anyway...excuse for not working has come to an end. Rant off.

- M

AtwasAwamps
2010-06-14, 03:04 PM
Remember the Indiana Jones RPG...the first one that came out way back when, where you could play as Marion, Sallah, Short-Round or Indy? Remember why you didn't want to be anyone besides Indy?



Screw that, I'm playing Short-Round!

Ramza1987
2010-06-14, 03:09 PM
I´m in the same situation, in my gaming group, everyone is wanting a full roleplay game, and they don´t even know what their classes can really do; just to make it clear, the party monk is the most damaging pc, and even social character.

My problem is, i learned to optimize by reading forums like this one, i really like having a character than can fulfill his role quite well, without being totally overpowered; but having players that don´t know one bit.. ended up with me called optimizer or powergamer...

One thing that annoyed me, was when i was buying magical items for my bard (lvl9), and asked for a item that improved my social skills; right away the DM (who thinks of himself as a good optimizer) banned me the right to have such items because that was optimizing; just because i have a diplomacy of 23 (12 ranks, 20 charisma, and +6 with sinergies).

So it makes me mad when they call me powergamer only because i have a character that does too his job way too well.

Thanks for the opportunity to let go some steam.:smallsmile::smallsmile::smallsmile:

stenver
2010-06-14, 03:13 PM
Outsider (there's plenty of LA +1 Outsiders and some LA +0 ones) Alter Selfs into Ravid; 10 min/level for +15 Natural Armor. Add your Dex and Mage Armor and you're above 30 already. Mind, you aren't exactly trying yet.

Now tell me how can you get AC 30 without shapechange line spells and playing a regular race(human, halfling and so on)

erikun
2010-06-14, 03:14 PM
To be fair, the Healer is fine at healing. It's the complete lack of ability to do anything else, combined with the fact that a Cleric or Druid can heal nearly as well while also heavily buffing the party and contributing to melee combat, combined with the fact that a cheap magic item of healing is better than wasting your spells on healing anyway, that makes them a poor choice of class.

Similarly, the fighter is fine at fighting. A decently built fighter can take out half the creatures in the Monster Manual. It's his inability to do anything, at all, ever about the other half, as well his inability to invest in skills that would allow him to avoid combat (either by stealth or sociality), that makes him a load so often.
But the Healer is bad at healing. They lack the Vigor line, which is the most efficient way of healing, and don't have auras which can provide healing for free. They lack Restoration, which can heal ability damage and level drain. Heck, I think they even get less spells than the Cleric. The problem isn't that they are a bad healer compared to the Cleric - they're a bad healer compared to almost anything that can provide healing.

And the Fighter needs vary high optimization to actually be good at fighting. Blame it on the combat system, which discourages characters from doing anything outside of charging, full attacking, and five foot steps. Fighters get the feats to allow them to trip or grapple, but this doesn't make them terribly good. Compare an optimized Fighter to a Psychic Warrior, who easily controls the area around him with a single power (Expansion). Compare it to a Warblade, who can move and attack effectively each round.

Gnaeus
2010-06-14, 03:14 PM
One thing that annoyed me, was when i was buying magical items for my bard (lvl9), and asked for a item that improved my social skills; right away the DM (who thinks of himself as a good optimizer) banned me the right to have such items because that was optimizing; just because i have a diplomacy of 23 (12 ranks, 20 charisma, and +6 with sinergies).

Did he also ban the fighter from using a magical weapon, because that would be optimizing too. Naughty fighter.

Sliver
2010-06-14, 03:18 PM
they're a bad healer compared to almost anything that can provide healing.

Like a rogue with a wand of lesser vigor and UMD? :smallamused:

Umael
2010-06-14, 03:19 PM
One thing that annoyed me, was when i was buying magical items for my bard (lvl9), and asked for a item that improved my social skills; right away the DM (who thinks of himself as a good optimizer) banned me the right to have such items because that was optimizing; just because i have a diplomacy of 23 (12 ranks, 20 charisma, and +6 with sinergies).

So it makes me mad when they call me powergamer only because i have a character that does too his job way too well.

Yes, but diplomacy IS a cheese skill. Of any ability to go cheese, only UMD beats it. There is a valid concern there.

(Unless I am being very, very blind here, of course.)

PId6
2010-06-14, 03:21 PM
Now tell me how can you get AC 30 without shapechange line spells and playing a regular race(human, halfling and so on)
Halfling Wizard 5

10 Base
Shrink Person = +2 Size
Dex = +5 Dex
Greater Mage Armor = +6 armor
Shield = +4 shield
Bite of the Wererat = +3 enhancement to natural armor

There, exactly 30.

erikun
2010-06-14, 03:23 PM
Yes, but diplomacy IS a cheese skill. Of any ability to go cheese, only UMD beats it. There is a valid concern there.
It's only cheese if you follow the table to the letter, where a 50+ roll turns anyone into Helpful - even if they were about to kill you, eat you, or stop you from preventing them from achieving world domination. Much more reasonable would be if the DM imposes some sensible limits, namely that "eat you" becomes "save you for later" or "kill you" becomes "keep you alive for now."

Gnaeus
2010-06-14, 03:25 PM
Now tell me how can you get AC 30 without shapechange line spells and playing a regular race(human, halfling and so on)

Greater Mage Armor (+6) + base 14 Dex (+2) + Shield (+4) +Cats Grace (+2) + Barkskin (+2) (Arcane Disciple: Plant), + Protection From Evil (+2) + Law Devotion gets you there. By level 5 you might be rocking some magic items too.

Of course, most DMs don't ban Alter Self, so even if you can only get +4-6 NA from it (i.e. no outsider forms) it still makes 30 AC at level 5 trivial.

Edit: I think if PId6 and I combined our lists we would be close to 40.

stenver
2010-06-14, 03:31 PM
Thank you very much. You are far too kind

However, everywhere i read, they say that shapechange line is overpowered. I play in groups that ban the entire shapechange line. What spells from that line are NOT overpowered.(assuming that all players mildly optimize)

Gnaeus
2010-06-14, 03:35 PM
Thank you very much. You are far too kind

However, everywhere i read, they say that shapechange line is overpowered. I play in groups that ban the entire shapechange line. What spells from that line are NOT overpowered.(assuming that all players mildly optimize)

I don't think too many people think that Alter Self into something like a lizardman or troglodyte breaks the game. It isn't really much stronger than Barkskin, and it has some drawbacks (like, you look like a lizardman). The spell alone isn't broken, it is the application when you pick an outsider race in order to break the interaction with Alter Self.

There are also plenty of ways to nerf the shapechange spells without bringing down the ban hammer.

It could be argued that the interaction between Alter Self and Greater Mage armor is broken, because it makes the wizard's walking around AC too high, but that isn't really that bad considering that the wizard is giving up 2 potentially fight ending spells just to get an AC a few points higher than most other characters.

PId6
2010-06-14, 03:43 PM
Thank you very much. You are far too kind

However, everywhere i read, they say that shapechange line is overpowered. I play in groups that ban the entire shapechange line. What spells from that line are NOT overpowered.(assuming that all players mildly optimize)
Ban all of the indeterminate form polymorphing spells, like Alter Self, Polymorph, Draconic Polymorph, Polymorph any Object, Shapechange, Metamorphosis, Greater Metamorphosis, and such (probably missing a Polymorph mystery or something).

Allow all of the ones that has only a single form. This basically means the ones from Spell Compendium, PHB2, Complete Mage, and Dragon Magic. Those are far tamer and also require a lot less bookkeeping.


I don't think too many people think that Alter Self into something like a lizardman or troglodyte breaks the game. It isn't really much stronger than Barkskin, and it has some drawbacks (like, you look like a lizardman). The spell alone isn't broken, it is the application when you pick an outsider race in order to break the interaction with Alter Self.
It's not gamebreaking, but it is still far better than other spells of its level. The sheer versatility of providing flight/burrow/swim when you need it is enough to warrant a 2nd level spell just for that, not to mention the natural weapons/natural armor/size changes/disguise. For something so versatile, it's also incredibly competitive at its job (Barkskin only provides NA and it's still worse). It should at least be moved up to 4th IMO, but it seems easier just to ignore its existence.

Gnaeus
2010-06-14, 04:11 PM
Ban all of the indeterminate form polymorphing spells, like Alter Self, Polymorph, Draconic Polymorph, Polymorph any Object, Shapechange, Metamorphosis, Greater Metamorphosis, and such (probably missing a Polymorph mystery or something).

It should at least be moved up to 4th IMO, but it seems easier just to ignore its existence.

PId6 has a significantly different design philosophy than we play with here. We think that allowing players to have fun things is nice, so we alter them to a less broken form and rely on mature play and gentlemens agreements instead of treating our players like irresponsible children or MMO addicts. I will not discuss polymorph any more in this thread, to avoid further derailment.

Lycar
2010-06-14, 04:15 PM
EG: You and I are not even remotely in disagreement. Irritation is not the same as "OMG YER DOIN' IT WRONG."
Sorry, just wanted to point out that you already have a great game going and that... well, that 'itch' to tweak the numbers is one you should try to avoid scratching.

See, your pals ask your for advice when they are not happy with what they have (like when your friend's fighter guy was killed) but are rather loathe to change anything as long as things work ok.

It is just that old 'make the characters stronger so you can adequately challenge them' problem.

Step 1:The DM misjudges an encounter's difficulty or people just roll bad, they think they are underpowered and want to get more power.

Step:2: Goto Step 1.

And since some classes are a lot easier to 'pump up' then others, you are going to end up in a tight spot eventually. Try to avoid going there for as long as you can is the only advice I can give you from my personal experience.

Oh and, you are such a lucky bastard to have these guys to game with, appreciate them. Buy pizza next time. ;)

Lycar

PId6
2010-06-14, 04:17 PM
PId6 has a significantly different design philosophy than we play with here. We think that allowing players to have fun things is nice, so we alter them to a less broken form and rely on mature play and gentlemens agreements instead of treating our players like irresponsible children or MMO addicts. I will not discuss polymorph any more in this thread, to avoid further derailment.
And I think it's not really worth spending time on when there are plenty of viable polymorphing spells printed already that are far less broken. Bolded line is just blatant strawmanning there.

Hzurr
2010-06-14, 04:25 PM
"Just a high-op girl, living in a low-op wooorld. She took a midnight train goin' anywhere...."

GoodbyeSoberDay
2010-06-14, 04:46 PM
I had that dynamic in my previous group (we all moved away for various reasons). Most didn't care if I was better (read: competent) in combat so long as I didn't talk about the mechanics or choices of their characters at all, and I respected that. Others asked for some advice at character generation, generally insisting on 'simple' characters, and I obliged. Fun times for all.

The only thing that ever really annoyed me was the fact that they would call me a 'metagamer' as a pejorative. I would point out that zero-metagaming leads to characters leaving the party or ruining the fun in one way or another, and that everyone metagamed for the benefit of the group, but all I'd receive in return was a roll of the eyes and a "yeah, yeah." At that point I was tempted to wonder aloud why our resident method actors were even chattering OOC at all, but I kept my mouth shut.

Edit: I'm glad I never had the problem of mistaken optimizers in my group, like the OP. If I were to make an idle comment like "The druid fights better than the fighter," the harshest response I'd receive would be "So?"

Lord Vampyre
2010-06-14, 05:06 PM
I have to admit optimization isn't my strongest skill. I normally try to build the character around a concept and stick to it, whether its optimized or not. I'm great with numbers, just not with the optimization.

My main problem with games I've been in is tactics. I am normally the best tactician in the group and can normally get the group out alive. I just wish the people who play fighters would allow the area affecting wizards do their thing and not run into the blast zone.


Compare an optimized Fighter to a Psychic Warrior, who easily controls the area around him with a single power (Expansion). Compare it to a Warblade, who can move and attack effectively each round.

This is why it is my expressed opinion that anything beyond the first three books is actually broken. Unfortunately, in WotC infinite wisdom, they failed to balance the new core classes with the original classes. Now, I will admit that I enjoy playing the far more effective classes. Although for the most part, I normally stick to playing a wizard

Tavar
2010-06-14, 05:08 PM
As opposed to the Druid, Cleric, Wizard and Sorcerer, who are the benchmark against everything else is measured.

Pray tell, what book are they in again?

Gametime
2010-06-14, 05:13 PM
But the Healer is bad at healing. They lack the Vigor line, which is the most efficient way of healing, and don't have auras which can provide healing for free. They lack Restoration, which can heal ability damage and level drain. Heck, I think they even get less spells than the Cleric. The problem isn't that they are a bad healer compared to the Cleric - they're a bad healer compared to almost anything that can provide healing.

Maybe we're operating under different definitions of "bad" here. I would view someone as good at healing if they were able to heal the party as much as needed. The Healer is entirely able to do that. They do get Restoration, as a matter of fact, as well as Greater Restoration, and even Death Ward. They get all the cure spells (obviously), heal and mass heal, freedom of movement, atonement, stone to flesh...you get the idea.

They don't get the Vigor line, but (conveniently) the Spell Compendium recommends adding to the Healer's spell list "spells concerned with healing, removing affliction, providing protections, and providing for needs. In particular, add higher-level versions of spells the healer can already cast, such as mass restoration." Vigor and it's lesser counterparts pretty obviously fit that criteria.

Regardless, even without the Vigor line, Healers can heal. What else are they going to do with those spell slots? Pretty much all they can do is heal. I'm confident that a Healer could keep a party topped off pretty well, especially if they augmented their spells with a wand of cure light wounds. It won't be as efficient if you don't rule in Vigor spells, but they can get the job done. I'd never recommend bringing one, because there are ways of healing without devoting an entire character solely to it, but they can still heal.


And the Fighter needs vary high optimization to actually be good at fighting. Blame it on the combat system, which discourages characters from doing anything outside of charging, full attacking, and five foot steps. Fighters get the feats to allow them to trip or grapple, but this doesn't make them terribly good. Compare an optimized Fighter to a Psychic Warrior, who easily controls the area around him with a single power (Expansion). Compare it to a Warblade, who can move and attack effectively each round.

I didn't say it made them terribly good. I didn't say it made them better than their competition. All I said was that a well-built Fighter can kill a lot of monsters - and, especially if you use the premade monsters in the books, that's very true. He'll be almost entirely useless against the monsters with certain special abilities, of course, but my point is that if you put a Fighter in front of a big hulkin' brute, the Fighter can brawl with it pretty successfully.

Zore
2010-06-14, 05:15 PM
This is why it is my expressed opinion that anything beyond the first three books is actually broken. Unfortunately, in WotC infinite wisdom, they failed to balance the new core classes with the original classes. Now, I will admit that I enjoy playing the far more effective classes. Although for the most part, I normally stick to playing a wizard

What. Three of the five most powerful classes come from core. Three of the weakest classes also come from core. There are over fifty classes in official supplements. This should say something about the supposed 'balance' of core.

Caphi
2010-06-14, 05:20 PM
Now, I will admit that I enjoy playing the far more effective classes. Although for the most part, I normally stick to playing a wizard

Doesn't "although" normally imply contrast?

Tavar
2010-06-14, 05:23 PM
Doesn't "although" normally imply contrast?

Especially if you're looking at core. In there, it's pretty much a toss up which is better, Druid or Wizard, and it largely depends on the level(lower favors druid, higher wizard).

AstralFire
2010-06-14, 05:41 PM
Doesn't "although" normally imply contrast?

He's saying that he far prefers the more effective martial classes released later in 3.x, versus the core martial classes. Then he moves on to say that despite that, he usually plays a Wizard - circumventing the whole thing.

Umael
2010-06-14, 05:45 PM
I have to admit optimization isn't my strongest skill.


My main problem with games I've been in is tactics.


This is why it is my expressed opinion that anything beyond the first three books is actually broken. Unfortunately, in WotC infinite wisdom, they failed to balance the new core classes with the original classes. Now, I will admit that I enjoy playing the far more effective classes. Although for the most part, I normally stick to playing a wizard

...

Um, Lord Vampyre?

I'm not big on optimization, but geez, even I know that Core is broken.

So, um... yeah. The above? Is your opinion. It is just that. Sorry.

And you pretty much even admitted that you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to optimization.

ScionoftheVoid
2010-06-14, 06:42 PM
I'm the resident optimiser in our group, and my DM doesn't mind as long as I don't become overpowered. He hasn't elaborated on this yet, but he seemed to be fine with the idea of me buffing the rest of the party, as long as it wasn't with tactical advice during the game (my DM's most common form of punishment for metagaming, "playing other people's characters" (the ones I am most commonly accused of), suggesting courses of action to another player whilst your character is unconscious (though OOC general coversation is fine), etc. is to have body parts fall off. Usually spontaneously, but we do get warnings beforehand if we're headed that way).

My characters are generally crippled by low levels. I like the idea of gishes and often like PrCs but we rarely get to levels where PrCs are available (even though we usually start at about level three) and definitely not to levels where gish PrCs are available. Very irritating, particularly because I also lack sources to draw from.

My biggest irritation about my group is them not taking my advice all the way through. I suggest a chain tripper to the party's Dwarven Fighter, he takes Combat Reflexes and other key feats, even gets proficiency with the spiked chain. He then proceeds to use a Dwarven Urgrosh (the DM was experimenting with a houserule on magic items based on imbuing power into them over time, starting magic items were to be family heirlooms for the most part. Player thinks this means he should use a more Dwarfy weapon because of this:smallsigh:). I wouldn't have minded had he told me he planned to use said weapon so I could just load him up on charger feats, intead of wasting time suggesting feats he wasn't going to use. My younger sibling's semi-Batman Wizard targetting spells badly and eventually getting savaged by wolves when he went off on his own (basically not acting his Int or Wis scores) was also painful to watch, though I at least introduced him to the idea that blasting wasn't great, which seems to have sunk in because he preffered summoning before the game ended shortly after the lupine "incident".

I get very irritated with the general inability of my group to at least work effectively individually since we have problems working together (one player is just annoying to some other members of the group. For some reason they seem determined to make this dislike in-character as well, with or without in-character reason to do so). I even write up the sheets for half the group and at least help with the other half (at their request, ironically I should be spending less time on such activities than them) and their characters still generally aren't effective.

We're now starting a post-apocalyptic game of D20 Modern, in which my character is doing far better than the ones who rolled higher stats (I'd have used point-buy but I'm never sure which value the DM accepts, I use 28 as a default, though that's a laughable figure in the games I prefer running and playing). Three damage (taken) over about five sessions when other party members have fallen unconscious and been patched up multiple times. Sure my kill count is lower than most others (two rad roaches to most other players' three plus possibly a spiderwasp) but I'm far better at running away than them (my character was webbed to a truck. His solution was to get in the truck and try to escape, despite not really knowing how to drive. It's going surprisingly well in the circumstances. I just hope that another character manages to detatch the webs gluing him to the ground or the truck soon or my character will unknowingly rip him in half in the getaway. My actions in the first fight of the campaign consisted of missing rad roaches (damn their armoured hides! Literally!) and running away when I decided I didn't want to waste ammunition).

On that note: anyone know any optimisation tips for D20 Modern? Preferably not feat-based (I have my heart set on trying mutations and the DM has homebrewed a feat for them. It doesn't do anything when it's first taken (feats doshould not work that way!:smallfurious:) but it eventually gives various benefits without any drawbacks apart from looking like a freak! All but two party members have taken the feat and one of them owns a mutated, pregnant, pig (who I have named Ramirez, because it does everything. That it outperforms us at everything is becoming a running joke. If both us and Ramirez roll a check, the pig will inevitably be the only one to pass it. Ramirez is officially better than the rest of the party at spot, listen and drive checks so far. Oddly the two non-mutant characters are never around for Ramirez's amazing feats, and, in-character, they are left to wonder how we drove across a desert with our only competent human driver incapacitated).Aaargh parenthesis!! I must use less!!

erikun
2010-06-14, 08:41 PM
On that note: anyone know any optimisation tips for D20 Modern?
Not very many, no. Focusing on Strength is still better for melee and focusing on Intelligence for skills, but as you've found out, killing stuff and rolling skills are not the only thing you will be doing in d20 Modern. You're better off looking at what abilities you want from the base classes, then which advanced classes you want to get into.


Aaargh parenthesis!! I must use less!!
Indeed, I was going to comment on that.

erikun
2010-06-14, 08:54 PM
This is why it is my expressed opinion that anything beyond the first three books is actually broken. Unfortunately, in WotC infinite wisdom, they failed to balance the new core classes with the original classes. Now, I will admit that I enjoy playing the far more effective classes. Although for the most part, I normally stick to playing a wizard
Really? Druids, Shapechange, Gate, Candle of Invocation + Efreet, Use Magic Device, abusive uses of Diplomancy, Solars and the Trippyverse, and the 15 minute workday are all present in core. So are the Monk, Arcane Archer, Dwarven Defender, and most feats generally considered "junk". Honestly, a lot of non-core is dedicated to either making core more playable or replacing core with more workable alternatives.

I'm also not sure what you mean by "new core classes" and "original classes."


Maybe we're operating under different definitions of "bad" here. I would view someone as good at healing if they were able to heal the party as much as needed. The Healer is entirely able to do that. They do get Restoration, as a matter of fact, as well as Greater Restoration, and even Death Ward. They get all the cure spells (obviously), heal and mass heal, freedom of movement, atonement, stone to flesh...you get the idea.
Well then, I apparently need to read through the Miniatures Handbook again. I know they have difficulty buffing, but I was under the impression that they lacked Restoration and similar restorative spells. That does make them pretty good at healing, if only at healing.

balistafreak
2010-06-14, 10:17 PM
Put up an application for a PbP game.

It's third level.

I'm submitting a finely tuned Factotum1/Dragonfire Adept2.

Another applicant is submitting...

A CW Samurai. Three levels of it.

:smallconfused:

:smalleek:

:smallfrown:

:smallannoyed:

:smallsigh:

I sincerely hope he does not make the game. At least not with three levels of CW Samurai, that is.

Fawsto
2010-06-14, 11:07 PM
Me and Il Vec recently showed a friend of ours why a Cleric is Zilla. And in a way, that we are not munchkins; we just know how to use a class' power the slightiest. However I hold the unfair stigma of being "the Standardbearer of Cheddarland".

We didnt even optmize that much (geez, all I could do with DMM: Quicken was 2 quickened spells; I did not want to scare the DM) and both our characters were clerics; Il Vec full Cleric until 12 and I went Crusader1/Cleric4/RKV7, the point was to show how any level of manouvers/stances would not even make a difference in high level battles in contrast with spells.

So off we went in an encounter against a CR 12 creature: The Mighty Kraken!

It took me a teleport and 3 buffs to finish the creature in less than 6 rounds (I was using Travel's Domain free Freedom of Movement to scape it's grapple) with the "basic" Zilla-mode: Divine Power + Righteous Might. Il Vec took even less cause the Kraken failed it's will save against sanctuary turn 1. Tough luck, Kraken. Try Jack Sparrow again (heard he was a Swashbuckler of sorts).

Seriously, I hope it allowed me to prove to at least one fellow player that I am not a munchkin! We made our characters in 30 mins (checking for core only items; BTW, how I love the ring of blinking) and the Kraken died in 3 or 4 rounds of melee. The Kraken has 2 tentacles, 6 arms and a bite as his full attack action. A Cleric outdamaged it without even going in the "optmized" area. I repeat: Almost no degree of op was used while building the characters, we were just taking the plain obvious choices.

More on topic: When someone says that you are breaking the game, just show him politely and not directly that you are simply being an effective party member. The characters are adventurers, soldiers, mages, whatever! Their professions are risky, and one can assume that only the most skilled in those areas live long enough to tell tales to their grandchildren.

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-06-15, 03:44 AM
I am the resident DM for my group, as well as the best optimizer. Of the 14 people in my D&D circle, only 2 had played before last year, and they were very much stuck in the "core is balanced, ToB is evil, etc." mold. A few conversations and some number-crunching later, I persuaded them over to my side, where they now enjoy number-crunching with the rest of us. The 12 new players were inclined towards optimization to start with, having played Guild Wars and other mechanics-focused games, and I just help them along. I'm fortunate to never have had a problem with optimization level mismatch.

tiercel
2010-06-15, 04:03 AM
The thing about optimization -- or any other playstyle choice -- is that while there isn't any one "right" or "wrong" choice, a group has got to get along. If everyone else in the group plays a different way... maybe you should try playing a little more their way, or find another group (if you can).

I mean, yes, sure, I can sympathize with the guy who tears at his hair seeing wildly suboptimal party-mates making him feel like he needs to carry the ball for the party all the time.... but for every one of those players, there's another player gritting his teeth wondering why he can't just play his "beer and pretzels" non-genetically-engineered-and-highly-tuned monster puree machine without constantly being upstaged.


So off we went in an encounter against a CR 12 creature: The Mighty Kraken!

The problem with many monsters, besides their challenge rating not always being all that accurate, is that generic non-optimized monsters straight out of the book don't tend to fare all that well against highly optimized fine-tuned PCs. (If players optimize, so should the DM!)

Notably, any monster (high or low CR) which can be quickly nullified by a single spell or mechanic is problematic as a reasonable encounter. (Yes, especially for spellcasters, particularly those that have access to a wide variety of spells, arbitrarily detailed knowledge of what they are going to face, arbitrary amounts of time to prep/buff, etc etc.)

nolispe
2010-06-15, 04:04 AM
In my groups this tends to play out to insane levels. I am by far and away the most competent optimiser, to the point where, going all out, I will curbstop the rest of a eight-person party inside of two rounds. Recently we found out that this applies to other systems as well (we shifted to Exalted, and my characters had the same problem). It's got to the point where I need to play at a fundementaly lower power level than everyone else (For the Exalted players out there, that means a god-blooded in a party of solars, and even then I am holding back)
In my defense, my old groups first level characters looked like:
1 Sorcerer
(Known spells: Tenser's floating disc, Jump)
1 Druid
(9 wisdom, 6 con)
2 wizards, one of which was played moterately competently as a blaster, and the other one prepared hold portal every day, and was without combat spells entirely
1 Archer ranger
Feats: Improved unarmed strike, spell focus (Enchantment) (Because I want him to be good at brawls, and he stuidied magic as a youth!)
1 paladin
unarmed without Improved unarmed strike (Due to flavor reasons!)
1 TWF rogue
built by the DM. Played ignoring sneak attack.

And this was, for the most part, players who had been playing for years.
Now you understand how a fighter 1 can curbstomp four full casters.
Grrrr. Yes, I am bitter.

Tytalus
2010-06-15, 04:07 AM
I hope you don't mind if I rant myself here a bit, but this is one of the most annoying parts of D&D that I've seen. I find that most people who are interested in playing a roleplaying game are interested in the roleplaying, and in playing the game while roleplaying. They aren't interesting is the system as much, and certainly aren't interesting in playing a character creation "mini-game" in order to be any use during the roleplay.


That is a fundamental problem.

Unless you are familiar with the rules, it isn't clear that full casters rule supreme and fighters and monks have a hard time keeping up.

The consequence is that casual players (most of my group) expect classes and feats to be roughly equal in power (and worse, in versatility) and pick their characters based on their conceptions of what is best (or cool). Of course, this ends up not being what they expect. In my group, for example, we had a fighter who virtually couldn't do anything outside of combat, a cleric who took levels of fighter "to be better at fighting", sorcerers with dozens of direct damage spells but no utility, and a monk who would have been useless if the DM didn't pity-gift him with piles of magic items. Heck, the healing/blasting cleric was the most powerful character in the group.

Character creation is indeed a mini-game in D&D. A game you can win, too. And it's a complicated game, especially for the causal gamer: dozens of classes, dozens of races, hundreds of feats and spells to pick from, all with different levels of power.

Now, I personally love that part of D&D, as much as I do enjoy the roleplaying part. But it's clear to me that not all players want to delve into this area so much, and that they find it frustrating that others are off to a better start for the actual game if they do.

Tytalus
2010-06-15, 04:17 AM
However I try to stick to the roll of buffing the others and that earns me a lot of props.

This cannot be stressed enough.

If you are an optimizer with the need for a fix, go optimize being an "enabler". Make it your character's goal to make his (non-optimized) allies into gods of war!

Buffers of all sorts tend to be welcome in parties even if they are more powerful than anyone else. It's a simple and elegant solution to the problem of being the optimizer in a group of non-optimizers.


(I was using Travel's Domain free Freedom of Movement to scape it's grapple)

The Travel domain power only works against magical effects that impede movement; it doesn't get you out of a grapple.

Il_Vec
2010-06-15, 07:59 AM
Me and Il Vec recently showed a friend of ours why a Cleric is Zilla. And in a way, that we are not munchkins; we just know how to use a class' power the slightiest. However I hold the unfair stigma of being "the Standardbearer of Cheddarland".

At least we are two who understand the way the game is, versus 3 players that think all classes are balanced, and the DM who may be aware of this or not, but keeps churning out the casters our way. The difference is I do adapt my characters OP level to the DM. I know what they perceive as "over 9.000", even if I know this perception is outright wrong. I know that no one in our group will have a problem with a metamagic-focused wizard, but they will point and yell CHEDDAR! at the RKV. Because level 9 maneuvers are borken!
I would never suggest bringing an Incarnate Construct Dustform Dragonborn Water Orc Fighter to that table, ever if all it gets is better STR and CON and lots of penalties, that are nothing at all compared to a decently built cleric or druid.

Bosh
2010-06-15, 08:01 AM
For you a big part of the game is making the numbers jump through the right hoops and with your current group you can't do that since you have to hold back. A good solution to this is to give yourself a big handicap thats fun to RP and then go for broke trying to make up for it with your CharOp-fu. For example make a wizard with 12 starting int or an orc warrior who has high charisma or even *gasp* a monk. That way you can optimize without rocking the boat.

AtwasAwamps
2010-06-15, 09:14 AM
The thing about optimization -- or any other playstyle choice -- is that while there isn't any one "right" or "wrong" choice, a group has got to get along. If everyone else in the group plays a different way... maybe you should try playing a little more their way, or find another group (if you can).


Is this addressed to me, and if so, is there, like, a really good meme for people missing the point? I’m not up on my memes, I’m too old for that kind of thing.

I’m not going to bother repeating myself. Me and my group are doing great and I’m looking forward to tomorrow, which is when we play, so hey.

Another_Poet
2010-06-15, 10:32 AM
HOW CAN YOU GET AC OF 30 AT LEVEL 5 WITH A WIZARD!?!?! I want a complete spell rundown!!!!

Also, how did you get high saves??


10 + 4 Dex + 4 Mage Armour + 4 (Shield or Tower Shield; non-proficient with latter but still carry one and drop it 1st round of combat) +2 Deflection (PF Abjuration specialist school power) + 2 Nat Armr (amulet) + 2 Defending Dagger. That's 28, I'm forgetting where the other 1 or 2 came from. I was either at 29 or 30 last session though, it was awesome.

For saves my 18 Dex, Resistance, and Guidance put me on par or above the rogue. I wear Protection From Arrows and False Life all day, and have some energy resistance and absorption powers to handle energy damage.

Basically you can just let my wizard run ahead of the party covered in honey and yelling at the top of his lungs and by the time you catch up to him every monster and trap will be out of spells/SLAs/special abilities/poison doses. As long as they don't grapple. Goddamn grapplers.

Fawsto
2010-06-15, 11:54 AM
At least we are two who understand the way the game is, versus 3 players that think all classes are balanced, and the DM who may be aware of this or not, but keeps churning out the casters our way. The difference is I do adapt my characters OP level to the DM. I know what they perceive as "over 9.000", even if I know this perception is outright wrong. I know that no one in our group will have a problem with a metamagic-focused wizard, but they will point and yell CHEDDAR! at the RKV. Because level 9 maneuvers are borken!
I would never suggest bringing an Incarnate Construct Dustform Dragonborn Water Orc Fighter to that table, ever if all it gets is better STR and CON and lots of penalties, that are nothing at all compared to a decently built cleric or druid.

I always try to play an effective character regardless of class or expected level of optmization, but always thinking about concept and effective choices at the same time.

I've recently taken the mantle of the Cleric for our group, this way I can make sure the wheels keep greased and turning. There is nothin worst than having to retrace a few miles back to the nearest town to simply remove a curse or unpetrify a party member... This also means that using a full-caster like the cleric we are better at fighting the mo fo necromancer (the True variety) who is throwing undeads at us at a regular basis.

Caphi
2010-06-15, 12:05 PM
Buffers of all sorts tend to be welcome in parties even if they are more powerful than anyone else. It's a simple and elegant solution to the problem of being the optimizer in a group of non-optimizers.

Even optimizers want to be at the center sometimes.

I'm not quite that gifted a munchkin, but I'll just say I know some of the tricks, and I do play with groups that don't know and/or care. My technique is to analyze the party, find a role that needs filling, and fill the crap out of it. I try not to step on any toes, and I can fill out my character's utility with little things that help out, without getting in anyone's "way".

You don't have to give up your own glory to stay under the radar of antiops. All you have to do is stay out of the other PC's turf. Doing something another PC is already doing, however mediocrely, is just a waste of your time and the character's power, after all.

Gametime
2010-06-15, 12:15 PM
In my defense, my old groups first level characters looked like:
1 Sorcerer
(Known spells: Tenser's floating disc, Jump)
1 Druid
(9 wisdom, 6 con)
2 wizards, one of which was played moterately competently as a blaster, and the other one prepared hold portal every day, and was without combat spells entirely
1 Archer ranger
Feats: Improved unarmed strike, spell focus (Enchantment) (Because I want him to be good at brawls, and he stuidied magic as a youth!)
1 paladin
unarmed without Improved unarmed strike (Due to flavor reasons!)
1 TWF rogue
built by the DM. Played ignoring sneak attack.


Y'know, the other characters I can sort of understand, even if I would never expect to see them even in the least optimized games. But the druid?

I remember thinking that druid spellcasting sucked, once upon a time, because a cursory glance revealed worse healing than the cleric (and that's OBVIOUSLY the cleric's most important job!) and a lot of plant-related spells. But I don't think it ever occurred to me to make a druid who couldn't cast spells at all.

That's without even getting into the 6 con, which... I don't think I've ever known anyone playing someone with a con that low. :smalleek:

Lycar
2010-06-15, 12:39 PM
That's without even getting into the 6 con, which... I don't think I've ever known anyone playing someone with a con that low. :smalleek:

Gametime? There is a guy out there, name's Raistlin or something, who wants to have a word with you. :smalltongue:

Lycar

Sucrose
2010-06-15, 12:39 PM
Gametime? There is a guy out there, name's Raistlin or something, who wants to have a word with you. :smalltongue:

Lycar

Canonically, he has 10 Con.

PId6
2010-06-15, 12:41 PM
Canonically, he has 10 Con.
:smallconfused:

From the descriptions in the books, I coulda sworn it was 8 at best. He didn't seem like average human health to me.

Zombieboots
2010-06-15, 12:46 PM
Yes and no. I play two groups.

One group is pretty much carbon copy of your situation. "Mystic theurge are great," "Monk can smack down wizards no matter what", "Vow of Poverty is so broken Oh Em Gee Barbarque!" etc.
With these guy they are Oooold school 1st & 2nd edition Old school. I only picked up D&D at 3.0. One of the guys seems to think he really knows what he's doing- and to an extent he does, but not all of it. This is the guy that think Monks can trumpt Wizards.
The other guy knows probably as much as I do, quite possible more. Issue is that this group has a set list of book they allow: "Pathfinder and Complete Series. Period" me? I don't have an issue with that I can optimize within the limits. The other guy irks me to no end because wheather I'm DMing or someone else he is always sneaking in feats from Vile Darkness or Exalted Deed or Ebberon, and then claims ignorance that he doesn't know where the feat is from. All of his build I've seen match "Well known" combos he probably saw online, because none of his builds have ever been.. Um Lets say 'original'- which is a whole other rant about creativity.
Holding back Optimizing/Power Gaming? Don't even care for this group. They Role play for the sake of Roleplaying, and constantly cut XP. So never an issue. Though ever once an a while I flat out wow them. When I do I'm not sure if it was even worth it because I always feel like they want to kick me every time I do- which is never a good feeling. But maaan... I love the life they breath into their characters.

Other Group: Man oh man. That whole advice thing you have an issue with. All over this group. They don't care to ask for help specifically from me, they ask for tons of help from each other, but never from me. That irks the F***ing hell out of me because they specifically avoid talking to me about it. Am I overbearing? Do they not understand number crushing?- Thats fine I usually do it for them. Do I not explain well? Do I explain too much? The Group A does not have this issue, and they at lest listen to me! I don't even get those answers. Would be nice- would be very nice if I did.

ZeroNumerous
2010-06-15, 01:05 PM
That's without even getting into the 6 con, which... I don't think I've ever known anyone playing someone with a con that low. :smalleek:

I regularly play CON dumped wizards. Mostly because a DM needs something to target :smalltongue:

AtwasAwamps
2010-06-15, 01:14 PM
When I do I'm not sure if it was even worth it because I always feel like they want to kick me every time I do- which is never a good feeling.

Ugh, tell me about it. I try really hard not to let stuff like this happen, but every once in a while, I’ve felt absolutely kickable and felt like I deserved it. I usually keep my mouth shut...when players brag about how awesome their CW Samurai is or how great their VOP monk was, I say nothing. But most recently, one of the folks at the table semi-backed me into a corner.

I was deciding on what to roll up for a new character. The party could use either an arcane or divine caster. I didn’t want to play buff/healbot, which is kind of the only roll these guys accept for their divine casters (though myself and my DM have shown the danger of a clericzilla), so I decided I would play a wizard, specially focused on conjuration, entirely control based (as opposed to the blasty wizards they usually play). One player repeatedly told me I should play a mystic theurge so I could fill both roles. The conversation went as such:

Player: A mystic theurge will get you everything you want!
Me: Nah, I’d lose too many caster levels.
Player: But you have both spell lists!
Me: But the casting is significantly weaker from each list.
Player: But you get so many spells per day!
Me: But I’ll have to chew through all of them just to be effective, where 1-2 higher level spells would do the work of 5-8 of your lower level ones.
Player: I think you don’t realize the power of two spell lists. Mystic theurges are awesome.
Me: I would rather bend over and (censored) than play a mystic theurge, okay? Drop it.
Player2 (who had been sitting off to the side, sketching quietly): But…my best character is a mystic theurge.
Me: Well, I mean…I…but…I…(censored)

It was laughed off, but I felt like I had just kicked a puppy. Player2 is the one in our group who…in general…I haven’t placed yet. I think she really just wants big numbers, but doesn’t want to work to get them. I try to help her out a lot when she asks, but she forgets things and can’t keep her sheet straight and has the tactical abilities of a chicken nugget (AND PLEASE UNDERSTAND I AM NOT DISPARAGING FEMALE GAMERS. The person who got me interested in DnD in the first place was a woman who played a Clericzilla and relished in its cheesiness. It’s just this particular girl…). I felt HORRIBLE.

valadil
2010-06-15, 01:22 PM
For people like that, I usually just ask them "why bother asking me a question if you clearly don't want the answer?" It doesn't matter if it's in RPGs or something else entirely. Some people just probe you to have their own opinions validated. When you don't do that for them they get pissy.

I don't really have any suggestions for stopping that behavior. And you shouldn't be changing your friends' behavior anyway. Just realizing that when they're asking for build help, they don't really want advice, they just want validation. Maybe you could try working up a build that uses the constraints they give you? We all know sundering is suboptimal, but what if you helped that guy build the best sunderer he could?

Caphi
2010-06-15, 01:35 PM
(AND PLEASE UNDERSTAND I AM NOT DISPARAGING FEMALE GAMERS. The person who got me interested in DnD in the first place was a woman who played a Clericzilla and relished in its cheesiness. It’s just this particular girl…). I felt HORRIBLE.

Gender equality will truly exist when no one feels any need to make disclaimers like this.

Honestly, I've been in that position too. I was playing a greatsword paladin with plans to drag extra DPR out of stuff like rhino's rush, and someone kept trying to convince me to go Martial Paladin or whatever, the one from Complete Warrior with the crappy spell-likes instead of paladin spells. I eventually gave up explaining to him that I could do all that with spells, and either more, better, or with more selection. Plus, giving up rhino's rush.

Vizzerdrix
2010-06-15, 01:35 PM
Yeah guy. I know this all too well. It cost me my group when I finally sat down and went 1 on 1, 3 in a row with one of the better builders. His beat stick against my wizard. He picked the level (15) and I put the hurt on him. Oh well, so long as they learned something at least, but I doubt they did. :smallsigh:

Amphetryon
2010-06-15, 01:39 PM
Buffers of all sorts tend to be welcome in parties even if they are more powerful than anyone else. It's a simple and elegant solution to the problem of being the optimizer in a group of non-optimizers.

WARNING: Playing a buffer in a game with an old-school (1st and 2nd ed) DM who isn't a big optimizer can lead to that DM attempting to dock your character XP for not 'directly contributing' anything to the fight. :smallannoyed:

Took me 2 hours over 2 different gaming nights to fix that particular issue.

AtwasAwamps
2010-06-15, 01:44 PM
Gender equality will truly exist when no one feels any need to make disclaimers like this.


I know, I know, but can you blame me? This IS the internet, after all. Someone would've yelled at me.

PId6
2010-06-15, 01:52 PM
Yeah guy. I know this all too well. It cost me my group when I finally sat down and went 1 on 1, 3 in a row with one of the better builders. His beat stick against my wizard. He picked the level (15) and I put the hurt on him. Oh well, so long as they learned something at least, but I doubt they did. :smallsigh:
If it happens again, use Wizard 9 instead. :smallwink:

Umael
2010-06-15, 02:17 PM
AND PLEASE UNDERSTAND I AM NOT DISPARAGING FEMALE GAMERS.

Oh, you so totally are.

I can't believe I shared a cupcake with you.

It was strawberry even!

Maybe the next poster will be my BFF now...

Caphi
2010-06-15, 02:21 PM
I will! I love strawberries.

AtwasAwamps
2010-06-15, 02:22 PM
Oh, you so totally are.

I can't believe I shared a cupcake with you.

It was strawberry even!

Maybe the next poster will be my BFF now...

BFF HOW COULD YOU?

You abandon me for a misconstrued statement on the internet?

My cupcakes are now frosted with tears and misery. And gooseberries, because those are really just strawberries with depression.



I will! I love strawberries.

Friendship of opportunity?

Umael
2010-06-15, 02:29 PM
BFF HOW COULD YOU?

You abandon me for a misconstrued statement on the internet?

Was it? Was it really?

I... I just don't know...



Friendship of opportunity?

The coup de grace of relationships...

AtwasAwamps
2010-06-15, 02:30 PM
The coup de grace of relationships...

CDG's are full round actions that can't be taken as attacks of opportunity. So all you really did is crit my heart.

With a heavy pick.

Of betrayal.

Curmudgeon
2010-06-15, 02:36 PM
10 + 4 Dex + 4 Mage Armour + 4 (Shield or Tower Shield; non-proficient with latter but still carry one and drop it 1st round of combat) +2 Deflection (PF Abjuration specialist school power) + 2 Nat Armr (amulet) + 2 Defending Dagger. That's 28, I'm forgetting where the other 1 or 2 came from.
The +2 Amulet of Natural Armor alone blows your Wealth by Level budget.

Practically speaking, no 5th level Wizard in a normal game can do this.

PId6
2010-06-15, 02:42 PM
Practically speaking, no 5th level Wizard in a normal game can do this.
Examples have already been given previously in this thread; it's doable via just spells, though granted it's not going to last all day. And if Alter Self is allowed (which most "normal" games do), it's quite easy indeed.

Umael
2010-06-15, 02:44 PM
CDG's are full round actions that can't be taken as attacks of opportunity. So all you really did is crit my heart.

With a heavy pick.

Of betrayal.

They are full round actions unless you have the right feat (whose name escapes me but I'm sure I have).

And if you know it was a heavy pick of betrayal, you should be able to tell me the magical bonus. Can you? Can you? Huh? Huh?

(And for your information, it is an icying heavy pick of betrayal. Get it right.)

AtwasAwamps
2010-06-15, 02:44 PM
They are full round actions unless you have the right feat (whose name escapes me but I'm sure I have).

And if you know it was a heavy pick of betrayal, you should be able to tell me the magical bonus. Can you? Can you? Huh? Huh?

(And for your information, it is an icying heavy pick of betrayal. Get it right.)

My Detect Magic was ruined because there is a sugary pick IN MY HEART. WHERE YOU STABBED IT.

EDIT: And the feat is called Death Blow and it makes it a Standard Action, so THERE AND ALSO I CRY TEARS OF FROSTING AT YOUR BETRAYAL.

Umael
2010-06-15, 02:47 PM
My Detect Magic was ruined because there is a sugary pick IN MY HEART. WHERE YOU STABBED IT.

EDIT: And the feat is called Death Blow and it makes it a Standard Action, so THERE AND ALSO I CRY TEARS OF FROSTING AT YOUR BETRAYAL.

Apparently, I am a High-Op betrayer.

Also... yummy tears of pain and betrayal!

(I feel like I just did a Changeling Ravaging...)

Curmudgeon
2010-06-15, 02:49 PM
Examples have already been given previously in this thread; it's doable via just spells
Let me clarify: I didn't mean it wasn't possible to attain that AC; I meant it wasn't possible to attain it in the way specified, which relies on multiple items that break the gear budget (both individually and collectively).

AtwasAwamps
2010-06-15, 02:50 PM
(I feel like I just did a Changeling Ravaging...)

I don't know what that is. My experience in White Wolf extends to playing a lapsed Assamite hacker in oWoD vampire where I just freak out other vampires using my "Eat Food" merit and playing a baker in oWoD Mage where I can make people sad. With cupcakes.

PId6
2010-06-15, 02:52 PM
Let me clarify: I didn't mean it wasn't possible to attain that AC; I meant it wasn't possible to attain it in the way specified, which relies on multiple items that break the gear budget (both individually and collectively).
Ah, never mind then.

AtwasAwamps
2010-06-15, 02:53 PM
Ah, never mind then.

I am stealing the tower shield idea because the idea of a wizard HIDING BEHIND A DOOR before dropping it and casting spells is SO AWESOME.

Ashiel
2010-06-15, 02:59 PM
I know, I know, but can you blame me? This IS the internet, after all. Someone would've yelled at me.

Indeed such is the internet. You be yourself and people yell at you for it. You try to be accommodating and people yell at you for it.

Amphetryon
2010-06-15, 03:01 PM
Indeed such is the internet. You be yourself and people yell at you for it. You try to be accommodating and people yell at you for it.

:smallfurious: How dare you make such a sweeping generalization about internet culture! [/irony]

Mordar
2010-06-15, 03:01 PM
For people like that, I usually just ask them "why bother asking me a question if you clearly don't want the answer?" It doesn't matter if it's in RPGs or something else entirely. Some people just probe you to have their own opinions validated. When you don't do that for them they get pissy.

I don't really have any suggestions for stopping that behavior. And you shouldn't be changing your friends' behavior anyway. Just realizing that when they're asking for build help, they don't really want advice, they just want validation. Maybe you could try working up a build that uses the constraints they give you? We all know sundering is suboptimal, but what if you helped that guy build the best sunderer he could?

While I absolutely agree that there are people out there asking *strictly* for validation of their opinion (not just on CharOp issues...), but I've more than once been witness to someone asking an opinion and the person so asked climbs up on the pulpit and gives a sermon, declaring thier position as the only acceptable stance and decrying all others who do not so subscribe as fools.

The delivery of the contrary opinion is an art, I think* and given the oil-and-water relationship among many CharOps and Non-CharOps, the art becomes more like painting with one eye shut and a red lens over the other.

Your line about people not really wanting advice struck me as offbase, but I think you hit the nail dead on the head with the last two lines. When someone asks for advice about how to tailor a melee build, saying "Make a Cleric/Druid instead" can be preceived as "Dumba$$, only make pure casters. Everything else sux", but if you take what is given (even if it is a halfling fighter with an affection for Dwarven Waraxes) and help make it better then you've improved the group and not alienated a player.

- M...who now wants to play a halfling fighter (barbarian?) with a strange affection for Dwarven Waraxes and/or Orcish weapons...

* - I am not stating my degree of aptitude in this medium, just that I think it is a skill that requires honing

AtwasAwamps
2010-06-15, 03:16 PM
I agree with you completely and that’s usually how I handle things. I don’t suggest “play this instead” unless what the person wants is really not going to give them what they’re going for, in which case I suggest an alternative.

Player: I want to play a chain tripping fighter.”
ME(DM): Sounds good! Here’s a brief list of feats that you might want to look at and some cool items you might want to keep an eye out. As your DM, I’ll let you know now that I’m fairly loose about magical items and…”
Player: You left out weapon focus and weapon specialization.”
ME (DM): I don’t find those feats very effective, especially for a fighter such as the type you’re going for.
Player: That’s stupid, they’re great feats!
ME (DM): It’s your character, of course, those are just suggestions. I do suggest you try and get combat reflexes ASAP and power attack will scale your damage very well!
Player: I don’t need those feats.

(Eight sessions later)

ME (DM): As I mentioned previously, I’m allowing character rebuilds now, so go ahead and let me know if you want to make any changes.
Player: Umm…can…I dump weapon focus and weapon specialization and take combat reflexes and power attack?
ME (DM): Certainly! I hope they work out for you.

ZeroNumerous
2010-06-15, 03:17 PM
One player repeatedly told me I should play a mystic theurge so I could fill both roles.

Why not just throw a feat away for Arcane Disciple and pick up one of the great buffing domains? War/Strength comes to mind in Core...

If they complain about not healing people, nick a healing belt for everyone and/or splurge on a Vigor wand.

EDIT: Now I'm thinking of building a Wizard-zilla for kicks.

AtwasAwamps
2010-06-15, 03:18 PM
Why not just throw a feat away for Arcane Disciple and pick up one of the great buffing domains? War/Strength comes to mind in Core...

If they complain about not healing people, nick a healing belt for everyone and/or splurge on a Vigor wand.

That's essentially my plan. But he was having none of it.

ZeroNumerous
2010-06-15, 03:19 PM
That's essentially my plan. But he was having none of it.

Then go the other route? Be a cloistered cleric and nick Magic/Spell domains and pretend you're a wizard?

AtwasAwamps
2010-06-15, 03:22 PM
Then go the other route? Be a cloistered cleric and nick Magic/Spell domains and pretend you're a wizard?

Huh. Didn't think of that...

::plots::

Tavar
2010-06-15, 03:24 PM
Or go artificer, as I think those can technically access both lists(through wands and scrolls).

GoodbyeSoberDay
2010-06-15, 03:28 PM
Archivist covers a lot of arcane ground.

AtwasAwamps
2010-06-15, 03:30 PM
Or go artificer, as I think those can technically access both lists(through wands and scrolls).

I wanted to, but was told I could not!

I was so upset. I had a wonderful plan for it too...

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=129158

Curmudgeon
2010-06-15, 03:34 PM
Or go artificer, as I think those can technically access both lists(through wands and scrolls).
Actually they can access neither arcane nor divine spell lists, but they've got bonuses to Use Magic Device. All they can do natively is their infusions, which is based on a very small list (see Eberron Campaign Setting, pages 103-104, for the whole thing), and craft items that simulate the work of spellcasters. The latter capability is where their real power lies.

PId6
2010-06-15, 03:39 PM
Actually they can access neither arcane nor divine spell lists, but they've got bonuses to Use Magic Device. All they can do natively is their infusions, which is based on a very small list (see Eberron Campaign Setting, pages 103-104, for the whole thing), and craft items that simulate the work of spellcasters. The latter capability is where their real power lies.
Infusions can be pretty damn strong though, namely Metamagic Item. Infusions plus Metamagic Spell Completion are enough to carry the class even without the crafting feats and craft reserve. Artificers are just that good.

ZeroNumerous
2010-06-15, 03:44 PM
Actually they can access neither arcane nor divine spell lists, but they've got bonuses to Use Magic Device.

He said they accessed the spell-lists "through wands and scrolls" already.

Hague
2010-06-15, 04:02 PM
The Warlock has a similar ability but doesn't get all the bonus feats. Which makes me wonder why a Warlock would pick up any craft feats prior to getting their 12th level ability since they can't use their invocations to make any items... except for maybe the Warlock-specific rods and the like.

Anyway, read the linked thread about the Artificer, you know that wands as a magical stick are just flavor. A wand could be any object with up to 50 charges that didn't have some other special function. You could've made your wands into crystals or rune-inscribed tablets that loaded into your crossbow-thingie. As long as the basic function of the item doesn't change, you should be allowed to change its form. See: Potion tiles, potion knots, scroll gems, etc.

Ashiel
2010-06-15, 04:09 PM
The Warlock has a similar ability but doesn't get all the bonus feats. Which makes me wonder why a Warlock would pick up any craft feats prior to getting their 12th level ability since they can't use their invocations to make any items... except for maybe the Warlock-specific rods and the like.

Anyway, read the linked thread about the Artificer, you know that wands as a magical stick are just flavor. A wand could be any object with up to 50 charges that didn't have some other special function. You could've made your wands into crystals or rune-inscribed tablets that loaded into your crossbow-thingie. As long as the basic function of the item doesn't change, you should be allowed to change its form. See: Potion tiles, potion knots, scroll gems, etc.

You can have your party members provide the appropriate spells. So a warlock with a cleric in the party can craft a wand of cure light wounds if the cleric is willing to provide the spell.

Tytalus
2010-06-16, 04:40 AM
Even optimizers want to be at the center sometimes.


That's a good point. However, optimizers in that position should have no problems with that, even if they are resorting to a focused buffer or enabler role.

In practice, I recommend including options that you can pull out of the hat if needed, but sit back and watch if you don't - at least most of the time. Spellcasters are excellent for that.

I do understand that it's frustrating that an optimizer in the situation the OP described will have to tone it down a bit, but from my experience, that is much better than being labeled a munchkin. Whether it's justified or not, once you have that reputation, it's virtually impossible to loose.

Therefore, I think it's best not to draw too much attention to your capabilities. Go for the non-obvious choices - and avoid high numbers, in particular when it comes to damage and AC (to a lesser extent HP, saves and skill checks).

Take bards, for example. The have a (largely undeserved) reputation for being a particularly weak choice, so they are an excellent starting point. They have excellent buffing options such as spells and IC (Inspire Courage, when optimized, is simply brutal), dramatically improving virtually all allies - and thus making your comrades happy. You have excellent spells that get you and others out of tight situations (Alter Fortune, Ruin Delver's Fortune, Greater Mirror Image, etc.) and can turn the tide of battle if you want to (Slow, Haste, Friend to Foe, etc.). You dominate every social encounter you want to, even without spells like Glibness or Voice of the Dragon. Also, cleverly used illusions can be extremely powerful without looking it. In fact, none of these options look particularly optimized, and certainly not broken (unless you cheese out Diplomacy, which I advise against).

If that isn't enough for you, you take it a step further and optimize one aspect of your character, whether it's melee (easy with Harmonizing Crystal Echoblade, Gauntlets of Heartfelt Blows, Dragonfire Inspiration (go for Sonic), Creaking Cacophony, etc. - it's just obviously "optimization" because of the resulting high numbers), spells (Sublime Chord), or whatever else. Pull out the big guns (Creaking Cacophony for the melee option or your really good SC spells) only when you have to.

Another option is to take a difficult race/class combination and make sure you can still contribute. Kobolds used to be a good choice for that (before RotD, when they were still a weak race). It'll look weak on the outside, but it doesn't have to be if you are a good optimizer. You most likely end up closer to the party's power level than if you started with an optimized race/class, too.

Finally, I suggest that every optimization should include both the mechanical side and the roleplaying side. A well thought-out background not only makes your character seem much less of a munchkin attempt, it will also improve your enjoyment of playing him considerably (so it's basically a win-win situation). For optimizers, this is an interesting additional challenge (i.e., a new limiting factor): make sure everything you do mechanically makes sense with respect to the background - and vice versa. For that it doesn't matter which comes first; in fact, the two probably best develop together.



I'm not quite that gifted a munchkin, but I'll just say I know some of the tricks, and I do play with groups that don't know and/or care. My technique is to analyze the party, find a role that needs filling, and fill the crap out of it. I try not to step on any toes, and I can fill out my character's utility with little things that help out, without getting in anyone's "way".

You don't have to give up your own glory to stay under the radar of antiops. All you have to do is stay out of the other PC's turf.

That might work in your group, but doesn't necessarily jibe with anti-optimizers. It's fine if your niche is, say, trapfinding, but if you are optimizing damage dealing or tanking, the prevalent fear of big numbers can easily turn your fellow players off. When you roll fists-full of dice after a charge or have an AC that's twice that of the other PCs, for example, anti-optimizers will call foul - at least in my experience.

Fawsto
2010-06-16, 09:19 AM
It is a shock to every "classic D&D player" (with this I mean the Guys who think Weapon Focus is a awesome feat) when the cleric suddenly gets +14 to his STR after 2 buffs and owns the entire encounter far better than the fighter ever did.

What can I say.. My lifetime mission is to make sure that people understand that the ToB and the Comp. Champ. are OK books. There is far "worse" stuff in core if you are willing to make the comparison.

Being the optimizer in a non-optimized group, however, is self-defeating. The DM will eventually send something so hard that even you will not sustain it and your party fellows will certainly not survive.

Zombieboots
2010-06-16, 09:50 AM
My cupcakes are now frosted with tears and misery. And gooseberries, because those are really just strawberries with depression.
Sounds deliciously. Tell me do you think you could whip up about a dozen more? I putting on a bake sale at the Help Center for Troubled Youths next week.


It is a shock to every "classic D&D player" (with this I mean the Guys who think Weapon Focus is a awesome feat) when the cleric suddenly gets +14 to his STR after 2 buffs and owns the entire encounter far better than the fighter ever did.

From a few people I have heard that near the end of 2nd Ed Fighters WITH Weapon Focus (or Specialization) was the "End-all-be-all Awesome Class." I've always wondered if peoples love for the Class+Feat wasn't just some hold over from a previous edition.
I mean it'd be like comparing 3.5 Magic Jar to anything a 4e Wizard can do.

Also in my eyes Warblades were meant to replace fighters, that's why the whole class is posted for FREE at WotC, well that is my theory.

2xMachina
2010-06-16, 10:30 AM
Stupid Weapon Focus being a prereq for some PrC's...

Umael
2010-06-16, 10:45 AM
I know it would not make Weapon Focus good enough, but I was wondering how good of a fix this solution would be:

The bonus for Weapon Focus improves by one for every +5 BAB the PC has after taking it. So if the PC took Weapon Focus as a 2nd-level fighter (BAB +2), then when the PC got to be a 7th-level fighter (BAB +7), the Weapon Focus would give an additional +1 to hit.

(Yes, I know, the caster STILL dominates. I'm trying to judge how GOOD of a benefit this is.)

Ashiel
2010-06-16, 11:06 AM
I know it would not make Weapon Focus good enough, but I was wondering how good of a fix this solution would be:

The bonus for Weapon Focus improves by one for every +5 BAB the PC has after taking it. So if the PC took Weapon Focus as a 2nd-level fighter (BAB +2), then when the PC got to be a 7th-level fighter (BAB +7), the Weapon Focus would give an additional +1 to hit.

(Yes, I know, the caster STILL dominates. I'm trying to judge how GOOD of a benefit this is.)

If you do it like this, please dear god make it based on BAB rather than when you took it. As you have it written now, taking it at level 20 would be useless, but taking it at 1st level makes it drastically better.

If you needed to, I'd adjust it to fit in line with your BAB. Perhaps an additional +1 for every 5 points of BAB (assuming Fighter, that would be +1 at 1st-4th, +2 at 5th-9th, +3 at 10th-14th, +4 at 15th-19th, and +5 at 20th). Alternatively, if you use the Pathfinder Power Attack and similar feats, you could set it up with the same progression Power Attack uses (+6 at +20 BAB); which would make the two feats synergize together so well that you would definitely want both.

2xMachina
2010-06-16, 11:12 AM
If you reread, I think you'd see he means what you meant. (Or I think so anyway)

Ashiel
2010-06-16, 11:20 AM
If you reread, I think you'd see he means what you meant. (Or I think so anyway)


The bonus for Weapon Focus improves by one for every +5 BAB the PC has after taking it. So if the PC took Weapon Focus as a 2nd-level fighter (BAB +2), then when the PC got to be a 7th-level fighter (BAB +7), the Weapon Focus would give an additional +1 to hit.

That's what I was advising against, and offering better rules to achieve the same effect with less trouble. :smallsmile:

2xMachina
2010-06-16, 11:24 AM
Ah, my mistake then.

Umael
2010-06-16, 12:05 PM
If you do it like this, please dear god make it based on BAB rather than when you took it. As you have it written now, taking it at level 20 would be useless, but taking it at 1st level makes it drastically better.

True, but let me ask - why WOULD any 20th-level fighter take Weapon Focus? It is a feat that is usually taken during the early levels (1-4) EXCEPT when it is a prerequisite for getting into a Prestige Class, then it might be taken just before getting into the class.

Also, consider this - let's say you have Kim, a 7th-level fighter and Chris, a 9th-level fighter (same relevant stats and equipment). Kim took Weapon Focus (bastard sword) at 1st-level, Chris has no Weapon Focus. According to both of our systems, Kim is just as good with the bastard sword as Chris, despite having two less levels than Chris.

This is a pretty good reflection on how it should be. Chris has more experience, but Kim started with the bastard sword and focused on it on the beginning of his/her fighter career. Kim's intensity training on the bastard sword makes up for the noticeable lack of experience when compared to Chris.

(If Kim was, say, 1st-level, and Chris was 2nd-level, then they would still be just as good with the bastard sword - as is RAW. But RAW has no way of showing that Kim, still Focused on the bastard sword, will get even better with it.)

Now they go up one level, Kim is 8th, Chris is 10th and takes Weapon Focus.
According to my system, Chris is now just a little better. This is a pretty good reflection because a number of the tricks and skills Kim to level the playing field, Chris now knows.

However, according to your system, Chris goes from +0 to +3, being not just a little better, but quite a noticeable difference better. Chris is now as good with a bastard sword as Pat, the 13th-level fighter who also didn't Focus on the bastard sword.

As another comment, look at Weapon Focus. It is something of the red-haired step-child of Feats, of Fighter Feats even. A lot of optimizers avoid it, taking it only to get into a Prestige Class. How often do you see someone have more than one Weapon Focus? More importantly, how optimized is THAT kind of build?

Ashiel
2010-06-16, 12:31 PM
For the same reason that I could pickup weapon focus or weapon specialization at level 1 or 2, never ever wield a weapon of the appropriate type over my 20 levels (for some odd reason), and then pickup the weapon for the first time in my career and receive all the benefits.

Or maybe for the same reason that Improved Toughness or Constitution bonuses are retroactive; because it's just better. It adds a layer of complexity to the game that isn't needed, and would only serve to complicate things when picking out your feats.

One way is clean and works well; and scales with your level in a standardized way. Th other is dirty, clunky, and scales with your level in weird ways that change depending on when you took the feat; so you might have three people in the group at 6th level who took the feat. One guy at 1st level, one guy at 2nd (fighter bonus feat), and one guy at 3rd level (2nd feat). They get a +2 to hit at levels 6th, 7th, and 8th level; but later take the feat for another weapon, but now one weapon focus is giving a +4 and the new one is a +1, but your friends is a +4 and a +2 because he took it at a different time; etc, etc, etc.

That's before getting into retraining or other methods for deciding you messed up while choosing a feat and go fix it.

EDIT:

As another comment, look at Weapon Focus. It is something of the red-haired step-child of Feats, of Fighter Feats even. A lot of optimizers avoid it, taking it only to get into a Prestige Class. How often do you see someone have more than one Weapon Focus? More importantly, how optimized is THAT kind of build?

No clue. Though I will say that if it scaled with your level in this way it would go from being sub-optimal to an incredibly attractive feat; and would synergize incredibly well with Power Attack, Combat Expertise, TWF, or just hitting. Honestly it would make for a 25-30% better chance to hit at 20th level; which is pretty awesome.

ZeroNumerous
2010-06-16, 12:37 PM
Comp. Champ. [is a] OK book.

This is only true if you ignore the benefits that Clerics/Wizards/other T1s get.

2xMachina
2010-06-16, 12:55 PM
True, but let me ask - why WOULD any 20th-level fighter take Weapon Focus? It is a feat that is usually taken during the early levels (1-4) EXCEPT when it is a prerequisite for getting into a Prestige Class, then it might be taken just before getting into the class.

Also, consider this - let's say you have Kim, a 7th-level fighter and Chris, a 9th-level fighter (same relevant stats and equipment). Kim took Weapon Focus (bastard sword) at 1st-level, Chris has no Weapon Focus. According to both of our systems, Kim is just as good with the bastard sword as Chris, despite having two less levels than Chris.

This is a pretty good reflection on how it should be. Chris has more experience, but Kim started with the bastard sword and focused on it on the beginning of his/her fighter career. Kim's intensity training on the bastard sword makes up for the noticeable lack of experience when compared to Chris.

(If Kim was, say, 1st-level, and Chris was 2nd-level, then they would still be just as good with the bastard sword - as is RAW. But RAW has no way of showing that Kim, still Focused on the bastard sword, will get even better with it.)

Now they go up one level, Kim is 8th, Chris is 10th and takes Weapon Focus.
According to my system, Chris is now just a little better. This is a pretty good reflection because a number of the tricks and skills Kim to level the playing field, Chris now knows.

However, according to your system, Chris goes from +0 to +3, being not just a little better, but quite a noticeable difference better. Chris is now as good with a bastard sword as Pat, the 13th-level fighter who also didn't Focus on the bastard sword.

As another comment, look at Weapon Focus. It is something of the red-haired step-child of Feats, of Fighter Feats even. A lot of optimizers avoid it, taking it only to get into a Prestige Class. How often do you see someone have more than one Weapon Focus? More importantly, how optimized is THAT kind of build?

It's nerfing the other classes though. They don't get so many feats, and they only take it just before taking a PrC with reqs.

Gametime
2010-06-16, 01:18 PM
If that isn't enough for you, you take it a step further and optimize one aspect of your character, whether it's melee (easy with Harmonizing Crystal Echoblade, Gauntlets of Heartfelt Blows, Dragonfire Inspiration (go for Sonic), Creaking Cacophony, etc. - it's just obviously "optimization" because of the resulting high numbers), spells (Sublime Chord), or whatever else. Pull out the big guns (Creaking Cacophony for the melee option or your really good SC spells) only when you have to.



If you're trying to stay low on the radar, I'd recommend against Dragonfire Inspiration. Normal Inspire Courage is still pretty sweet when optimized, and is much less alarming to a wary DM than a truckload of d6's being thrown all over the table.

Umael
2010-06-16, 01:53 PM
For the same reason that I could pickup weapon focus or weapon specialization at level 1 or 2, never ever wield a weapon of the appropriate type over my 20 levels (for some odd reason), and then pickup the weapon for the first time in my career and receive all the benefits.

Mechanically, yes, but as a rebuttal, very weak. It does nothing to help RAW, your argument, or my argument, other than - it's just easier. Anyone can take Weapon Focus once they have BAB +1, never even pick up the weapon until they hit level 20, but they would still get the benefits.

Also, it is rather unlikely that someone who decides to pick Weapon Focus (bastard sword) will never pick it up for 20 levels.

(Oh, by the way? You can't get Weapon Specialization until level 4.)



Or maybe for the same reason that Improved Toughness or Constitution bonuses are retroactive; because it's just better. It adds a layer of complexity to the game that isn't needed, and would only serve to complicate things when picking out your feats.

*snort*

No.

Improved Toughness and Constitution bonuses are NOT based on learning. If you get tougher, you get tougher. Oh, to use your own logic back at you, why AREN'T Intelligence bonuses to skills retroactive?

Saying that "it's just better" is empty rhetoric. Amusing, but it holds up your argument like a stiff column of air.

The ONLY valid thing you said is that it adds a layer of complexity to the game (true). Given how complex some people work on their optimization builds, I find it very difficult to believe that giving the fighter (or rather, any kind of melee build) is going to ruin the gaming experience. As someone said, optimization is something of a mini-game.

Also, whether it is "needed" is a nice bit of rhetoric. Technically, it isn't needed, since all I am proposing is a simple change, a possibility to help make the game a better experience. On the basis of making the game a better experience, I could house-rule a ban on whole schools of magic on the basis that they aren't "needed".

(Of course, if you want to claim that Weapon Focus is perfectly fine as it is, I welcome that claim. No, excuse me - I welcome you making that claim.)



One way is clean and works well; and scales with your level in a standardized way. Th other is dirty, clunky, and scales with your level in weird ways that change depending on when you took the feat;

Gods, your rhetoric is amusing!

"One way is clean and works well?" How many people have you met raved about how great Weapon Focus is? It works well? Are you actually making the claim that Weapon Focus is a valid, balanced Feat, good for anyone wanting to optimize their character build???

And clean? How is it "clean"? It bathes regularly??

The only thing you said that IS valid is that it scales with your level - true. Dirty? Clunky? Scales in "weird" ways? Totally empty rhetoric - still amusing, mind you.



so you might have three people in the group at 6th level who took the feat. One guy at 1st level, one guy at 2nd (fighter bonus feat), and one guy at 3rd level (2nd feat). They get a +2 to hit at levels 6th, 7th, and 8th level; but later take the feat for another weapon, but now one weapon focus is giving a +4 and the new one is a +1, but your friends is a +4 and a +2 because he took it at a different time; etc, etc, etc.

1) Looks like you understand how I imagined the feat.
2) I hardly see how this is complicated math. Please don't tell me you are actually intimidated by this.
3) Three people, all picking up two Weapon Focus Feats? Can you please give me a good reason why anyone would do that???



That's before getting into retraining or other methods for deciding you messed up while choosing a feat and go fix it.

Congratulations.

You actually have a valid point here.

My explanation did NOT consider retraining, how it would function.

This is your ONLY effective counterpoint in your entire argument.

Of course, retraining is pretty ridiculous on its own - on the grounds that after learning how to be very good at something - OOPS!, never happened! It's also a rules variant, if I recall correctly.



EDIT:
No clue. Though I will say that if it scaled with your level in this way it would go from being sub-optimal to an incredibly attractive feat; and would synergize incredibly well with Power Attack, Combat Expertise, TWF, or just hitting. Honestly it would make for a 25-30% better chance to hit at 20th level; which is pretty awesome.

Given how badly the fighter is messed up, having a sub-optimal feat become incredibly attractive is not a bad thing. Having every feat available to the fighter go from sub-optimal to attractive might help make the fighter nudge its way up a Tier (I believe fighter is Tier 5 as written, yes?).



It's nerfing the other classes though. They don't get so many feats, and they only take it just before taking a PrC with reqs.

...

I honestly don't know if I should just stare at you in shock that you actually said that or crack up laughing.

It nerfs the other classes?!?

Because they don't get as many Feats???

1) Go ahead and use this Weapon Focus Feat. Starting at 6th-level - challenge a 6th-level Wizard. Or Druid. Let me know how that goes.
2) Any class with BAB +1 can get Weapon Focus. That means your Barbarian can take it at 1st level and be just as good with that bastard sword or whatever as the fighter.
3) Isn't the idea behind the fighter to know how to fight effectively in combat? That's like, all the fighter can do, and as some people argue, it can't even do that very well. Going with feats as the great equalizer has NOT worked very well for the fighter. Making one feat - ONE feat a bit better (and I honestly question how well it would work) - does not "nerf" the other classes.
4) "Nerf" implies that this feat is broken. I would LOVE to see your reasoning behind that. A feat that IF taken by level 5 would give an additional +3 to hit by level 20... that makes the feat so broken it "nerfs" the other classes??? Please, explain how?

AtwasAwamps
2010-06-16, 02:36 PM
If you guys are going to talk about a possible feat fix, could we take it out of this thread? NOt like this thread is super on topic anyhow, but I'd rather talk about cupcakes.

What is your favorite cupcake optimization method?

I prefer Hulking Hurler Cupcakes. 1000000000000000000d6 of delicious!

Another_Poet
2010-06-16, 02:38 PM
The +2 Amulet of Natural Armor alone blows your Wealth by Level budget.

Practically speaking, no 5th level Wizard in a normal game can do this.


Hmm, I will have to look at my sheet when we play Saturday. We did get a nice haul of loot at the beginning of the adventure but we are not that far over WBL. I bet it's actually a +1 Natural rather than +2. Maybe I picked up a Dodge bonus somehow?

The defending dagger is the only item I have that is really beyond my WBL but we got lucky and found a dragon's hidey-hole when he wasn't around :)

Sorry for the fogginess, it's been 4 weeks or so since we played this campaign.

Zombieboots
2010-06-16, 07:54 PM
What is your favorite cupcake optimization method?

I prefer Hulking Hurler Cupcakes. 1000000000000000000d6 of delicious!
I prefer Shadowcraft Delicious.

You can't believe how Delicious this Freakin' Cup Cake IS! Then out of NO WHERE! BLAM it's 140% MORE delicious!

Lycanthromancer
2010-06-16, 09:47 PM
I prefer Shadowcraft Delicious.

You can't believe how Delicious this Freakin' Cup Cake IS! Then out of NO WHERE! BLAM it's 140% MORE delicious!Green St. Patrick's Day leprechaun cupcakes. They're magically delicious.

Riffington
2010-06-16, 09:54 PM
I'm partial to the Cup-Cup cakes. Every recipe you can find, you just take the awesomeness of that recipe. You'd think that mixing so many different flavors would ruin it - but somehow it just ends up in an infinite loop of delicious.

Lycanthromancer
2010-06-16, 09:56 PM
I'm partial to the Cup-Cup cakes. Every recipe you can find, you just take the awesomeness of that recipe. You'd think that mixing so many different flavors would ruin it - but somehow it just ends up in an infinite loop of delicious.My rebuttal: http://cakewrecks.blogspot.com/

Riffington
2010-06-16, 10:00 PM
My rebuttal: http://cakewrecks.blogspot.com/

Sure, but (unlike the Cup-Cup cake), those weren't cheese cakes.

/ducks

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-06-16, 10:20 PM
Green St. Patrick's Day leprechaun cupcakes. They're magically delicious.

Made by leprechauns, or of them? :smallbiggrin:

Aasimar
2010-06-16, 10:25 PM
I think it has to do with different perceptions of what the game is to people.

To some, like you, and one guy in my group, it is at least as much a numbers game where you're trying to find an optimal use of whatever mechanics you have access to, as it is a storytelling device and a group experience.

To others, the numbers are less important.

A guy may want to play an evoker who casts fireballs and lightningbolts and relies on a fighter or other melee type to protect him up close. Even if he could make a perfectly fine stand-alone tank by another choice of spells. To him it's about playing a certain type of character, not beating the system.

I think it's a bit callous where one guy here on page one was talking about how silly it was of the party rogue to want to disarm traps and chests and such.

Boy do I feel for him. It must be a blast to be part of a group where your only marginal role has been completely subsumed by someone else, who is already fulfilling another role. I realize a wizard can do anything a rogue can do. But maybe the players should agree to a certain division of labour and respect that, so that each member of the group can feel like he's contributing, even without running a caster. (because not everyone wants to play a caster, but everyone wants to have something to do)

This is basically the reason why WoTC felt they had to completely revamp casters for 4th edition, and removing a lot of the best parts of the game along the way.

They were trying to make the game a fun playing experience for everyone, and not one where a certain type of character, played correctly, is always a superior choice.

GoodbyeSoberDay
2010-06-16, 10:27 PM
Made by leprechauns, or of them? :smallbiggrin:Why not both?

Aasimar
2010-06-16, 10:27 PM
Also, this is a pretty tough situation for the DM, since he needs to make encounters that are challenging, without killing everyone.

And it's hard to do that if he needs to make monsters powerlevel X to challenge one guy in the group, but if the monster should attack anyone else in the group, it would destroy them easily.

It's doable, but it's probably a good idea to try to have most of the players in the game do about the same level of optimization, and the encounters can then be scaled to whatever that is.

GoodbyeSoberDay
2010-06-16, 10:49 PM
Also, this is a pretty tough situation for the DM, since he needs to make encounters that are challenging, without killing everyone.

And it's hard to do that if he needs to make monsters powerlevel X to challenge one guy in the group, but if the monster should attack anyone else in the group, it would destroy them easily.

It's doable, but it's probably a good idea to try to have most of the players in the game do about the same level of optimization, and the encounters can then be scaled to whatever that is.To be fair, 'well-optimized' means having different and more abilities more often than it means 'anything he can do I can do better.' Batman wizards, DMM group buff clerics, Artificers, and many other optimized archetypes are in fact designed for smooth group play and make the whole team more formidable.

Lycanthromancer
2010-06-16, 11:05 PM
Made by leprechauns, or of them? :smallbiggrin:Yes! Obligatory flavor text. Tastes like leprechaun.

Caphi
2010-06-16, 11:08 PM
To be fair, 'well-optimized' means having different and more abilities more often than it means 'anything he can do I can do better.' Batman wizards, DMM group buff clerics, Artificers, and many other optimized archetypes are in fact designed for smooth group play and make the whole team more formidable.

Plus, it's a waste. Congratulations, Mr. Caster, you just used your own power doing something someone else was already doing, when you could have been using it to do what you're supposed to be doing better, or even helping someone else be even better than you or he could have been. Funny, inefficiency is normally the opposite of optimization.

2xMachina
2010-06-17, 07:29 AM
I honestly don't know if I should just stare at you in shock that you actually said that or crack up laughing.

It nerfs the other classes?!?

Because they don't get as many Feats???

1) Go ahead and use this Weapon Focus Feat. Starting at 6th-level - challenge a 6th-level Wizard. Or Druid. Let me know how that goes.
2) Any class with BAB +1 can get Weapon Focus. That means your Barbarian can take it at 1st level and be just as good with that bastard sword or whatever as the fighter.
3) Isn't the idea behind the fighter to know how to fight effectively in combat? That's like, all the fighter can do, and as some people argue, it can't even do that very well. Going with feats as the great equalizer has NOT worked very well for the fighter. Making one feat - ONE feat a bit better (and I honestly question how well it would work) - does not "nerf" the other classes.
4) "Nerf" implies that this feat is broken. I would LOVE to see your reasoning behind that. A feat that IF taken by level 5 would give an additional +3 to hit by level 20... that makes the feat so broken it "nerfs" the other classes??? Please, explain how?

No, I means it nerfs class like Rangers who ALSO TAKE Weapon Focus. He doesn't get so many feats, so it's unlikely he'll take it at lvl 1.

It's good on a fighter, not really improved for other martial classes.

Ashiel
2010-06-17, 10:53 AM
No, I means it nerfs class like Rangers who ALSO TAKE Weapon Focus. He doesn't get so many feats, so it's unlikely he'll take it at lvl 1.

It's good on a fighter, not really improved for other martial classes.

I would disagree. Assuming a scaling bonus to hit, such as ending at +5-6 at 20th level, it would be a Godsend to Rangers and other martially minded core classes. Firstly it would greatly help out the TWF line actually hit things reliably, while Barbarians could easily use it as a Power Attack edge.

Paladins are so MAD that I would take the feat to help alleviate the fact I likely have less strength than a Fighter or Barbarian, since while I don't care about hitting better than everyone else, I'd like to keep my hit % decent compared to monster/enemy AC.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say it's BETTER for non-fighters, since you can invest a single feat that gets better as you level (resulting in a 25-30% improvement by 20th level). Fighters on the other hand could more effectively afford to Weapon Focus in more weapons; rather than their primary weapon; or grab up more feats to take advantage of it (combat expertise, for example).

Gnaeus
2010-06-17, 11:21 AM
I would disagree. Assuming a scaling bonus to hit, such as ending at +5-6 at 20th level, it would be a Godsend to Rangers and other martially minded core classes.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say it's BETTER for non-fighters, since you can invest a single feat that gets better as you level (resulting in a 25-30% improvement by 20th level). Fighters on the other hand could more effectively afford to Weapon Focus in more weapons; rather than their primary weapon; or grab up more feats to take advantage of it (combat expertise, for example).

Are you talking core, where there aren't enough feats for fighters to specialize, and even non-fighters can get every relevant feat in their feat tree? If so, people will take your weapon focus. If not, they won't.


I would disagree. Assuming a scaling bonus to hit, such as ending at +5-6 at 20th level, it would be a Godsend to Rangers and other martially minded core classes. Firstly it would greatly help out the TWF line actually hit things reliably

So then if they could only do meaningful damage they could be useful. I guess rogues might want it. If they were really combat focused.


while Barbarians could easily use it as a Power Attack edge.

Shock.
Trooper.


Paladins are so MAD that I would take the feat to help alleviate the fact I likely have less strength than a Fighter or Barbarian, since while I don't care about hitting better than everyone else, I'd like to keep my hit % decent compared to monster/enemy AC.


No thanks. I'll stick with Law Devotion. It scales better and is more flexible. I'll power it with all these exciting turn attempts.

Umael
2010-06-17, 11:23 AM
If you guys are going to talk about a possible feat fix, could we take it out of this thread? NOt like this thread is super on topic anyhow, but I'd rather talk about cupcakes.

I re-posted it, it's in Homebrew.

Sorry, AtwasAwamps.

...where's my cupcake?

2xMachina
2010-06-17, 12:12 PM
I would disagree. Assuming a scaling bonus to hit, such as ending at +5-6 at 20th level, it would be a Godsend to Rangers and other martially minded core classes. Firstly it would greatly help out the TWF line actually hit things reliably, while Barbarians could easily use it as a Power Attack edge.

Paladins are so MAD that I would take the feat to help alleviate the fact I likely have less strength than a Fighter or Barbarian, since while I don't care about hitting better than everyone else, I'd like to keep my hit % decent compared to monster/enemy AC.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say it's BETTER for non-fighters, since you can invest a single feat that gets better as you level (resulting in a 25-30% improvement by 20th level). Fighters on the other hand could more effectively afford to Weapon Focus in more weapons; rather than their primary weapon; or grab up more feats to take advantage of it (combat expertise, for example).

Misunderstanding. He said it was +1 and +1 after every 5 levels. Do your Ranger take Weapon Focus at level 1? Pretty sure you don't.

Ashiel
2010-06-17, 03:20 PM
Misunderstanding. He said it was +1 and +1 after every 5 levels. Do your Ranger take Weapon Focus at level 1? Pretty sure you don't.

Depends on which version of the feat. I cautioned against making it scaled based on when you took it; because that's a very poor design IMO. However, scaling it based on BAB or level was encouraged. Assuming it followed either the 1 + 1/4th level mechanic, or identical to the Pathfinder Power Attack mechanic (reaching +6 at 20th), I would definitely consider taking it.

At 1st level, I might take it knowing it'll help hit at low levels where a missed attack means the orc is going to clobber you for 1d12+3 on his turn. I could take it without worrying about it becoming less useful later on; because it will actually become MORE useful.


Are you talking core, where there aren't enough feats for fighters to specialize, and even non-fighters can get every relevant feat in their feat tree? If so, people will take your weapon focus. If not, they won't.

So then if they could only do meaningful damage they could be useful. I guess rogues might want it. If they were really combat focused.

Shock.
Trooper.

No thanks. I'll stick with Law Devotion. It scales better and is more flexible. I'll power it with all these exciting turn attempts.

I'd take it outside of core. The vast load of splat-book feats are also a ton of crap. Shock Trooper is nice, but it gets old; and a scaling +6 bonus would add an extra +12 damage with PA + Shock Trooper. An extra +6 would also mean you'll likely hit with more iterative attacks; which can be dealing damage or other things (I'm fond of life-drinking weapons, but to each his own); also improving your +disarm and +resist.

You're awefully specific on a level of desired power for a feat that would go from being in the gutter to at least a respectable feat with nice benefits.

Zore
2010-06-17, 03:26 PM
I'd take it outside of core. The vast load of splat-book feats are also a ton of crap. Shock Trooper is nice, but it gets old; and a scaling +6 bonus would add an extra +12 damage with PA + Shock Trooper.=


You can only Power attack up to your base attack bonus, so this feat would add no damage with power attack. And Shock Trooper would let you power attack for more without making your chance of hitting go down dramatically.

Gametime
2010-06-17, 03:36 PM
You can only Power attack up to your base attack bonus, so this feat would add no damage with power attack. And Shock Trooper would let you power attack for more without making your chance of hitting go down dramatically.

It doesn't add more damage if you're Shock Troopering. It does add more damage if you're Power Attacking normally and don't have such a high attack bonus that you can dump your full BAB and still hit on a 2.

Ashiel
2010-06-17, 07:05 PM
It doesn't add more damage if you're Shock Troopering. It does add more damage if you're Power Attacking normally and don't have such a high attack bonus that you can dump your full BAB and still hit on a 2.

Aye. That's what I meant; but I didn't put clearly. I seem to have completely left out the "with no penalty" portion that should have been in the post. IE - You get more accuracy (or in the case of shock trooper, less AC hurt) while retaining higher damage potential.

Sorry for the confusion. :smallredface:

Fawsto
2010-06-17, 09:36 PM
Yes... It is a book... Damn it! Bad grammar.

There are some interesting benefits for the other classes down there. I mean, most devotion feats do not have real pre-reqs, meaning that the fighter could, in theory, grab, lets say, Law Devotion and use it. Also, I am fond of Battle Blessings and Awesome Smite.

Besides, right now casters and non-casters are so many lightyears away if you decide to OP that CChamp, like any other splatbook, will not change much stuff. Not even ToB...

Remember: Core is one of the most broken sources around. It is home to Druids, Time Stops and ForceKills. I dont think anything besides an Incantatrix (and similar Gouda) can go this far.

Knaight
2010-06-17, 09:40 PM
Yeah, banning core classes pretty much fixes D&D. Sadly.

Gametime
2010-06-17, 10:46 PM
Yeah, banning core classes pretty much fixes D&D. Sadly.

No, it doesn't; it just makes the Archivist feel all lonely at the top of his heap. (Optionally, the Spell-to-Power Erudite might swing by to keep him company.)

It is true that the most diverse and balanced list of classes comes almost entirely from outside core, however.

Il_Vec
2010-06-17, 10:56 PM
Yeah, banning core classes pretty much fixes D&D. Sadly.

Rejoice! Fixin D&D takes a lot more than banning eleven classes!

nolispe
2010-06-18, 03:45 AM
No, it doesn't; it just makes the Archivist feel all lonely at the top of his heap. (Optionally, the Spell-to-Power Erudite might swing by to keep him company.)

It is true that the most diverse and balanced list of classes comes almost entirely from outside core, however.

What about Artificer? That pings top of the heap pretty well.

Gametime
2010-06-18, 11:39 AM
What about Artificer? That pings top of the heap pretty well.

Point. The top of the heap isn't actually nearly so lonely as I had thought. :smalltongue:

Even without tier 1, though, D&D wouldn't really be "fixed." A psion can't break the world in as many ways as a wizard, but it only really takes one method to threaten ruination.

AtwasAwamps
2010-06-18, 12:35 PM
Amusing and on-topic conversation I had after our last gaming session, as I hitched a ride with the guy who had been DMing (we get along very well and while he doesn't "optimize", he does try to get his character working well and has no problem accepting that some choices are not ideal).

DM: "You know, your character would be more powerful with a two-handed weapon instead of TWF. Power attack would give you a LOT of damage."

Me: "I know. But I chose to hold back."

DM: "Why? I know you. You hold back all the time, I never asked you to in my games. If you want to play a powerful character and enjoy it, live it UP."

Me: "...because (Player X) is playing a samurai."

DM: "Oh, right. Yeah. Okay. I forgot about that. Oh lord, and (Player Y) is running a Healer, isn't she? Oh god. Okay. Thanks for that."

Umael
2010-06-18, 12:39 PM
Take the high road, AtwasAwamps, and ye shall reap the rewards of the moral high ground.

Zombieboots
2010-06-20, 08:05 PM
Amusing and on-topic conversation I had after our last gaming session, as I hitched a ride with the guy who had been DMing (we get along very well and while he doesn't "optimize", he does try to get his character working well and has no problem accepting that some choices are not ideal).
...Stuff...
Take the high road, AtwasAwamps, and ye shall reap the rewards of the moral high ground.
Yep I agree with Umael. Beside it's only a problem if it's a problem. Getting miffty at some... discrepancy... is one thing, but if it's an actual issue then you should do something more then just complain on a forum. I suspect just from how you're writing your problems it's the former and your just miffty, and full right to be.
Don't sweat it too much you have probably pulled the parties ass out of the fire more then several times, and that in itself feel fantastic. Am I right?

AtwasAwamps
2010-06-21, 03:26 PM
Am I right?

Basically. Currently, the "AA Saves The Party" count is at...3? Maybe 4. Some players see it and are thankful, some see it and are...resentful (don't get me STARTED on our dragon shaman*) because they didn't do it (the DM shifts the spotlight constantly and I'm the only member of the party without a "big" plot in the background, at my request, to prevent there being too much spotlight time on me), and some happily view my characters as buffoons who get lucky.

In one case when I was controlling the party's poorly made wizard during player absence (don't ask) and proceeded to use a fiendish centipede to grapple and control a large portion of the battle field, the DM actually cheered ("OH MY GOD TACTICS! TACTICS! FINALLY, TACTICS!") and the swashbuckler proceeded to shoot the centipede to death due to the "miss in melee = chance to hit ally" houserule some of our DMs use. Yes. She shot the grappling centipede that was saving our life. The DM almost broke down in tears, then proceeded to use the formerly grappled creature to strength-drain our front line. Again.

*I AM GOING TO PUNCH THE DRAGON SHAMAN IN THE FACE.

Illven
2010-06-21, 03:40 PM
*I AM GOING TO PUNCH THE DRAGON SHAMAN IN THE FACE.

I endorse this course of action, or fire you know whatever works:smalltongue:

AtwasAwamps
2010-06-21, 03:48 PM
I endorse this course of action, or fire you know whatever works:smalltongue:

FOEHAMMER! I HAVE FOEHAMMER.

I will light myself on fire first.

What? I can take it.

Illven
2010-06-21, 03:52 PM
Then hug him for 3d4 points of damage per round

okpokalypse
2010-06-21, 03:53 PM
I feel your pain, and I've been in the same situation. My solution was to play the ultimate group buffer.

We were in a Campaign that would go from L1 thru to Epic (It took 3 years of bi-weekly play). The majority of the players are very RP oriented and the DM kills PCs regularly, and without impugnity. So rather than making a PC that would take over the game (and thus become the DM's nemesis), I built one that made everyone WAY better and drastically increased survivability.

Favored Soul / Sacred Exorcist w/ DMM Persist. I'd persist Righteous Wrath of the Faithful, Blessing of the Righteous, Vigorous Circle and Holy Aura for group benefit every day. I would cast Extended Mass Convictions 2x per Day. I would cast Heroes Feast every day. I would cast Extended Mass Energy Resist (for each type) 2x per Day. I would drop a Mass Aid for extra HP every combat.

Outside of those buffs, I would mostly just Revivify and Heal. Occasionally I'd Radiant Assault or Bolt of Glory if things got hairy. I completely avoided Save or Die because my PC had an extraordinarily high Charisma (Thanks to having an Ancestral Relic + the allowance of Insight, Divine and Luck Bonuses to CHA) and my DCs would have been "too powerful" for the DM's like. I also avoided Holy Words being I was operating at a +12 CL (via Items, DSP, Karma).

The only Persists I really used for me were the following:
- Storm Rage (Sudden Empowered & Maximized)
- Greater Visage of the Deity

And of course, with the afore-mentioned CL boost, I was undispellable by an equal-level caster since all my long-duration buffs were cast at maxxed CL.

So for the most part I just shot ranged-touch lightning bolts out of my eyes (at 100') that did 90 Damage with no save over and over - when I didn't have to save someone's arse that turn. If you wanted to get silly, you could even prepare the Storm Rage and get Elven Spell Lore to change the Energy Type to something like "Holy" or "Light" since it's not restricted to the basic types.

As mundane as this may sound, it was actually a LOT of fun because those buffs let the other PCs characters alive long enough to really get developed and actually flourish over time. The combined +10 Saves, +4 Hit & +3 Damage, Extra Attack @ Max BAB, +1d6 Holy Damage, Good Aligned Weapons, Immunity to Mind Affecting & Fear, Energy Resists, Temp HP and Fast Healing also allowed the DM a lot of leeway in throwing more and more powerful encounters at us with me as the failsafe if guys got killed.

It got to the point that he rarely even tried targetting me since my saves were redonkulous (I think my worst was a +38). I was almost an NPC-like guardian angel :)

Ormur
2010-06-21, 07:29 PM
There seems to be surprisingly little correlation between how long you've played D&D and how good you are at creating effective characters. My friend started playing two or three years ago and has now surpassed almost all of the guys that played since they were kids. I started even later and I've already better at it than most. It's never caused any friction, we help each other making characters of comparable power. Some of the long-time players are a bit more reluctant at optimizing but they don't consider themselves better. Their roleplay experience is at least as valuable as the mechanical knowhow. It's not that I consider us newcomers roll-players but having created countless character concepts counts, irrespective of the mechanics.

Math_Mage
2010-06-22, 04:09 AM
(don't get me STARTED on our dragon shaman*)

Get started on the dragon shaman! Get started on the dragon shaman! :smalltongue:

I'm on the other end of this, and it's my own fault. I picked a Rogue for an undead-heavy campaign.

I picked a Rogue for an undead-heavy campaign.

Well, Death's Ruin is keeping me semi-viable, but it's always frustrating to watch the fireballing Wizard compare kill tallies with the cleric at the end of the day (Fireball works, for once, because the DM's fond of hordes of low-HP mooks). It really does feel just like this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0111.html).

I mean, I learned a lesson from that, and I'm playing effective characters in other campaigns, but still.

Cadian 9th
2010-06-22, 04:37 AM
Well, responding directly to the first few pages here.

I'm a wholehearted optimizer. I admit that. However...

I'm a competitive roleplayer as well. So It's hard for someone to pinpoint me as "a cheesemaker" because I play a half celestial front liner wizard who hits as well as the fighter and has better AC, more HP etc. Because said wizard refuses to act out of a code of devotion to Ioun, preserving his lawful good alignment, basically acting like a paladin, not striking unarmed opponenents, refusing to use evil spells or necromancy, refusing to charm or dominate people etc. Strongly reccomending we give back all this relics to its rightful owner etc.

So DMs out there, forgive me if my character seems ridiculous. I strive in all aspects to win, even at roleplaying. I do get annoyed with other players who wade into an optimization discussion and say "Whats it about to you, the game or the story, or: Its all about a story." etc, to which I point to the thread/room title/books in front of me and say: "Notice: This is an optimization thread, not an RP thread."

I agree with one poster, he says try optimize something wierd, like a intimidate samurai. (that will stay with me forever :smallbiggrin:)

My 2 cents.
Dante

nedz
2010-06-22, 04:38 AM
I've read this thread with interest and although I sympathize I see it slightly differently.
I spend about half my time DMing and half playing.
As a DM I've frequently had the situation where one player optimises and another seems to do the opposite. It is very hard to create challanging encounters for the optimiser without sidelining the low opt PC. I end up having to create encounters which allow all PCs the opportunity to be effective and frequently the optimising player is under challanged.
By focussing on the optimisation challange of character generation you end up missing on the challanges inherent in actually play.
I don't worry if one PC emerges ahead of the others at a certain level because different characters peak at different stages of their career and this will balance out in the end; though quite frequently this never occurs for some PCs.

As a player it is a little frustrating to find yourself in a group where you end up carrying passangers, but I accept that some players have other motivations.

I notice that the OP seems to like Wizards, which is understandable, but perhaps they should try to optimise a lower tier class. For example, if someone in your group is playing, Oh I don't know - a Monk say, you could also create such a character and then demonstrate how to build one more effectively. I'm not saying you should tell the other player that the're not very competant (however diplomatically you might wish to phrase that) but rather demonstate some possibilities that they are missing. I doubt that this will work with some players but at least you get more of a challange.

Sliver
2010-06-22, 04:58 AM
There is something I want to point out....


In the game where I am a bit ahead in party power level, it was partially at the DM's request because our front line was extremely weak and he wanted to be able to play challenging fights against us.

nedz
2010-06-22, 05:11 AM
There is something I want to point out....

So its a no win scenario ?

Sliver
2010-06-22, 05:29 AM
Most of the other players don't seem to mind due to self conviction of attributing it all to luck. As he plays it as a clown/buffoon, they don't see him as the most powerful character around that keeps them together.

The DM doesn't want to send low CR opponents to keep the feel of a heroic party, the OP likes to play something somewhat optimized while not annoying the group, and the group doesn't want to feel underpowered compared to him so he makes sure that he doesn't seem like any serious threat. Sounds like a win to me. Sounds like it works for them, and the OP is only annoyed at how arrogant they sometimes act about knowing the game while being pretty ignorant of it.

AtwasAwamps
2010-06-22, 08:32 AM
Most of the other players don't seem to mind due to self conviction of attributing it all to luck. As he plays it as a clown/buffoon, they don't see him as the most powerful character around that keeps them together.

The DM doesn't want to send low CR opponents to keep the feel of a heroic party, the OP likes to play something somewhat optimized while not annoying the group, and the group doesn't want to feel underpowered compared to him so he makes sure that he doesn't seem like any serious threat. Sounds like a win to me. Sounds like it works for them, and the OP is only annoyed at how arrogant they sometimes act about knowing the game while being pretty ignorant of it.

I...I'm going to hug you. It's like you read the whole thread. ::sniffle::

Side note: Here are my current 3.5 "optimized" characters.

Paladin 5/Crusader1 (most often played character)
Cleric 2/Ranger 2
Barbarian 1/Scout 3
Bard 9
Barbarian 6/Champion of Gwynharrawyf 1 ("Crazy broken" because I can cower things)
Warlord 8 (4e)

Zombieboots
2010-06-22, 08:58 AM
To echo an earlier comment if something were to happen to your current character, you could always try to full Optimize a Wizard/Warweaver and MAKE the rest of the party better. They'll feel good because they can actually... well... do something and you'll feel good because you know it's really all you and no need to "Hold back" on a buffer type.

From the sounds of it I kinda wish you were in my current pbp Savage Tide campaign.

AtwasAwamps
2010-06-22, 09:04 AM
I've actually never rolled a full caster besides the bard. In fear I would find it too hard to resist breaking out some ridiculous thing that finishes a fight in three seconds. Though...I'm starting to be tempted.

Wizard: "I just hit fifth level. What spells should I take, AA?"

Me: "Haste it always great, especially since we have a lot of full-attacking melee. You don't have a lot of BFC either, so you might want to look at some of the stuff available there. But then, you're a conjurer, so SMIII is probably a solid bet, too, especially because you get Celestial Beast and Fiendish Ape, both of which are great at this level."

Swashbuckler (the Mystic Theurge player): "What wizard doesn't take fireball? You have to take fireball. It's awesome."

Me: "What? No. The party is mostly melee and we don't stick together on one side of the opponent. We clump up. He's either going to catch us all in the fireball or he's going lose like 80% of its AoE whenever he throws it."

Swash: "But it's fireball. It's 5d6 damage!"

Me: "It's called Dungeon and Dragons, not 'Find More Ways To Let The Monk Die.' No offense, Monk."

Monk: "None taken."

Wizard: "Fireball it is, then."

Me & Monk: ::headdesk::

Umael
2010-06-22, 01:09 PM
...I know I shouldn't laugh at your pain.

But, I do.

So much.

AtwasAwamps
2010-06-22, 01:24 PM
...I know I shouldn't laugh at your pain.

But, I do.

So much.

That's because my pain is hilarious.

Coplantor
2010-06-22, 01:31 PM
Well, I'm the optimizer in my party, we haven't reached the moment at wich my current character will shine, since it's still lvl 1...

But my rant goes like this:

I was accused of being a metagamer because I had a build for my characer from lvl1 to 20. According to the accuser, I was metagaming because my character doesn't know that he can level up, therefore he doesnt know what feats he will take. I should decide what to take once I hit the level when I get a feat.

I have a character with 18str that is broken because that means he adds +6 to his natural slam attack. The problem here is that it is a natural attack, 1d4+6!
Since a fighter can loose his greatsword, him doing 2d6+6 is not as powerful as my character.
By the way, the concept for my character involves him using NO WEAPON OTHER THAN THE NATURAL ATTACK for the entire build. Why? Because he is a warforged going into bloodstrom blade, can you say ROCKET PUNCHES? Yeah!:smallcool:

I also took adamantium body, so I'm broken.
Warforgeds are also broken.

I just wanted to play optimus prime with rocket punches:smallfrown:

AtwasAwamps
2010-06-22, 01:36 PM
I just wanted to play optimus prime with rocket punches:smallfrown:

Stop having fun, optimizer! Stop it. You are not allowed.

Umael
2010-06-22, 01:48 PM
I was accused of being a metagamer because I had a build for my characer from lvl1 to 20. According to the accuser, I was metagaming because my character doesn't know that he can level up, therefore he doesnt know what feats he will take. I should decide what to take once I hit the level when I get a feat.

1) Who accused you?
2) What are the ages in your group?

Coplantor
2010-06-22, 01:54 PM
We are all 21, we are all friends and been playing since 2007. The accuser ussually plays melee builds.
Actually, I dont remember who told me that, I think I might be confusing two different friends, or maybe they both told me that.

Hadrian_Emrys
2010-06-22, 02:21 PM
A person pre-selects his college courses in order meet the PhD requirements for the field of medicine he has an interest in. This means that he's metareality-ing because he has a plan for where he wants to be, and takes steps to ensure he gets there.

The levels and numbers are (theoretically) a balancing meta-system that prevents OOC bickering about which cowboy shot the other first. The OOC mechanics in every version of DnD require foresight in order to allow one to do what the player wants them to do. All the while, your character is simply just growing into the hero he is to become. It is no more, or less, destined than the results of a fantasy novel. I don't even know the guy, but I am all but certain that your friend is either an idiot or an RP diva (perhaps even one who resents needing to understand the rule system in order to have a competent character, as opposed to just inherently being awesome because of his great "characterization"). :smallsigh:

Umael
2010-06-22, 02:22 PM
We are all 21, we are all friends and been playing since 2007. The accuser ussually plays melee builds.
Actually, I dont remember who told me that, I think I might be confusing two different friends, or maybe they both told me that.

Well, more importantly, are the accuser or accusers in your current gaming group? I would assume so, but I game with one group and would like to game with another group, so I might share my ideas with the other group. Furthermore, is either of them the DM?

If they aren't in your group, who cares - but I'm betting that at least one of them is. So are we talking about fellow players or is the DM involved?

Because if this is just one of your players, you can deal with it. Make sure the DM knows that your character is not that powerful and that there is nothing wrong with planning your character's progress (people plan their future careers in RL, after all). If this is your DM, you need to have a long, sit-down chat and explain why your concept isn't so bad.

(Edit: Oh, look, shurikens in me! That means I've been nin- *thud!*)

AtwasAwamps
2010-06-22, 02:23 PM
Well, more importantly, are the accuser or accusers in your current gaming group? I would assume so, but I game with one group and would like to game with another group, so I might share my ideas with the other group. Furthermore, is either of them the DM?

If they aren't in your group, who cares - but I'm betting that at least one of them is. So are we talking about fellow players or is the DM involved?

Because if this is just one of your players, you can deal with it. Make sure the DM knows that your character is not that powerful and that there is nothing wrong with planning your character's progress (people plan their future careers in RL, after all). If this is your DM, you need to have a long, sit-down chat and explain why your concept isn't so bad.

AND THEN YOU ROCKET PUNCH THE DRAGON SHAMAN IN THE FACE.

Umael
2010-06-22, 02:23 PM
AND THEN YOU ROCKET PUNCH THE DRAGON SHAMAN IN THE FACE.

Okay, what is with you and dragon shamans? Did one like kick your dog when you were a kid or something?

Coplantor
2010-06-22, 02:31 PM
@Hadrian: Whoa whoa, a little harsh there... No, they are not idiots, nor RP divas, they just see high op with a bit of prejudice.

@Umael:The DM has no problem, he knows my character build, he had some doubts at first, but then I explained him the basics of optimization, what truly makes you strong in DnD and the fact that, if I wished so, I could've made a far more decent melee lvl1 character than my fellow players with a lvl1 wizard.

Also, my character is seriously gimped in a lot of stuff that does not involve combat, why? Because the idea for my character was having him just being activated for the first time, so right now, he posses the mindset of a baby, as of today, my character does not know how to speak, and his behaviour is erratical because he copies the attitudes of whoever he percieves as the strongest member of the party at the moment.

I guess that most people asociates damage input to brokenesess.
A fellow player, when I asked him, how much damage in average should a melee build dish out per round at lvl 10? He answered me, "That's easy, about 20 points"

The Shadowmind
2010-06-22, 02:43 PM
I guess that most people asociates damage input to brokenesess.
A fellow player, when I asked him, how much damage in average should a melee build dish out per round at lvl 10? He answered me, "That's easy, about 20 points"

What? just what? Level 8 glaivelock, gives two 4d6 touch attacks, for d46 each. Making it a near average of 28 before any essence is involved. At 10 this would be an extra d6 per attack for an average increase of 7 damage. What is this person attacking with, the flat of a sword?

AtwasAwamps
2010-06-22, 02:45 PM
What? just what? Level 8 glaivelock, gives two 4d6 touch attacks, for d46 each. Making it a near average of 28 before any essence is involved. At 10 this would be an extra d6 per attack for an average increase of 7 damage. What is this person attacking with, the flat of a sword?

He's hitting people with a dragon shaman.

@Umael: Yes. Yes, one did.

Hadrian_Emrys
2010-06-22, 02:48 PM
*shrug* Having been on the receiving end of more "munchkin/rollplayer" slams at the hands of idiot "true role players"... I'm more than a little hyper sensitive. Hell, I've even been given grief by one group for having a plan for a devoted healer/party buffer that could also mostly fill the role of skill monkey. Given that none of the other players could be bothered to roll a character that filled any of those roles (they had a fire themed human blaster wizard, an asperi wizard using the necromancer variant, and necropolitan dread necromancer that wanted to throw exploding undead rats via attached holy water vials and corpsecrafter feats for pete's sake) I figured they didn't have a leg to stand on. Curse me for going out of my way to try and fill the massive holes in your freak-show party. :smallfurious:

Coplantor
2010-06-22, 02:50 PM
On their defence, we've never hit the big levels after 5. 6th level is still a mystery to us because most our campaigns stop after having long breaks due to a lot of players not showing up, wich ultimately killed my mood for DMing.

Aaaanyway, I know the mechanics past level 5 because, well, making a character build is a fun thing to do, and the playground was a wonderful place to know about optimization :smalltongue:
So I have a stash of character concepts with builds included that I can use as NPCs or as PCs when I get to play.

Hadrian_Emrys
2010-06-22, 02:53 PM
Good for you. Keep that stash growing. Character creation is a wonderful hobby, and a great resource for producing unique NPCs on the spot.

Coplantor
2010-06-22, 03:00 PM
Another thing I noticed regarding Op, it heavily depends on what people see as character class. Some people cant separate the fluff from the crunch, so they go on and roll a barbarian and for them starting as something else and then puting a level of barbarian makes little to no sense.
I ussually think of a concept and then look for class combos that better represent it, why should I be unable to play the character I want because there is no class that matches the description?

Hadrian_Emrys
2010-06-22, 03:15 PM
It is just one of many deliberate flaws in the system. I mean, if it was perfect out of the gate, why would one need to buy any of the tons of splat books produced before the version is so overladen with crap that it needs to be switched out for a new one?

Coplantor
2010-06-22, 03:19 PM
What I find funny, is the fact that two years ago, I saw no reason why people liked classless systems so much over DnD. Now? I'm trying to make my own classelss DnD, or just reduce it to very VERY customizable basic classes, UA took a good first step, but the Warrior, Expert and Spellcaster lack a bit of flexibility.

Umael
2010-06-22, 03:34 PM
It is just one of many deliberate flaws in the system. I mean, if it was perfect out of the gate, why would one need to buy any of the tons of splat books produced before the version is so overladen with crap that it needs to be switched out for a new one?

I think that's the big thing with every other addition versus 4th edition.

When D&D first came out, it was a flawed product, but still very good. So it got a lot of people saying, "Hey, this is great! But I can fix it and make it better..." So you got homebrewed races and custom classes and house rules for all kinds of things.

Then WotC decided that they were going to make the game RIGHT, and so they sat down and put everything they could into it.

Hence, 4th edition is a lot smoother than the previous editions... but it is also a lot less innovative, it seems. While I KNOW there has to be some houserules and whatnot for 4th edition, and I know part of it comes from 4th edition being so new still (relatively), but there just seems to be a lack of interest in tinkering with the system.

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-06-22, 03:37 PM
Then WotC decided that they were going to make the game RIGHT, and so they sat down and put everything they could into it.

By which you mean they said "We're going to sit down and understand the math and the game this time!" instead of just ripping the core mechanic out of one edition, replacing it with something else, and calling it the next edition. :smallwink:

AtwasAwamps
2010-06-22, 03:52 PM
I think that's the big thing with every other addition versus 4th edition.

When D&D first came out, it was a flawed product, but still very good. So it got a lot of people saying, "Hey, this is great! But I can fix it and make it better..." So you got homebrewed races and custom classes and house rules for all kinds of things.

Then WotC decided that they were going to make the game RIGHT, and so they sat down and put everything they could into it.

Hence, 4th edition is a lot smoother than the previous editions... but it is also a lot less innovative, it seems. While I KNOW there has to be some houserules and whatnot for 4th edition, and I know part of it comes from 4th edition being so new still (relatively), but there just seems to be a lack of interest in tinkering with the system.


Meh. I play with a second group over skype (all of us good friends) and in the 4e game we play there, our DM is…very good at homebrewing in 4e. Very little of what we go up against is necessarily from any of the books and he’s currently working directly with a player on a new version of a paladin that the storyline we’re in is going to require him to become (EG, he made the choice and now he and the DM are working together to see what this class becomes).

Our group there is VERY interesting. The players don’t have as much experience as the other group, but because they are all “Gamists” first, their characters are always quite potent and they recognize the power of ‘optimal’ abilities without being told they are ‘optimal’ (Big Group’s Response to Swordmage’s Decree: “Eh, it’s just marking.” Small Group DM when I showed it to him: “…Oh no.”). This translated into the 3.5 game I’m running for them, where they’re running amok as a druid, cloistered cleric, and dragonfire adept. They’re an absolute BLAST to play with and it makes me wish I was able to play with them in person as well.

Umael
2010-06-22, 03:57 PM
By which you mean they said "We're going to sit down and understand the math and the game this time!" instead of just ripping the core mechanic out of one edition, replacing it with something else, and calling it the next edition. :smallwink:

Well... yes.

I mean, they got some things right. But then, I also said that they said they were going to going to make it right, not that they did.

And to their credit, they did a good job. The game design of 4th edition is very smooth. Which, on the good side, tends to remove one person from standing on a hill, overshadowing another... on the bad side, it makes the landscape a little... featureless.

AtwasAwamps
2010-06-22, 04:11 PM
Well... yes.

I mean, they got some things right. But then, I also said that they said they were going to going to make it right, not that they did.

And to their credit, they did a good job. The game design of 4th edition is very smooth. Which, on the good side, tends to remove one person from standing on a hill, overshadowing another... on the bad side, it makes the landscape a little... featureless.

Honestly, I don't mind this so much. You've got the mechanics to create most of the types you could make in 3.5 and you can still roleplay your heart out. Also, less math!

What's not to like? I mean, yeah, I can't kill the level one wizard by hurling a cat at him, but you know what, that's okay.

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-06-22, 04:14 PM
We're starting to edge perilously close to an edition discussion thread, folks, and you know where those inevitably lead. Let's try to keep this on optimization in 3e or 4e (or AD&D) and not on their relative merits.

Sliver
2010-06-22, 05:02 PM
As a player, I was accused of being an optimizer/munchkin a couple of times, non of which were true.

Optimizer - Asking about a possible house rule in a homebrewed game setting. The house rule? I wanted my bard to be able to mimic sounds with a skill check, and wanted to sacrifice two class skills for that. That's optimizing, because I reduced my flexibility for fluff reasons. The non-broken solution? Use one of the class skills already taken for that. (A case of not knowing what optimizer means and claiming I'm starting an argument when I wanted to correct the usage)

Munchkin - M&M PL2 game. I wanted to have Visual and Auditory Concealment, which is rank 3. I asked if it's possible, since Visual Concealment is also a rank 1 power that priced the same and called Invisibility. Since I saw the rules already let me go around the PL restriction with that power, I asked if it's OK... And was called a munchkin for abusing the system. When the rules don't even limit non combat powers by PL. I was pretty upset for being called a munchkin on my first play in the system.

As a DM, one of my players said I over-optimized. I started a level 10 gestalt game and one of the newbie players needed help. I made her an ubercharging TWF barbarian/frenzied berserker//Warlock with a homebrew feat for channeling the blast through her weapons (on a recommendation here). I made it count as two feats and didn't think much of it since it's TWF which isn't that great, even with pounce, and I didn't think that the other players will make something weak, knowing their class choices. A Dread Necromancer//Rogue, a Favored Soul//Crusader and a Druid//Barbarian/Warshaper.

To my surprise, the DreadNecro//Rogue came to the first game without knowing any DreadNecro abilities (having constructed the character with my books, no access to it but didn't bother asking) so she used only basic rogue abilities, while the character was optimizing the DreadNecro side with Rogue as a bonus. The Favored Soul//Crusader didn't use spells either, only maneuvers. The Druid didn't even prepare spells, just turned into something big and charged. The druid player complained about the warlock barbarian because he was outdamaged... Because his unbuffed ass was out damaged by a damaged focused combination. The damage didn't even matter, since all the players could kill anything with a single hit. Yet he complained. Gah. And he was the second most knowledgeable player in our group, after me. He also complained when he didn't hit the boss 75% of the time.

Umael
2010-06-22, 05:31 PM
We're starting to edge perilously close to an edition discussion thread, folks, and you know where those inevitably lead. Let's try to keep this on optimization in 3e or 4e (or AD&D) and not on their relative merits.

I get your point, but I think it IS only fair to compare and contrast 3e and 4e in terms of optimization. Optimization isn't limited to D&D, after all. Back in the day, Champions was a squeeze-monkey's delight where one small missed rule could net you mastery of the game.

100 active points into Strength (+100 Strength) gives you 20 points of PD, 20 points of Recovery (counts double), and 50 points of Stun. Net fixed bonus: 110 points.
100 active points into Constitution (+50 Constitution) gives you 10 points ED, 10 points Recovery (counts double), 100 points Endurance (counts half), and 25 points of Stun. Net fixed bonus: 105 points.
One small missed rule: You cannot sell off more than one fixed bonus

Back to 3e and 4e, people who sit down and play with the numbers will find that it is very easy to optimize for 3e, while 4e is not so much. On the reverse side, those who do not know what they are doing can gimp their characters very easily in 3e. Not so much in 4e.

To prove my point, do a loser's party. Set up a few ground rules (character creation, no PvP) for 3e, then do the same for 4e. Have the DM run a very combat-oriented game designed to kill the PCs.

(To explain the "loser's party", imagine a race where the winner of the race is the slowest car. However, to make sure everyone drives as fast as they can, exchange drivers. Since the winner goes to whomever's CAR is the slowest, the drivers will be trying to use someone else's car to outrace their own car. Now use the same concept for D&D - the character you create is not the character you will play, and you want the character you play to die as soon possible.)

Anyway, optimization is just a matter of knowing what choices you have and making the best of them. The more choices you have, the more likely those choices can be very good or very bad. Furthermore, if you have a lot of choices available and you make a lot of choices, you are more likely to come up with something that will benefit you.

In 3e, you have a lot of choices. In 4e, you don't have as many.

AtwasAwamps
2010-06-28, 03:02 PM
I don't know if this is thread necromancy (I forget the exact length of time required for it to be necromancy), but I have to add a little bit here for one of the key quotations of the Dragon Shaman from last week's session.

One of our players has a little brother joining the game as a beguiler. The DM for this particular game had a side session with this player and his brother, where they RP'd and skill-monkeyed their way out of the orcish captivity. They were really pleased with their performance and the player had gone out of his way to make his beguiler more trap-monkey/door-unlocking focused so that our social rogue still got to be the social rogue. And then, in comes the Dragon Shaman with his sage and thoughtful advice.

DS: You know, I took a look at the beguiler and you know what? It just seems like a really sub-par rogue.

(DM and I look at one another. DM mouths 'you say it')

Me: Well, I'd disagree with you there. A beguiler still has all the skills that make a rogue a great skill monkey, with a lot of skill points and INT-based casting to make pumping int even more worthwhile.

DS: Yeah, but the spell list sucks.

Me: Well, the spell list is small, but it does focus on what the beguilers party role would be, deception and illusion and that kind of thing.

DS: But there's no damage spells and their sneak attack is really bad.

Me: ...those aren't downsides considering what the class is supposed to do.

DS: I'm just saying, we already have a rogue.

Me: That cannot find traps, disable them, or unlock doors. Which the new character can totally do. So we're fine.

Rogue Player: Yeah, seriously, now I don't have to feel guilty about playing my character how I want to play him because we have all the bases covered.

DS Player: Meh. Just seems like a stupid class.

::Tears own hair out::

And side note - I know the DS player looks bad, but I swear, I'm not changing the nature of his arguments or the phrasing. That's as close to verbatim as I can get it.

ADDITIONAL NOTE: This is the game in which our wonderful DS plays a CW Samurai.

balistafreak
2010-06-28, 03:30 PM
His definition of "stupid class" is probably "no big numbers". You're a beguiler, you don't care about those. :smallamused:

Sucrose
2010-06-28, 03:34 PM
His definition of "stupid class" is probably "no big numbers". You're a beguiler, you don't care about those. :smallamused:

Aside from DC's, anyway, and even then, clever play can substantially decrease the need for those.

AtwasAwamps
2010-06-28, 03:50 PM
You're a beguiler, you don't care about those. :smallamused:

It's not even my character. One of our player's younger brother is making his first DnD character, sat down with me and his older brother, and wanted to make a cool skill-monkey style character that would fit the gap we had in the party. He immediately fixated on the Beguiler as an option, because the option to cast spells on top of having high skills seemed good to him. So he comes to the table with his first ever character after a small 2-on-1 session with his brother and the DM, excited about his character, and this guy tells him that his character is basically a sub-par rogue, while proudly playing a CW Samurai...which is a sub-par FIGHTER.

::slams head on desk::

I'm losing brain-meats to this.

Gametime
2010-06-28, 04:12 PM
His definition of "stupid class" is probably "no big numbers". You're a beguiler, you don't care about those. :smallamused:

Speak for yourself - I always assign "lulz damage" to my sneaky characters, based on how hilarious their deceptive antics are.

Beguiler uses BLUFF on Gullible Peasant. It's super effective!

Gullible Peasant gives you his life savings on the condition that you repay him once you recover your princely fortune. Gullible Peasant suffers 213 points of lulz damage!

Gullible Peasant is a rube!

Eldariel
2010-06-28, 04:34 PM
May inform him that a disabled enemy = dead enemy meaning the failed save did as much damage as the enemy has HP, effectively. Then point out all the spells on the Beguiler-list that have such effect. And then point out how much damage Haste does on average; make him remember that it's the caster of the Haste who really does all that damage, using the rest of the characters as proxies. That may make some lightbulps go off in his head.

Gametime
2010-06-28, 04:46 PM
May inform him that a disabled enemy = dead enemy meaning the failed save did as much damage as the enemy has HP, effectively. Then point out all the spells on the Beguiler-list that have such effect. And then point out how much damage Haste does on average; make him remember that it's the caster of the Haste who really does all that damage, using the rest of the characters as proxies. That may make some lightbulps go off in his head.

And, if it doesn't, Dominate his character and make him agree with you. :smalltongue:

Umael
2010-06-28, 06:02 PM
Hey, AA?

Do you have a problem with the Dragon Shaman class? Or is it just an association with the DS player?

Because honestly... you are doing a wonderful job of making him sound like a mental case, and it seems like you need doing very little in the way of embellishment.

AtwasAwamps
2010-06-28, 06:29 PM
Hey, AA?

Do you have a problem with the Dragon Shaman class? Or is it just an association with the DS player?

Because honestly... you are doing a wonderful job of making him sound like a mental case, and it seems like you need doing very little in the way of embellishment.

I think the class is sub-par without a lot of solid work, but mostly it's just the player. It's just that calling him "The Dragon Shaman" is easier than calling him anything else. In my own private world, people use "The Dragon Shaman" to describe the most frustrating person you know that you're actually quite fond of.

Umael
2010-06-28, 06:37 PM
I think the class is sub-par without a lot of solid work, but mostly it's just the player. It's just that calling him "The Dragon Shaman" is easier than calling him anything else. In my own private world, people use "The Dragon Shaman" to describe the most frustrating person you know that you're actually quite fond of.

Ah.

Usually that translates into either a family relative, a spouse, or a clueless and/or obnoxious good friend.

...

Sadly, I would have quite a few "Dragon Shamans"...

AtwasAwamps
2010-06-28, 06:38 PM
Ah.


Sadly, I would have quite a few "Dragon Shamans"...

Sometimes I think everyone I know is a Dragon Shaman.

Not really, that just sounded like an awesomely quotable thing to say.

Math_Mage
2010-06-28, 07:26 PM
Sometimes I think everyone I know is a Dragon Shaman.

Not really, that just sounded like an awesomely quotable thing to say.

Man, I wish everyone I knew was a Dragonfire Adept Shaman.