Quick questions for forums

[Cerlis]

There are a few questions i'd like to get answered since the subject matter comes up frequently. and i suppose its possible i could google it (though i'm horrible at searches) but i'd also like anyone here's personal.....opinion...review...ect..

1) What is a gish? I did look that up. A Melee character who adds magic to make them better? Is this easy to do? I'd imagine it would only involves PrCs with Full or almost full BAB and caster level? and wouldnt that eat away like all your feats and skills?

2) Why are monks bad?(supposidly)

3)What is Tier 1,2,3? Is that a 4.0 thing? Cus the context seems to point at certian classes being better than others because of their Tier.


Feel free for anyone else to ask any questions that the subject matter is seen frequently but they dont know what it is.

I suppose
4) a majority of the time i see a posted build from 1-20 or even 1-10 i see what looks like several classes. 2/2/1/3/2/4 or something like that. For anyone reading this who posts those frequently are these mostly Game mechanics? Or are there many people here that do such complicated builds but it doesnt infringe on their RP?

[Scarey Nerd]

I'm not certain on the rest of them, but the tier system is a project found here (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=1002.0) that attempts to rank 3.5 classes in their effectiveness and flexibility, for example a Wizard is tier 1 because it can do anything at any time ever, whereas a Commoner is tier 6 because it can't do anything, with the possible exception of RP opportunities.

[Cerlis]

oh and 5) Why are Druids so overpowered? Or i guess i should say, why are Druids overpowered and Clerics are not (since both are full casters with melee ability and Divine spells

[DragonOfUndeath]

Monks are bad because everything they do can be done better with an unarmed swordmage and AFAIK suck in RP and Optimizing (it has even been suggested as a cure for Power-gamers cause they are so hard to pull off)


oh and 5) Why are Druids so overpowered? Or i guess i should say, why are Druids overpowered and Clerics are not (since both are full casters with melee ability and Divine spells

Druids can turn into a Bear, Summon Bears, have a Bear AC and cast spells in Bear form. It's Un-Bear-Able

[Kaww]

5) both can be overpowered. They are tier 1 casters, with a larger spell selection than any other class. They have more spells per day than wizards. They may be useful in a melee, survive a dmg heavy surprise round and they may bring dead PCs back to life for a diamond or some aromatherapy accessories...

2) Again that is a matter of personal preference and players skill. The simplest answer is: 'They can't cast lvl 9 spells...'

4) I don't do complex multiclassing...

[JaronK]

1) What is a gish? I did look that up. A Melee character who adds magic to make them better? Is this easy to do? I'd imagine it would only involves PrCs with Full or almost full BAB and caster level? and wouldnt that eat away like all your feats and skills?

Specifically, an Arcane caster melee. Duskblade is a gish class outright. A Paladin 2/Sorcerer 10/Spellsword 1 would be a sample gish. It's someone who uses arcane magic to make them better as melee fighters.


2) Why are monks bad?(supposidly)

They're just weak. That's not necessarily bad, depending on your game. But compared to most other classes they're below par, and when players start optimizing, especially at higher levels, Monks rapidly fall behind. They're actually a reasonably well designed class for their power level, with a large number of abilities (though they stop getting really useful ones at level 11) and lots of flavor, which makes them somewhat popular. But power wise, they have troubles if your players start pushing the system at all.


3)What is Tier 1,2,3? Is that a 4.0 thing? Cus the context seems to point at certian classes being better than others because of their Tier.

Linked in an earlier post, but note that the tiers are a ranking of power and versatility, not "better." For example, I think Tier 3 classes are better when playing, because I like playing at a level where I'm always useful but can't just push a "win" button. I think Tier 4 classes are better when I'm DMing, because they're easier for me to work with since I know what they'll throw at me. I don't tend to like playing Tier 1, because it's not as fun when I know I have a spell that just solves everything (Hey, you said this is a mystery to solve? Sweet, I'll just cast Contact Other Plane. Okay, what's next?).


Feel free for anyone else to ask any questions that the subject matter is seen frequently but they dont know what it is.


4) a majority of the time i see a posted build from 1-20 or even 1-10 i see what looks like several classes. 2/2/1/3/2/4 or something like that. For anyone reading this who posts those frequently are these mostly Game mechanics? Or are there many people here that do such complicated builds but it doesnt infringe on their RP?

How many classes are in your build effects mechanics, not RP. If I want an unarmed shaolin inspired character, I could be a Monk 20, an Unarmed Variant Swordsage 20, a Monk 6/Shou Disciple 5/Kensai 9, or a variety of other builds. All of these could easily have the same personality traits, the same goals, the same general method of dealing with things, etc... but the builds differ. But seriously, why would my RP be changed by having one higher BAB at a given level?

Remember, classes are just mechanical constructs. Classes are not your RP. They're related, but they're not the same. It's not like everyone with Fighter levels wears a badge that says "I have X levels of Fighter." A savage warrior from the north who uses a huge axe to cleave enemies and believes that only through martial might can honor be proven and calls himself a Warrior could be a Barbarian, a Fighter, a Warblade, a Crusader, or any number of other things. A character could call themselves a monk, whose levels are in fact in Cloistered Cleric (after all, isn't a monk someone who studies religion all the time?).

And both Druids and Clerics are Tier 1, so they're both about the same overpowered level. Druids, however, are easier to optimize since Wild Shape is nice and easy to use and the animal companion is there automatically, so in generally lower powered games the Druid often seems stronger. As soon as the Cleric player starts casting certain spells or taking certain feats, people while whine about Clerics being overpowered too. DMM: Persistant Righteous Wrath of the Faithful anyone?

JaronK

[Greenish]

1) What is a gish? I did look that up. A Melee character who adds magic to make them better? Is this easy to do? I'd imagine it would only involves PrCs with Full or almost full BAB and caster level? and wouldnt that eat away like all your feats and skills?Gish means you both cast spells and hit things. The usual yardstick for gish builds is reaching 16+ BAB (for 4 iterative attacks) and 9th level spells by 20th level, though given that many campaigns never go that far it's often just a cosmetic thing. Some classes, such as clerics and duskblades, are gishes all on their own.


2) Why are monks bad?(supposidly)It's not monday yet, hold your horses. (There's a thread about this on weekly basis, so browse the older threads, they have been discussed to death and beyond).

3)What is Tier 1,2,3? Is that a 4.0 thing? Cus the context seems to point at certian classes being better than others because of their Tier.Tier system for 3.5 is described here (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=1002.0). Generally speaking, it rates the classes on how likely they are to have a mechanical ability that can solve a given problem.


4) a majority of the time i see a posted build from 1-20 or even 1-10 i see what looks like several classes. 2/2/1/3/2/4 or something like that. For anyone reading this who posts those frequently are these mostly Game mechanics? Or are there many people here that do such complicated builds but it doesnt infringe on their RP?Another old favourite. The discussion on how character optimization effects roleplaying is most likely older than this forum, but it's generally accepted that they're not mutually exclusive.

[Eldan]

3)What is Tier 1,2,3? Is that a 4.0 thing? Cus

1) Gish was originally a Githyanki word in AD&D for multiclass Fighter/Wizard. Since then it has come to mean a caster who is also a decent fighter or a fighter who is also a decent caster. Generally, anyone who both fights in melee and casts.

2) Monks have several problems, but among them:
-all their class abilities result in them having the ability to be slightly worse than a fighter as long as they don't wear equipment. Their fists do less damage than a weapon, especially since they can't power attack due to their lower BAB. Their armour class, even with wisdom and bonus, is lower. They are unlikely to hit at higher levels.
-Their class abilities actually cancel each other out: if you use your superior speed, you can't use your flurry of blows. And so on.
-At high levels, they get abilities a caster can do at about level 3. Slow falling is horrible compared to feather fall: unlimited distance, no wall required. Tongues is a level 2 spell. Etherealness and Dimension door aren't a big deal.
-They need to have high stats in pretty much every attribute. Strength for damage, dexterity to AC, constitution for hit points, intelligence for combat expertise feats and skill points, wisdom for AC and special abilities.

4) That's a common fallacy, really: whether or not your build is optimized says nothing about how you play the character. Optimizing makes you stronger, it doesn't make your role play worse.
I'd say it's quite the other way round: you have a character you imagine fighting in a certain style. Say, you want a dual-wielding, wilderness-savvy barbarian. So you could start as a barbarian and just take two-weapon fighting, track and put your measly handful of skill points into survival. Or you could multiclass with ranger. In the end, I tend to think that it helps to cherry pick your abilities from as many classes as possible.

[Cerlis]

on regards to four I more along the lines mean like...How you need to learn how to Wear plate, but you dont want to lose a caster level. SO you chose this PrC that some weird <insert complex bit of lore here> Soldier or warrior for this cause using this weird philosophy....because if you pick a level of fighter you lose a caster level. and then there is the whole...

(This is a bad example since Soulknife doesnt have full BAB and that i have no idea if the fact that a soulknife's weapon is an extension of their body provides any benefit to weapon based PrCs)

Paladin/Kensei/dragonslayer "I am a champion of good, i have honed my spirit into martial prowess through truth and honor. Upon seeing how much destruction the Dragons of Tiamat ruin the land I have decided they, if not the source of all evil, a source of the greatest one and devoted myself to destroying all evil dragons with the help of my friend."

compared to the Player who Wants to not have to worry about being disarmed or having his Magical Kensei weapon destroyed does this:
Paladin/Soulknife1/Kensei/Dragonslayer
"I am a champion of good, i have honed my spirit into martial prowess through truth and honor. Upon seeing how much destruction the Dragons of Tiamat ruin the land I have decided they, if not the source of all evil, a source of the greatest one and devoted myself to destroying all evil dragons with the help of my friends, oh and My sword is a psychic manifestation of my BRAIN!..."


-------------
Trust me I dont want this to devolve into a LorevsGame thread and give everyone here another thing to role their eyes at. Perhaps the thing i'm truely curious would be the question "In the cases where the person making the class actually cares about lore/RP/Story Do you find optimization, seems to inhibit making a sensible character(when sensible characters are warranted) or sensibility aside make the game fun and more interesting despite being a bit off the wall "(such as the Paladin eventually finding out that his psychic blade is because of this and this, but didnt actually think of that when he made the character)

but i realize its a complex issue so even my attempt at a multiple choice question may be pointless and if so i'll probably just drop the subject
-----------------
Posts are satisfactory and I feel well informed. I appreciate everyone's contributions. And i dont mind saying that Eldan said EXACTLY what i was looking for as far as monks go.

I'm curious if my revised 4th question will give me something good to read and stories to share but I am satisfied with my answers. So once question 4 is dropped thats the end of this thread heh.

[dsmiles]

on regards to four I more along the lines mean like...How you need to learn how to Wear plate, but you dont want to lose a caster level. SO you chose this PrC that some weird <insert complex bit of lore here> Soldier or warrior for this cause using this weird philosophy....because if you pick a level of fighter you lose a caster level. and then there is the whole...

(This is a bad example since Soulknife doesnt have full BAB and that i have no idea if the fact that a soulknife's weapon is an extension of their body provides any benefit to weapon based PrCs)

Paladin/Kensei/dragonslayer "I am a champion of good, i have honed my spirit into martial prowess through truth and honor. Upon seeing how much destruction the Dragons of Tiamat ruin the land I have decided they, if not the source of all evil, a source of the greatest one and devoted myself to destroying all evil dragons with the help of my friend."

compared to the Player who Wants to not have to worry about being disarmed or having his Magical Kensei weapon destroyed does this:
Paladin/Soulknife1/Kensei/Dragonslayer
"I am a champion of good, i have honed my spirit into martial prowess through truth and honor. Upon seeing how much destruction the Dragons of Tiamat ruin the land I have decided they, if not the source of all evil, a source of the greatest one and devoted myself to destroying all evil dragons with the help of my friends, oh and My sword is a psychic manifestation of my BRAIN!..."


-------------
lolwut? A soulknife could easily be refluffed as ki or chi or a spiritual manifestation of your "AWESOME GOODNESS AND PURITY," or whatever else you wanted.


Trust me I dont want this to devolve into a LorevsGame thread and give everyone here another thing to role their eyes at. Perhaps the thing i'm truely curious would be the question "In the cases where the person making the class actually cares about lore/RP/Story Do you find optimization, seems to inhibit making a sensible character(when sensible characters are warranted) or sensibility aside make the game fun and more interesting despite being a bit off the wall "(such as the Paladin eventually finding out that his psychic blade is because of this and this, but didnt actually think of that when he made the character)

but i realize its a complex issue so even my attempt at a multiple choice question may be pointless and if so i'll probably just drop the subject.
Caring about RP, IMO is different from caring about "lore." Yeah, some of the fluff is good, but sometimes you have to re-work it to fit the character. The character fluff is more important than the class fluff, you know?

For some people, optimization gets in the way of all fluff, but for the majority of people, optimization may get in the way of class fluff, but they have plenty of character fluff, which more than makes up for having 10-15 different classes.

I don't like to have that many classes, and neither does anyone I game with, but that's a personal choice. I have a tendancy to let my lack of books get in the way of optimization. Which is fine by me, since I play in low-op games.

[Eldan]

The key here, I think, as dsmiles said, is refluffing.

I want to play, say, a person possessed by demons, but can't find a class for it. So I take a binder, throw out the vestige fluff and say instead it's different demons possessing me every day. My Warlock is actually a conduit of astral energy. The Kensai is not honouring his ancestors, he is instead from a very specialized school of combat artificers, adventuring to seek the perfect blade. The Psion is an archmage who has learned to manifest his magic purely mentally. The barbarian is not a tribal warrior from the high north, he is a monk with a special kind of combat meditation.

And so on.

[JaronK]

Another issue is that the designers often didn't know how their classes mechanically worked, so the "lore" as you put it was usually wrong. The obvious example is the Fighter. The stuff at the beginning of the Fighter section says Fighters make good guards, military veterans, and warleaders. But mechanically, Fighters make some of the worst guards (No spot, listen, or sense motive as class skills, wisdom is a dump stat, and no other special abilities that really help, so they're terrible at it). As military veterans, they're one of IIRC two base classes that doesn't get Profession, so they can't have Profession Siege Engineer to use siege weaponry, and they also don't get Knowledge History, which is knowledge of war and military tactics (among other things). Their lack of other knowledges means regardless of what wars they're supposed to be veterans of, they can't identify their enemy at all (a Fighter who's been in the drow wars for 10 years still can't identify a drow on sight due to no ranks in any Knowledge). And as war leaders... well do you see any leadership abilities? With Charisma, Wisdom, and Int as low stats for Fighters, plus a lack of Diplomacy and any other skill related to leading, how would they be leading anything?

So most people don't worry about the lore, and just look at how the mechanics fit a character. If I wanted to play a military veteran, I'd probably go with something involving Warblade as the mechanics fit for a military veteran. If I want to be an illusionist, I'd probably look into some combination of Beguiler, Shadowcraft Mage, Mindbender, and Earth Dreamer because those classes give me abilities that in my mind fit as an illusionist.

Frankly, if I'm the one doing the RP, I'm the one who decides how the lore works. I might use inspiration from what's written in the books, but I'm not going to completely tie myself down to material that may not even fit what the class actually does.

JaronK

[Keld Denar]

Wow, I think this one thread fills our quota of monk/tier/druidsOP/StormwindFallacy for the whole of next week. I'm impressed... If we could we get a splash of ToB sux and psionic R overpowered, we'd have the full spectrum of weekly topics already covered and we could all take a vacation by like, Wednesday!

And, because adding something relavent to the thread is generally smiled upon (while peanut gallery snippits fo their own sake generally aren't), I'd like to add that class != job. Just because it says Fighter a the top of your character sheet, doesn't make you any less of a Paladin if you choose to be such. Or a Samurai, like Miko, or anything else you choose to be. Any class can be any "job" as long as you can justify it and make it a fun and interesting concept to play. There was a thread about job vs class on the forums just a couple weeks ago, lemme see if I can fish it up. Just don't necro it, I don't want to be responsible for that!

EDIT: Found it! Classes != Careers (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8984892#post8984892) Please don't Necropost! If you have any commentary on that old thread, quote it here and comment here. That is forum policy.

[Greenish]

If we could we get a splash of ToB sux and psionic R overpowered, we'd have the full spectrum of weekly topics already covered and we could all take a vacation by like, Wednesday!I haven't actually seen "psionics r overpowered" for quite a while.

On the other hand, the separation of fluff and mechanics seems have it's share of commentary.

[Telonius]

On a related note to #4 ... if you go absolutely by-the-book rules, a lot of those 1/1/1/1/1/1/3/i/5/pi/3 builds would be fairly hard to pull off due to multiclass penalties. However in most of my experience, if there is any houseruling done at all, multiclass penalties are among the first things to be thrown into the wastebasket. (I personally have never been in a game where they're enforced, and I don't think any of the other players I know IRL have been in a game like that either).

[Greenish]

On a related note to #4 ... if you go absolutely by-the-book rules, a lot of those 1/1/1/1/1/1/3/i/5/pi/3 builds would be fairly hard to pull off due to multiclass penalties.Well, as long as you only take more than two levels in your favoured class and PrCs, you'll avoid multiclassing penalties.

[Keld Denar]

Yea, to be honest, one of my favorite melee builds ends up being Ranger1/Fighter2/Barbarian2/PrC/PrC/PrC. No multiclass penalties there, despite 3 base classes. Multiclass rules are fairly broken...in the sense that they don't work. Elf Ranger6/Barbarian2 gets penalized, despite the closely relatedness of the classes, but Human Barbarian1/Fighter1/Wizard1/Sorcerer1/Cleric1/Druid1/Monk1/Bard1/Rogue1/Spellthief1/Swashbuckler1/Hexblade1/Shugenga1/Beguiler1/Factotum7 doesn't. Yea, its a dumb rule.

[Greenish]

Yea, to be honest, one of my favorite melee builds ends up being Ranger1/Fighter2/Barbarian2/PrC/PrC/PrC.Just out of curiosity, which PrCs did you use? (If you had a level more of ranger, I'd have guessed Revenant Blade.)

[Keld Denar]

Deepwarden2 on a dwarf chassis generally. My favorite non-ToB non-gish build. From Deepwarden2, I generally like 2 levels of Exotic Weapon Master (get Flurry of Strikes while wielding a 2handed Urgrosh) along with Uncanny Blow (Urgrosh can count as a 1handed weapon). After that, something like Pious Templar for good saves and mettle is useful, or Occult Slayer for the Mind Blank. If not with the Urgrosh, Bear Warrior is fun, along with some Warshaper for massive Str and Con (and AC) bonuses, possibly with some FotF spliced in for double Con to AC.

[Greenish]

Deepwarden2 on a dwarf chassis generally. My favorite non-ToB non-gish build. From Deepwarden2, I generally like 2 levels of Exotic Weapon Master (get Flurry of Strikes while wielding a 2handed Urgrosh) along with Uncanny Blow (Urgrosh can count as a 1handed weapon). After that, something like Pious Templar for good saves and mettle is useful, or Occult Slayer for the Mind Blank. If not with the Urgrosh, Bear Warrior is fun, along with some Warshaper for massive Str and Con (and AC) bonuses, possibly with some FotF spliced in for double Con to AC.Hmm, the double weapon to EWM is pretty nifty, hadn't thought of that.

[Godskook]

1) What is a gish? I did look that up. A Melee character who adds magic to make them better? Is this easy to do? I'd imagine it would only involves PrCs with Full or almost full BAB and caster level? and wouldnt that eat away like all your feats and skills?

A)Yeah, their not too hard, but the choices are somewhat limited. My personal favorite is Sorcadin:

Paladin 2/Sorc 4/Spellsword 1/Abjurant Champion 5/Sacred Exorcist 8

16 BAB and 18 CL, and the potential to get Cha to a *LOT* of stuff, along with really good AC.

B)Eh, depends on the build, but most tend to only eat 2-3 feats and 1-2 skill points per level.


2) Why are monks bad?(supposidly)

3)What is Tier 1,2,3? Is that a 4.0 thing? Cus the context seems to point at certian classes being better than others because of their Tier.

Enjoy! (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=1002.0)

Done reading?


I suppose
4) a majority of the time i see a posted build from 1-20 or even 1-10 i see what looks like several classes. 2/2/1/3/2/4 or something like that. For anyone reading this who posts those frequently are these mostly Game mechanics? Or are there many people here that do such complicated builds but it doesnt infringe on their RP?

A)Stormwind Fallacy(repost):
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy
Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa.

Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game.

Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse roleplayer if he optimizes, and vice versa.
Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically roleplayed better than an optimized one, and vice versa.

(I admit that there are some diehards on both sides -- the RP fanatics who refuse to optimize as if strong characters were the mark of the Devil and the min/max munchkins who couldn't RP their way out of a paper bag without setting it on fire -- though I see these as extreme examples. The vast majority of people are in between, and thus the generalizations hold. The key word is 'automatically')

Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's gameplay. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Roleplaying deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else.
A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other.

Claiming that an optimizer cannot roleplay (or is participating in a playstyle that isn't supportive of roleplaying) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.

How does this impact "builds"? Simple.

In one extreme (say, Pun-Pun), they are thought experiments. Optimization tests that are not intended to see actual gameplay. Because they do not see gameplay, they do not commit the fallacy.

In the other extreme, you get the drama queens. They could care less about the rules, and are, essentially, playing free-form RP. Because the game is not necessary to this particular character, it doesn't fall into the fallacy.

By playing D&D, you opt in to an agreement of sorts -- the rules describe the world you live in, including yourself. To get the most out of those rules, in the same way you would get the most out of yourself, you must optimize in some respect (and don't look at me funny; you do it already, you just don't like to admit it. You don't need multiclassing or splatbooks to optimize). However, because it is a role-playing game, you also agree to play a role. This is dependent completely on you, and is independent of the rules.

And no, this isn't dependent on edition, or even what roleplaying game you're doing. If you are playing a roleplaying game with any form of rules or regulation, this fallacy can apply. The only difference is the nature of the optimization (based on the rules of that game; Tri-Stat optimizes differently than d20) or the flavor of the roleplay (based on the setting; Exalted feels different from Cthulu).

Conclusion: D&D, like it or not, has elements of both optimization AND roleplay in it. Any game that involves rules has optimization, and any role-playing game has roleplay. These are inherent to the game.

They go hand-in-hand in this sort of game. Deal with it. And in the name of all that is good and holy, stop committing the Stormwind Fallacy in the meantime.

B)A good character actually encourages me to Roleplay, cause the optimization gives me an opportunity to like and invest in the PC, so I'm far more likely to be investing in the PC's personality too.

[Brendan]

If we could we get a splash of ToB sux and psionic R overpowered, we'd have the full spectrum of weekly topics already covered and we could all take a vacation by like, Wednesday!

You know what's really been annoying me these days?
The Tome of battle. it makes combat all eastern flavored and OP. Almost as overpowered as psionics! this is unforgivable, and I think the tome of battle should be banned in all games. grr!

[Greenish]

You know what's really been annoying me these days?
The Tome of battle. it makes combat all eastern flavored and OP. Almost as overpowered as psionics! this is unforgivable, and I think the tome of battle should be banned in all games. grr!You forgot to say "weeaboee fightan magics".

[DragonOfUndeath]

You forgot to say "weeaboee fightan magics".

weeaboee fightan magics

[lightningcat]

A)Stormwind Fallacy(repost):
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy
Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa.

Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game.

Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse roleplayer if he optimizes, and vice versa.
Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically roleplayed better than an optimized one, and vice versa.

(I admit that there are some diehards on both sides -- the RP fanatics who refuse to optimize as if strong characters were the mark of the Devil and the min/max munchkins who couldn't RP their way out of a paper bag without setting it on fire -- though I see these as extreme examples. The vast majority of people are in between, and thus the generalizations hold. The key word is 'automatically')

Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's gameplay. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Roleplaying deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else.
A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other.

Claiming that an optimizer cannot roleplay (or is participating in a playstyle that isn't supportive of roleplaying) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.

How does this impact "builds"? Simple.

In one extreme (say, Pun-Pun), they are thought experiments. Optimization tests that are not intended to see actual gameplay. Because they do not see gameplay, they do not commit the fallacy.

In the other extreme, you get the drama queens. They could care less about the rules, and are, essentially, playing free-form RP. Because the game is not necessary to this particular character, it doesn't fall into the fallacy.

By playing D&D, you opt in to an agreement of sorts -- the rules describe the world you live in, including yourself. To get the most out of those rules, in the same way you would get the most out of yourself, you must optimize in some respect (and don't look at me funny; you do it already, you just don't like to admit it. You don't need multiclassing or splatbooks to optimize). However, because it is a role-playing game, you also agree to play a role. This is dependent completely on you, and is independent of the rules.

And no, this isn't dependent on edition, or even what roleplaying game you're doing. If you are playing a roleplaying game with any form of rules or regulation, this fallacy can apply. The only difference is the nature of the optimization (based on the rules of that game; Tri-Stat optimizes differently than d20) or the flavor of the roleplay (based on the setting; Exalted feels different from Cthulu).

Conclusion: D&D, like it or not, has elements of both optimization AND roleplay in it. Any game that involves rules has optimization, and any role-playing game has roleplay. These are inherent to the game.

They go hand-in-hand in this sort of game. Deal with it. And in the name of all that is good and holy, stop committing the Stormwind Fallacy in the meantime.

B)A good character actually encourages me to Roleplay, cause the optimization gives me an opportunity to like and invest in the PC, so I'm far more likely to be investing in the PC's personality too.

I understand and agree with your point of view, but still most of the people I know that go for high-op characters are straight rollplayers. But the players that prefer the medium to medium-high optimazation characters don't have the same problem.


Strangely, those that intentionally go for low-op characters are the people who most annoy me, all to often all they are is attention hogs and stop the game for hours for some useless minor thing that could have taken 5 minutes.