PDA

View Full Version : Dealing with the stormwind fallacy



Pages : [1] 2

Popertop
2010-12-21, 02:45 PM
I had been having friction with my DM about the power level of the characters he allows, and then this happened:

We were talking about pathfinder because I looked it over and I really like what it does with some of the classes. (monk & paladin)
So I told him and he said this:

"I don't think that much power makes sense, role-play-wise."

So yeah. Stormwind fallacy.

Also, he plays an epic level cleric that is multiclassed out the ass(Contemplative for the bonus domains, 5 or so maybe more levels of Runecaster, oh, and he's an item creationist), the chosen of moradin (+5 CON +10 WIS), has a special divine forging area he can retreat to anytime he wants, and is creating an artifact called the Hand of Moradin, which basically lets everything go off his Wis (touch attacks, saves, wis to AC, other things I can't remember)

So along with the fallacy, we have the double standard of the year award.

:smallmad:

How do you deal with it as a player wanting to play in high level campaigns,
especially when the person committing it says that they "know D&D" and you don't?

Oracle_Hunter
2010-12-21, 02:49 PM
That's... not really the Stormwind Fallacy.

From a thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=40903)

In brief: the idea that building your character to be mechanically optimal means you're roleplaying poorly, or that building your character to be mechanically suboptimal means you're roleplaying well.
Roland said it was a good summary, so it's good enough for me.

Anyhow: If your DM doesn't like something and says it doesn't fit "roleplay-wise" you have to ask him what he means. Particularly when you're dealing with 3.X/PF Paladins & Monks (very fluffy classes) it may be something aside from pure optimization issues.

I mean, it doesn't sound like the DM has problems with optimization levels, what with a Tier I Character running around making artifacts.

EDIT: Also, you have to speak with your DM. If he says you can't do something, and that thing is very important to you, then either you reach a compromise or you quit the game. It's pretty simple, really.

Yora
2010-12-21, 02:51 PM
You can tell him he's wrong. He probably will say no. Then you can accept that, or don't play with him.
Neither is a good solution, but I don't see anything that can be done when the dm arbitrarily sets bars for you that don't apply to others.

Grelna the Blue
2010-12-21, 02:54 PM
He plays a Tier 1 character that didn't get a big upgrade in Pathfinder. In 3.5 Ed, before the major Pathfinder upgrade to the low end classes, monks and paladins were generally considered Tier 4-5. Even after the upgrade, neither got access to high level spells so neither can break the game in the way clerics always could and still can. They got somewhat better at doing damage by hitting things. He considers this a bad thing?

Kurald Galain
2010-12-21, 02:55 PM
How do you deal with it as a player wanting to play in high level campaigns, especially when the person committing it says that they "know D&D" and you don't?
Okay, if I understand you correctly, your DM wants to run a high-level campaign containing his epic-level cleric, and you want to play a Pathfinder monk, but you can't because he thinks it's too powerful? What exactly is the problem here, then? You can simply pick some other kind of character.

Coidzor
2010-12-21, 03:28 PM
How do you deal with it as a player wanting to play in high level campaigns,
especially when the person committing it says that they "know D&D" and you don't?

Rule -1: Don't play with known expletives. And someone who belittles and insults you to your face....

It is a source of continual consternation and confusion how content people are to give DMs special privileges to abuse, insult, and mistreat other people. Like they have some right to insult people to their face without being called on their BS.

O_Y
2010-12-21, 03:32 PM
I don't see either a false dichotomy or a double standard here.

If your DM's saying that it doesn't make sense for non-magical characters to be as powerful as the PF paladin and still be non-magical in RP terms, the statement would be consistent and wouldn't falsely divide RP skill and character power. You might still debate it, but that's not really the point.

I'd probably play a different character (or sit out of that campaign, if the character was the only thing drawing me to the game) and keep the PF Paladin for a later game with a different DM. Getting snotty or making a scene with a friend/person you expect to hang out with regularly, just because of their campaign restrictions, would be petty.

Godskook
2010-12-21, 03:37 PM
1.Invite him here, for us to talk to directly.

2.Have him read the tier list written by Jaronk. A fascinating read, and one that *EVERYONE* should be familiar with.

3.Ask him to outline for you what would fit the following two criteria: "feels like a Paladin/Monk" and "Powerful"

4.Grab an Unarmed Swordsage or Crusader, or maybe a JPM or RKV, and go wild, having snagged something that's fluffed like your monk/paladin, but is also fairly powerful.

5.Build a semi-famous build that has paladin or monk as a necessary but small part, such as Sorcadin, Tashalatoran Monk, Enlightened Fist, or similar.

true_shinken
2010-12-21, 03:41 PM
I don't see either a false dichotomy or a double standard here.

If your DM's saying that it doesn't make sense for non-magical characters to be as powerful as the PF paladin and still be non-magical in RP terms, the statement would be consistent and wouldn't falsely divide RP skill and character power. You might still debate it, but that's not really the point.

I'd probably play a different character (or sit out of that campaign, if the character was the only thing drawing me to the game) and keep the PF Paladin for a later game with a different DM. Getting snotty or making a scene with a friend/person you expect to hang out with regularly, just because of their campaign restrictions, would be petty.

This. So much wisdom for a single post!

Coidzor
2010-12-21, 03:43 PM
If your DM's saying that it doesn't make sense for non-magical characters to be as powerful as the PF paladin and still be non-magical in RP terms, the statement would be consistent and wouldn't falsely divide RP skill and character power. You might still debate it, but that's not really the point.

:smallconfused: Paladins are magical and can actually use magic. And monks are quasi-magical.

woodenbandman
2010-12-21, 03:50 PM
Ask him to quantify his statement. Because the statement "it doesn't make sense to have that much power, roleplay-wise" does not mean anything.

Also, explain to him that spells are not the only way to be magical. for instance, Ghosts are magical because they have supernatural abilities, not because they cast spells. Same with werewolves. Paladins and monks are also magical, because they have supernatural abilities, therefore it makes no sense that a Paladin is arbitrarily less powerful than a wizard, because both of them are magical in their own ways.

Godskook
2010-12-21, 03:55 PM
I don't see either a false dichotomy or a double standard here.

So you're ok with monks and paladins being low-leveled still, while all the cool classes get to be level 21? :smallconfused:

Cause really, that's what your saying, but only its hidden behind the terms "powerful" instead of "level", but since they're supposed to be equal in 3.5, saying one means agreeing with the other.


If your DM's saying that it doesn't make sense for non-magical characters to be as powerful as the PF paladin and still be non-magical in RP terms, the statement would be consistent and wouldn't falsely divide RP skill and character power. You might still debate it, but that's not really the point.

Paladin is magical. He gets exactly two (Ex) abilities, Aura of Good and Divine Health(guess how *non-magical* either of those are). Everything else gets a (Su) or (Sp) tag. He *CASTS* spells, and can get epic spellcasting without multiclasssing, cheese, or anything weird.

Monk, while less so, is still got some (Su) and (Sp) on his list, such as Ki Strike, Diamond Soul, Abundant Step and Empty Soul.

true_shinken
2010-12-21, 03:58 PM
Ask him to quantify his statement. Because the statement "it doesn't make sense to have that much power, roleplay-wise" does not mean anything.
Well, you may not agree, but it sure as hell makes sense. It's a staple of the genre, even. Raistlin was the most powerful of the Heroes of the Lance from day one. Vaarsuvious is the most powerful member of OOTS. Magic is supposed to be amazingly powerful.
Else you end up with 4e, where you can get exactly the same effect swinging a piece of metal above your head and employing arcane secrets to rewrite the laws of reality. Balance is not a bad thing, but at this level it breaks both verossimilitude and fantasy archetypes - I'm guessing that is what the DM meant.

Coidzor
2010-12-21, 04:00 PM
Well, you may not agree, but it sure as hell makes sense. It's a staple of the genre, even. Raistlin was the most powerful of the Heroes of the Lance from day one. Vaarsuvious is the most powerful member of OOTS. Magic is supposed to be amazingly powerful.
Else you end up with 4e, where you can get exactly the same effect swinging a piece of metal above your head and employing arcane secrets to rewrite the laws of reality. Balance is not a bad thing, but at this level it breaks both verossimilitude and fantasy archetypes - I'm guessing that is what the DM meant.

Except that's not the kind of balancing we're talking about. We're talking about Pathfinder.

And Paladins and Monks are still magical, so your point there actually argues against Paladins and Monks being so much weaker than wizards.

Tyndmyr
2010-12-21, 04:06 PM
Ask him to quantify his statement. Because the statement "it doesn't make sense to have that much power, roleplay-wise" does not mean anything.

Correct. It is a statement, not an explanation. I can SAY that monks are overpowered, but unless I can explain WHY they are, I'm not terribly likely to convince anyone.

If he doesn't bother to ever explain why, instead relying on "I know D&D and you don't", I'd just advise avoiding him. That sort of attitude invariably leads to trouble. Good DMs have reasons for what they do.

true_shinken
2010-12-21, 04:24 PM
Except that's not the kind of balancing we're talking about. We're talking about Pathfinder.
The thing is: you are suggesting Pathfinder as a fix for someone who doesn't think it needs fixing, apparently. Pathfinder doesn't even fix balance issues like it was supposed to do.
Really, Pathfinder is a 3rd party game. The DM is well within his rights to deny access to official material, let's not even get started on 3rd party/homebrew. How is that so big of an issue, really? If you really want the paladin bear with your lower power, you can still have a lot of fun and accomplish great things. If you want more power, play a cleric, you can even refluff it as paladin-esque.

And Paladins and Monks are still magical, so your point there actually argues against Paladins and Monks being so much weaker than wizards.
My point is exactly about how wizards are the most powerful in fantasy settings, period. Can't see how Paladins/Monks having supernatural abilities would have anything to do with that.

Gorgondantess
2010-12-21, 04:30 PM
The funniest thing about all this is that, really, the PF classes aren't much of a boost over the regular classes- they just get bigger numbers, not versatility. And then you have the PF wizard, who gets... yeah, versatility.

Godskook
2010-12-21, 04:36 PM
Well, you may not agree, but it sure as hell makes sense. It's a staple of the genre, even. Raistlin was the most powerful of the Heroes of the Lance from day one. Vaarsuvious is the most powerful member of OOTS. Magic is supposed to be amazingly powerful.
Else you end up with 4e, where you can get exactly the same effect swinging a piece of metal above your head and employing arcane secrets to rewrite the laws of reality. Balance is not a bad thing, but at this level it breaks both versimilitude and fantasy archetypes - I'm guessing that is what the DM meant.

1.Vaarsuvious is not the most powerful member of OotS. Durkon is.
1a.The genre, here, is "parodies of D&D 3.5"

2.Balance != 4e. You can have 3.5 characters who are both 'balanced' mechanically and distinctively different. If you want 'balanced' tier 1, its going to be hard, but it should be doable. 'Balanced' tier 3, on the other hand, contains psionics, vancian, initiators, skill monkeys, and probably meldshapers(not listed). The effect produced by classes in this tier is nearly as varied as 3.5 in general.

3.Magic is not the only source of power. This is *THE* fallacy that keeps martial characters from having nice things in 3.5. Compare with One Piece, a setting dominated by demon-fruit users, but 1.there's other 'cheap' powers and 2.simply being powerful is enough to contend with them.

4.There's nothing versimilitude breaking about a level 21 fighter doing the same power-level type things that an arcane caster can. He just needs different things to do. The problem is the assumption that you can keep batman as batman at level 21. You *CAN'T*. You need to upgrade from batman to superman, or something similar.

Kurald Galain
2010-12-21, 04:38 PM
1.Vaarsuvious is not the most powerful member of OotS. Durkon is.

And you base that on what? Has Durkon ever teleported a dozen ships halfway across the world, or defeated three elementals all by himself, or researched several high-level scrying spells?

Coidzor
2010-12-21, 04:40 PM
The thing is: you are suggesting Pathfinder as a fix for someone who doesn't think it needs fixing, apparently. Pathfinder doesn't even fix balance issues like it was supposed to do.

Well, I'm not. My suggestion was to not play with a DM who can't be civil.


Really, Pathfinder is a 3rd party game. The DM is well within his rights to deny access to official material, let's not even get started on 3rd party/homebrew.

So? The DM didn't shoot it down because they weren't using Pathfinder Material so this point is irrelevant kinda irrelevant


If you want more power, play a cleric, you can even refluff it as paladin-esque.

Which, given even the pathfinder material, is a fair point due to cleric + PrC making a better Paladin than the Paladin. Though it also does reinforce the inherent foibles of the system by using such a workaround.


My point is exactly about how wizards are the most powerful in fantasy settings, period. Can't see how Paladins/Monks having supernatural abilities would have anything to do with that.

Your point was keyed off of "Magic is supposed to be amazingly powerful." Thus, since Paladins are magic users, the question is raised, why then, are they the antithesis of "amazingly powerful," and yet wizards, sorcerers, clerics, and druids are of a level so far beyond them? Which glosses over the related issues of game and class balance and of game realities versus story realities.

If you can't see how Paladins and Monks being magic would have to do with Magic = Power, then you need to re-read your own post.

true_shinken
2010-12-21, 04:43 PM
1.Vaarsuvious is not the most powerful member of OotS. Durkon is.
1a.The genre, here, is "parodies of D&D 3.5"
See Kurald's point above.


2.Balance != 4e. You can have 3.5 characters who are both 'balanced' mechanically and distinctively different. If you want 'balanced' tier 1, its going to be hard, but it should be doable. 'Balanced' tier 3, on the other hand, contains psionics, vancian, initiators, skill monkeys, and probably meldshapers(not listed). The effect produced by classes in this tier is nearly as varied as 3.5 in general.
You obviously don't understand my point. My point is, if you want so much about balance that you want everything to be balanced, you'll end up with something similar to 4e.


3.Magic is not the only source of power. This is *THE* fallacy that keeps martial characters from having nice things in 3.5. Compare with One Piece, a setting dominated by demon-fruit users, but 1.there's other 'cheap' powers and 2.simply being powerful is enough to contend with them.
I love One Piece, but D&D is not about shounen manga, it's about medieval(ish) fantasy.


4.There's nothing versimilitude breaking about a level 21 fighter doing the same power-level type things that an arcane caster can. He just needs different things to do. The problem is the assumption that you can keep batman as batman at level 21. You *CAN'T*. You need to upgrade from batman to superman, or something similar.
And that's where you break verossimilitude. Many people don't want characters that are not dedicated casters to be that powerful.




Your point was keyed off of "Magic is supposed to be amazingly powerful." Thus, since Paladins are magic users, the question is raised, why then, are they the antithesis of "amazingly powerful," and yet wizards, sorcerers, clerics, and druids are of a level so far beyond them? Which glosses over the related issues of game and class balance and of game realities versus story realities.

If you can't see how Paladins and Monks being magic would have to do with Magic = Power, then you need to re-read your own post.
Please, I ask instead that you reread my post. I'm talking about Wizards there and even pointed out a few wizard examples.
To reiterate, dabbling in magic somewhat like a wizard or monk does is not the same as completly devoting yourself to it.

The Glyphstone
2010-12-21, 04:49 PM
And you base that on what? Has Durkon ever teleported a dozen ships halfway across the world, or defeated three elementals all by himself, or researched several high-level scrying spells?

Vaarsuvius didn't teleport any ships across the world, that was Ganonron the Conjurer's power acting through him - see Plot Power Upgrade. Defeating three elementals, sure, though we don't know what CR a titanium elemental is. High level scrying spells...Vaarsuvius's Enhanced Scrying could be, at worst, a 5th level spell.

Durkon, comparatively, regularly transforms into a giant dwarf and beats the crap out of anything within his reach, including singlehandedly defeating a Druid (another T1 class) in one-on-one combat who was either equal to his level or 1 below him.

Both of them squander the power of their classes (Evoker vs. Healbot), but V has permanently hamstrung himself, while Durkon could just play more intelligently.

On-topic, I'm more worried about the double standard issue than the stormwinding issue. Seems like he just wants to be the only awesome person around.

Coidzor
2010-12-21, 04:50 PM
And that's where you break verossimilitude. Many people don't want characters that are not dedicated casters to be that powerful.

Well, yes, it's somewhat of a contentious issue, but to claim something isn't worth doing or 'breaks verisimilitude' simply because some people don't want to play that way is false. It depends on far too many individual variables and is entirely a case-by-case thing.

Furthermore, using breaking verisimilitude as a knee-jerk, end of conversation reaction to change is not good. That should start the conversation on the DM's end, not the end of it. Because if someone can't express their position on the game and why, then what are they doing running a game?


Please, I ask instead that you reread my post. I'm talking about Wizards there and even pointed out a few wizard examples.
To reiterate, dabbling in magic somewhat like a wizard or monk does is not the same as completly devoting yourself to it.

And you need to re-read your own post if you still can't see what I did there by turning your own arguments and applying it to the classes you argue should be less capable of contributing to the game than other classes.

true_shinken
2010-12-21, 04:54 PM
Well, yes, it's somewhat of a contentious issue, but to claim something isn't worth doing or 'breaks verisimilitude' simply because some people don't want to play that way is false. It depends on far too many individual variables and is entirely a case-by-case thing.
Of course it's a case by case thing. And the OP is an a game where this case came up.


Furthermore, using breaking verisimilitude as a knee-jerk, end of conversation reaction to change is not good. That should start the conversation on the DM's end, not the end of it. Because if someone can't express their position on the game and why, then what are they doing running a game?
Well, he expressed his position ('I don't want the Pathfinder Paladin') and why ('because I'm not comfortable with a non-dedicated caster being this powerful').
Then, instead of asking the DM about this, we saw a player starting a thread accusing the DM of double standards and (wrongly) invoking the stormwind fallacy.




And you need to re-read your own post if you still can't see what I did there by turning your own arguments and applying it to the classes you argue should be less capable of contributing to the game than other classes.
Yeah, I had one sentence where I said 'magic is supposed to be powerful' instead of 'wizards are supposed to be powerful'. I already said (twice) that was not what I meant as well.
Also, 'contributing to the game' has nothing to do with classes. You, as a player, contribute to the game by showing up, interacting and being a somewhat reasonable fellow. Your character is just a tool. You're just pushing us back to a balance debate here and that's not what I'm talking about.

The Glyphstone
2010-12-21, 05:00 PM
Well, he expressed his position ('I don't want the Pathfinder Paladin') and why ('because I'm not comfortable with a non-dedicated caster being this powerful').
Then, instead of asking the DM about this, we saw a player starting a thread accusing the DM of double standards and (wrongly) invoking the stormwind fallacy.
.

Unless the OP clarified later in-thread and I missed it...this isn't what was said. the DM's position on 'why' wasn't "I'm not comfortable with a non-dedicated caster being this powerful", it was


"I don't think that much power makes sense, role-play-wise."

That is invoking Stormwind, or at least teetering towards it, in that he believes said power (however much it is) cannot be roleplayed, or would not make sense to roleplay. It may be a casters-vs-noncasters issue, we don't know, but OP wasn't wrong to invoke Stormwind, because the one line of dialogue we actually have regarding the supposed conversation qualifies.

O_Y
2010-12-21, 05:08 PM
So you're ok with monks and paladins being low-leveled still, while all the cool classes get to be level 21? :smallconfused:
I haven't mentioned my opinions, because they're completely irrelevant here.

I don't think it's hard to believe there's somebody who wants to play D&D under the same assumptions as, say, All Flesh Must Be Eaten, where there is a blatant power disparity between Norms and Survivors within a group.


Paladin is magical.
True. I was hoping I could give an easy example without going into something involving shades of grey/orders of degree. The DM might look at the Paladin as less magical than a full spellcaster or look at melee as something which shouldn't be resolved as briefly/efficiently as a PF Paladin can make it. The DM's statement (specifically the complaint about the power "making sense" rather than it distracting from RP or somehow precluding RP) sounds like it had some context other than "Power = 1 / Roleplay."

It's possible to play under a different set of assumptions than you want to use in games you run. For example, I don't allow prepared spellcasters in my D&D games because they undermine the atmosphere and playstyle that I want to encourage, but when I play in somebody else's game, based on their assumptions, I'll play a Cleric if I think it'd be fun.

EDIT:
Whoa. A whole conversation went on between the time I typed this and the time I could post it.
Anyway, most of this is speculation. My points were really just "he's not necessarily wrong (even if he might be an a*****e)" and "being a jerk to your buddies isn't worth it."

MeeposFire
2010-12-21, 05:08 PM
See Kurald's point above.


You obviously don't understand my point. My point is, if you want so much about balance that you want everything to be balanced, you'll end up with something similar to 4e.


I love One Piece, but D&D is not about shounen manga, it's about medieval(ish) fantasy.


And that's where you break verossimilitude. Many people don't want characters that are not dedicated casters to be that powerful.



Please, I ask instead that you reread my post. I'm talking about Wizards there and even pointed out a few wizard examples.
To reiterate, dabbling in magic somewhat like a wizard or monk does is not the same as completly devoting yourself to it.

1) D&D is about anything you want it to. Medieval fantasy, manga, hamsters in space, etc.

2) For other people casters making such a mockery of the game breaks verossimilitude. So I guess the point is moot.

Heliomance
2010-12-21, 05:12 PM
Also, he plays an epic level cleric that is multiclassed out the ass(Contemplative for the bonus domains, 5 or so maybe more levels of Runecaster, oh, and he's an item creationist), the chosen of moradin (+5 CON +10 WIS), has a special divine forging area he can retreat to anytime he wants, and is creating an artifact called the Hand of Moradin, which basically lets everything go off his Wis (touch attacks, saves, wis to AC, other things I can't remember)


Waitwaitwait. Is this in the same game? As in, the game he's DMing? Because if this is a DMPC, you have more problems than just his skewed sense of balance, and you should probably get out now.

Godskook
2010-12-21, 05:19 PM
See Kurald's point above.

And you base that on what? Has Durkon ever teleported a dozen ships halfway across the world, or defeated three elementals all by himself, or researched several high-level scrying spells?

1.Vaarsuvious has never teleported dozen of ships *ANYWHERE* under his own power. He can't even teleport himself. That was the soulsplice.

2."Defeat 3 elementals" is an amusing statement to make, but it isn't nearly as impressive as "Stand toe-to-toe with Druid", which Vaarsuvius is not capable of doing, but Durkon is.

3."Research several spells" does not convey a sense of being anymore powerful than Durkon, especially since all said spells failed to work in their intended way(including the one that should've).

4.V is playing a blaster-caster, which is a low-op build for a wizard, to the point that Warmage is a tier 4 class. Durkon is playing clericzilla who holds his power in reserve. Are you really telling me the psuedo-warmage sounds more powerful to you?

5.Cleric and Wizard are both tier 1 classes, so relatively, the only real distinguishment between individual power is campaign setting and optimization. For the latter, see point #4. For the former, OotS's world doesn't seem pre-disposed to clerics or wizards. Thus, Durkon wins on optimization alone.


You obviously don't understand my point. My point is, if you want so much about balance that you want everything to be balanced, you'll end up with something similar to 4e.

I understood your point, and disagree. You seemed to miss mine, where tier 3 is balanced and nearly as varied as 3.5 as a whole.


I love One Piece, but D&D is not about shounen manga, it's about medieval(ish) fantasy.

Medieval-ish fantasy requires something like E6, and at that point, sure, monks and paladins are fine as-is. By later levels, the only reason a setting like that persists is cause the casters have all taken a non-interference policy.

At epic levels(which is what we're talking about), there's no correlation to medieval times anymore. Wizards have stopped caring about what the common man thinks.

And medieval fantasy has unenchanted knights slaying large+ size dragons. On their own. How does *THAT* jive with D&D, where the appropriate classes are probably *SCREWED* against such a creature of the same CR as their ECL.


And that's where you break verossimilitude. Many people don't want characters that are not dedicated casters to be that powerful.

Versimilitude != "What many people want"

true_shinken
2010-12-21, 05:19 PM
1) D&D is about anything you want it to. Medieval fantasy, manga, hamsters in space, etc.
Of course. If you are the DM. And that guy is.


2) For other people casters making such a mockery of the game breaks verossimilitude. So I guess the point is moot.
It's not, because we're talking about someone who thinks the other way around. How 'other people' think doesn't matter here; the point is what this DM thinks.


Unless the OP clarified later in-thread and I missed it...this isn't what was said. the DM's position on 'why' wasn't "I'm not comfortable with a non-dedicated caster being this powerful"
Hm, maybe I was assuming too much. Everything I said is indeed conjecture.

Godskook
2010-12-21, 05:23 PM
I haven't mentioned my opinions, because they're completely irrelevant here.

I don't think it's hard to believe there's somebody who wants to play D&D under the same assumptions as, say, All Flesh Must Be Eaten, where there is a blatant power disparity between Norms and Survivors within a group.

It is still a double-standard if a monk is relegated to low-level abilities at epic levels while the cleric gets epic-level abilities.

kyoryu
2010-12-21, 05:50 PM
It is still a double-standard if a monk is relegated to low-level abilities at epic levels while the cleric gets epic-level abilities.

At the least, it's a very specific idea of the roles that various classes play within a game world.

It's also a world-view that is really a remnant from a time when players would go through multiple characters, character death was common, and just surviving was a challenge. It doesn't work so well in the more common gamestyle used today.

Kurald Galain
2010-12-21, 05:53 PM
Defeating three elementals, sure, though we don't know what CR a titanium elemental is.
No, but we do know that it took the rest of the Order to defeat two of them. In another example, Vaarsuvius singlehandedly defeated a young black dragon that was curbstomping the rest of the party. And Durkon never defeated Leeky singlehandedly - it required help from the rest of the party (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0359.html) as well as a literal deus ex machina (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0353.html) first.

Overall it's clear that in terms of impressive actions, V is way ahead of Durkon; this is even pointed out explicitly in comic 667. Also, while V has indeed been relying on explosive magic too much, recent develops seem to suggest that V certainly knows many other spells and has merely not been using them much - and is improving already, whereas Durkon still reserves his power for healing and attacking trees.

woodenbandman
2010-12-21, 06:03 PM
Balance is not a bad thing, but at this level it breaks both verisimilitude and fantasy archetypes - I'm guessing that is what the DM meant.

You mean fighters being able to defeat wizards breaks the "mundane guy defeats evil wizard" fantasy archetype?

The statement is not "fighters should be as powerful as DnD wizards." Wizards in myth are usually extremely powerful beings, and they are hard to defeat with just martial prowess alone. And yet FIGHTERS FROM MYTH DO IT, every time.

DnD, however, doesn't take this approach, because a wizard with no limits on his power can annihilate any fighter by doing any number of things that are inspired from myth, but are WAY too powerful in the DnD 3.5 system.

So if you want the mythological wizard, who is capable of doing things more powerful than a Fighter, the answer is DEFINITELY not "nerf the fighter."

In fact, you could make wizard spells have a casting time based on what level the spell is scaling up to 3 rounds for 9th level spells, and give diminishing returns on save DCs for bonus intelligence, and you would still have an extremely powerful class.

EDIT: I guess really to try and help the OP out, ask your DM this:

Is he comfortable with wizards having the power to turn themselves into a demon for practically free, for HOURS A DAY? Or to teleport across the world in 6 seconds, for free? Why don't wizards' powers cost them anything, and how much sense does THAT make, RP-wise? I can remember lots of stories where the wizard is mind-bogglingly powerful compared to the fighter, which, in DnD terms, can be replicated with a very few, low-level spells. On the other hand, I don't remember ANY stories where a wizard is able to summon the doom of mankind from space for free with a wave of his hand and an hour of study at the beginning of the adventuring day.

And if the answer is yes, then play a cleric/monk/sacred fist, and silently thank your DM for elevating the power level of his game.

Godskook
2010-12-21, 06:11 PM
No, but we do know that it took the rest of the Order to defeat two of them.

1.How many were used != how many were needed.

2.Durkon could've done the same thing, had he been the one with scrolls, and his would've been cheaper.


In another example, Vaarsuvius singlehandedly defeated a young black dragon that was curbstomping the rest of the party.

1."Getting target to roll natural 1" does not represent one's power level

2.That win was a team effort. Without Haley's well-timed arrow, V would've never made the concentration check required to cast the spell. He would've been eaten.


And Durkon never defeated Leeky singlehandedly - it required help from the rest of the party (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0359.html) as well as a literal deus ex machina (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0353.html) first.

1.That battle had the evoker getting curbstomped.

2.Durkon was 'winning' before the party showed up(He knocked the dude out of wildshape).

3.Again, "how many were used != how many were needed"

4.And before you go there, "prevented being eaten" was a needed contribution by other members of the team in the dragon fight(assuming being in a creature's stomach counts as grappling or deals acid damage, which it typically does).


Overall it's clear that in terms of impressive actions, V is way ahead of Durkon; this is even pointed out explicitly in comic 667. Also, while V has indeed been relying on explosive magic too much, recent develops seem to suggest that V certainly knows many other spells and has merely not been using them much - and is improving already, whereas Durkon still reserves his power for healing and attacking trees.

This comic 667? (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0667.html) The one where Durkon lauds V's use of the soul splice? As mentioned before, "can use a soul splice" isn't really a valid measure of power anymore than "can be target for buff spells" is for the party fighter.

Tvtyrant
2010-12-21, 06:26 PM
Okay, here is what you do. It being Pathfinder the full on Druidzilla is denied to you, but never fear! Instead you look up Treantmonk's guide to PF Druids and pick one, and then never bat an eye when you lead an epic monster back to the camp and then turn into a bat and fly away. Remember, Clerics canna cast fly, so use bat-mode to get the DMNPC killed and then when he starts crying from the TPK you roll up a Monk.

Seriously, Wildshape>anything ever. Even PF's Wildshape is almost equivalent to casting.

Akal Saris
2010-12-21, 06:32 PM
I'd just play a high level caster or gish rather than try to convince the DM that an epic paladin should contribute as much to the party as an epic wizard. If you still want to play a "paladin" and be powerful in his game, you could do some crazy paladin/sorcerer build, or simply crusader.

As far as V vs. Durkon goes, I'd say V is growing stronger overall. Durkon tends to make poor decisions quite consistently (so much for a high wisdom!), while V seems to be adapting her strategies more effectively after realizing that it's not just about having unlimited d6's at your fingertips.

Note that this is based on characterization, rather than the metagame that Durkon is a 3.5 cleric and could literally change his spells tomorrow and start casting incredibly strong spells every combat besides the divine power/righteous might "power combo."

true_shinken
2010-12-21, 06:42 PM
You mean fighters being able to defeat wizards breaks the "mundane guy defeats evil wizard" fantasy archetype?

The statement is not "fighters should be as powerful as DnD wizards." Wizards in myth are usually extremely powerful beings, and they are hard to defeat with just martial prowess alone. And yet FIGHTERS FROM MYTH DO IT, every time.
First, are you talking about mythology or medieval(ish) fantasy? Because there is a world of difference between those.
Also, a D&D Fighter can defeat a D&D Wizard. It's very hard, but it can be done. So I really don't see your point.


DnD, however, doesn't take this approach, because a wizard with no limits on his power can annihilate any fighter by doing any number of things that are inspired from myth, but are WAY too powerful in the DnD 3.5 system.
Yet, they need to spend lots of resources to avoid a sword to the gut. They can be locked down by sufficiently skilled fighters.
Again, your point is moot. Not all D&D wizards are more powerful than all D&D fighters. Specific builds could well fight to a stalemate, even. There is also the point of difference in level (you could always say all those 'mythical fighters' you mentioned were higher level than the wizards they defeated; even gods in myth don't tend to have as much power as a high level wizard anyway).


So if you want the mythological wizard, who is capable of doing things more powerful than a Fighter, the answer is DEFINITELY not "nerf the fighter."
Again, I am not (and I believe no one else in this thread is, as well) talking about myths or nerfing Fighters. Actually, you are the first one to even mention a Fighter.


In fact, you could make wizard spells have a casting time based on what level the spell is scaling up to 3 rounds for 9th level spells, and give diminishing returns on save DCs for bonus intelligence, and you would still have an extremely powerful class.
AD&D did it very well. Easy to disrupt spells and more experience needed to level up.


On the other hand, I don't remember ANY stories where a wizard is able to summon the doom of mankind from space for free with a wave of his hand and an hour of study at the beginning of the adventuring day.
You should check any Forgotten Realms novel. That's usually what they are about.

Salbazier
2010-12-21, 10:03 PM
Don't have much to add but I agree and will echo ideas from others: talk nicely with him and try to make him explain his statement.

If you are denied PF classes how about grabbing another powerful class and re-flavor it. Unarmed swordsage and Crusader has been mentioned. Unsure what else to suggest.

woodenbandman
2010-12-21, 11:46 PM
First, are you talking about mythology or medieval(ish) fantasy? Because there is a world of difference between those.
Also, a D&D Fighter can defeat a D&D Wizard. It's very hard, but it can be done. So I really don't see your point.


Yet, they need to spend lots of resources to avoid a sword to the gut. They can be locked down by sufficiently skilled fighters.
Again, your point is moot. Not all D&D wizards are more powerful than all D&D fighters. Specific builds could well fight to a stalemate, even. There is also the point of difference in level (you could always say all those 'mythical fighters' you mentioned were higher level than the wizards they defeated; even gods in myth don't tend to have as much power as a high level wizard anyway).

AD&D did it very well. Easy to disrupt spells and more experience needed to level up.



Well by "fighter" i meant "fighter, paladin, monk, etc."

To address your points:

First: Not all Americans are richer than all Nigerians either, but that doesn't mean that Africa is economically stable. Wizards have so many answers to everything a fighter does that it's not even funny.

And the point I was getting at was precisely what you said about AD&D: The spells in that game were far more balanced than they are in 3.5, so it is MUCH harder for a fighter to defeat a 3.5 wizard than it was for a fighter to defeat an AD&D wizard. AD&D wizards would have such little HP that most fighters would be able to kill them in one or two turns of attacking, if their attacks all hit.

In AD&D, the difficulty to save VS spell went down as you leveled up, with no way to increase it on the wizard's end, so save or die wouldn't really work. In 3.5, there is no "save vs. spell," there's fortitude, reflex, and will. It takes 3 stats, one for each save, to increase your saves, and none of them effect your damage output. And most mundane champions have a weak will save, due to base class/low wisdom because that's how this system is set up. This means that in 3.5, a wizard can just choose which save to aim for, and since he only has to worry about his intelligence to boost his save DCs, the fighter with the low will save has to hit DCs in excess of 30 or suffer mind control or whatever.

So basically what that causes is the fighting man has to spend his money to increase the following:

AC
Damage output
Saves
Various immunities to things

Where the wizard gets all of those things at no cost to himself through his spells, and in addition gets things like

The ability to turn into a dragon
can teleport
Can create illusions
Can become invisible

So in order to beat a wizard, not only does the fighter have to have 3 high saves, immunity to a lot of things through items, high AC, and high enough damage output, but he also has to be able to follow the wizard should he decide to teleport, see invisibility, fly after the wizard should he choose to fly (or burrow, or swim, or transform into a cheetah and run away), win initiative (so that the wizard can't run away or annihilate our poor flat-footed fighter), and, finally, hope that the wizard doesn't have any number of spells that instantly assure his victory (celerity, timestop, contingency, antimagic field, to name a few).

Finally, I'll just point out the fact that you said this:

even gods in myth don't tend to have as much power as a high level wizard anyway).

Wizards are more powerful than gods, so by your logic, fighters are also more powerful than gods since they can be built in such a way as to defeat certain wizards, and therefore it makes no sense that a fighter cannot be as powerful as a wizard.

Mikeavelli
2010-12-22, 12:18 AM
Note that Vaarsuvius is specifically referenced as The most powerful member of the Order of the Stick. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0467.html)

Starbuck_II
2010-12-22, 12:20 AM
Overall it's clear that in terms of impressive actions, V is way ahead of Durkon; this is even pointed out explicitly in comic 667. Also, while V has indeed been relying on explosive magic too much, recent develops seem to suggest that V certainly knows many other spells and has merely not been using them much - and is improving already, whereas Durkon still reserves his power for healing and attacking trees.


You say that nonchalantly...it is very important to defend from trees at all times.

Pechvarry
2010-12-22, 01:20 AM
I love One Piece, but D&D is not about shounen manga, it's about medieval(ish) fantasy.

I don't know what argumentative fallacy this is, but it's a big one. You just attempted to handwave away an extremely compelling point.

On topic, I think people are technically right -- OP's DM isn't holding a double standard for opinion, and a lot of people feel like the game shouldn't be balanced because "classic fantasy literature isn't balanced".

That said, I've yet to read any classic fantasy with spellcasters who could do half of what a level 6 wizard can do. Gandalf was pretty much a *demigod* in addition to being a wizard, and he's still better statted up as a Factotum.

As for myself, I just have no interest in playing with people who go out of their way to avoid balance.

Kurald Galain
2010-12-22, 01:25 AM
Note that Vaarsuvius is specifically referenced as The most powerful member of the Order of the Stick. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0467.html)
This, very much.

People can keep downplaying what V did on grounds that "it wasn't really him" or that "he got lucky" or that "the others might have been able to do the same", but the simple fact is that he's done way more impressive and powerful things than his teammates individually, and all those downplay arguments apply equally to the rest of the Order too.

Durkon defeating the trees? Wasn't him, that was Thor. Haley shooting Nale back in the Dungeon? She got lucky. Roy taking down Miko? Wasn't him, it was his magic sword; and perhaps Thog could have done the same. And so forth. Just because things could theoretically have happened differently doesn't change how they actually happened. Because really? V did take down those golems, and the rest of the Order did not.

Popertop
2010-12-22, 01:28 AM
Alright people, wall of text


The funniest thing about all this is that, really, the PF classes aren't much of a boost over the regular classes- they just get bigger numbers, not versatility. And then you have the PF wizard, who gets... yeah, versatility.

Yeah I should probably clear a few things up.

I told him about pretty much all the classes, all the stuff I could remember (the important stuff)

What he said was more like, "I don't think it makes sense role-play wise to have that much power (referring to the fighter I think, I told him about armor training and he was like 'that's too good'). Your choices are what make your character good (referring to in game choices)."

I think we can agree that a spellcaster's choices are more powerful than a fighter's

He doesn't believe in tier lists. "Tier lists are bull**** because one class isn't better than another class." Yeah I understand what he's getting at, but srsly, some classes are just ****ing weak and don't have options in the game and in their builds, and are forced to multiclass/splatdive to be somewhat competent. I showed him Jaronk's list and he said "That's bull****."
:/

See, about contributing to the game: It does have to do with the class. My character is my tool. I want a better melee one. If I played a druid or cleric or wizard, he probably wouldn't complain. Yeah I could refluff it and imagine I'm playing a paladin, but every time I look down at that character sheet I'm going to see "cleric". I really don't think that desire is unreasonable.
But honestly, even if I played a PF pathfinder in 3.5, the cleric could do it better.

I can show up and interact and roleplay regardless of my class or its power.
But I would have more fun with a stronger melee class.


1) D&D is about anything you want it to. Medieval fantasy, manga, hamsters in space, etc.

2) For other people casters making such a mockery of the game breaks verossimilitude. So I guess the point is moot.

This.


I understood your point, and disagree. You seemed to miss mine, where tier 3 is balanced and nearly as varied as 3.5 as a whole.

Versimilitude != "What many people want"

Yeah no tiers here.

And I do want versimilitude.

Also, he hates Tome of Battle. He calls it "The Book of Weaboo Fightan' Magic" I'm sure he coined the term on his own.

And the wizard vs fighter debate.
We've actually had this one.
Even though my point was that a fighter doesn't contribute (can't contribute, esp. since he's unwilling to let me play the classes that level the playing field even the smallest bit) nearly as much as a wizard, it somehow turned into fighter vs wizard.

We even got to halfway finishing an arena fight. (The guy who was DMing the fight had to move, so we didn't finish)

It's pretty obvious that the wizard flat out wins, or at least has heavy advantage, at every level past five using any amount of WBL.
The evidence to support this is in woodenbandman's post.

I don't even really want to get into the fighter vs wizard debate.
All I'm gonna say is he thinks core is balanced.


It is still a double-standard if a monk is relegated to low-level abilities at epic levels while the cleric gets epic-level abilities.

Clarifying a little here, when I said "play in high level games"
I meant "medium-high optimization games"
But I do have something to mention about Monk.
I want monks to be good, so I would splatdive (mostly stuff from OA and eastern-influenced settings). I wanted to take that one class that gets Wis to attack and damage at level one, and he thought that was waaaaay too good for monk to have.


Rule -1: Don't play with known expletives. And someone who belittles and insults you to your face....

It is a source of continual consternation and confusion how content people are to give DMs special privileges to abuse, insult, and mistreat other people. Like they have some right to insult people to their face without being called on their BS.

A little more clarification.
He never said I don't know D&D to my face, but that's the impression I get when all he does is talk about how good his characters are and he's so good at D&D, but when I find a build I think is interesting, he either says it's not good, or it's completely rigged (even when it's nowhere near as strong as a wizard and only moderately powerful at best).




The funniest thing about all this is that, really, the PF classes aren't much of a boost over the regular classes- they just get bigger numbers, not versatility. And then you have the PF wizard, who gets... yeah, versatility.

He didn't like how the rangers got Favored Terrain.
That was one of the abilities he was referring to when he said the bit about "doesn't make sense role-play wise with that power" EVEN THOUGH IT MAKES PERFECT SENSE.

*sigh*



Anyways, I know I could compromise but I really want to play a badass melee class. I guess I'll just have to accept how he sees things and just play with a different group to get what I want.

I guess this is messed up of me, but I want him to see his fallacy for what it is, and at least admit that the wizard is broken.

Still, i guess there is nothing that will change how closeminded he is. After all, he's not going to see anything he doesn't want to see.

Pechvarry
2010-12-22, 01:35 AM
Your DM is a nightmare. I just skimmed that last post because it kept burning my eyes.

What he's missing is that fighters getting a bit better with armor, or paladins adding their smite damage more often are game effects. It doesn't make him any better, in RP terms.

As for the idea that all classes are balanced... maybe you should ask him if he thinks commoners and wizards are balanced.

And the ToB thing? Did I mention your DM is a nightmare? Calling it now: his Cleric is also a Mary Sue DMPC, with all the nightmares that entails.

hangedman1984
2010-12-22, 01:39 AM
yeah, your dm is just...just...just awful

Popertop
2010-12-22, 02:46 AM
okay thats good I needed to hear that.

and to the people who said I just made this thread behind his back instead of confronting him about it, I did confront him many times, it's like hitting a brick wall.

oh well, guess I'll just play a bard, maybe no one will notice if I just optimize inspire courage.

MeeposFire
2010-12-22, 02:55 AM
Believe me if you really optimize inspire courage the DM will notice (he might realize it is you but he will realize that the melee people are really kicking butt). Does he allow book of exalted deeds? Its not required but it helps. If you can you could get inspire courage at +16 or better. With dragonfire inspiration and battle dragon heritage you could also have 16d6 sonic damage. Think of an entire party getting +16 to hit/damage and +16d6 sonic damage. You get nasty beyond belief fast. Without that book you can still deal a "paltry" +8 hit/damage and 8d6 sonic damage.

Godskook
2010-12-22, 02:59 AM
Note that Vaarsuvius is specifically referenced as The most powerful member of the Order of the Stick. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0467.html)

I was ignoring this previously, but to be quite honest, characters in OotS speak within their own perspective, so quoting IC opinions voiced by the characters does nothing to insinuate who's really the most powerful. (http://agc.deskslave.org/comic_viewer.html?goNumber=444)

Kurald Galain
2010-12-22, 04:26 AM
I was ignoring this previously, but to be quite honest, characters in OotS speak within their own perspective, so quoting IC opinions voiced by the characters does nothing to insinuate who's really the most powerful. (http://agc.deskslave.org/comic_viewer.html?goNumber=444)
You know, you've spent several posts asserting that the arguments for Vaarsuvius being the most powerful are somehow invalid, but you've so far made zero arguments for Durkon being most powerful.

V is still the one who recently single-handedly took down a dozen or so beetle raiders, and more importantly a shai-hulud. None of the other members have topped that.

Tvtyrant
2010-12-22, 04:34 AM
You know, you've spent several posts asserting that the arguments for Vaarsuvius being the most powerful are somehow invalid, but you've so far made zero arguments for Durkon being most powerful.

V is still the one who recently single-handedly took down a dozen or so beetle raiders, and more importantly a shai-hulud. None of the other members have topped that.

Could you guys either switch to the OotS area or PM? K thanks.

Anyway, to the OP: I would either get a new group or take a caster. If your DM doesn't want to see reason you can't force his eyes open.

Akal Saris
2010-12-22, 05:58 AM
Also, he hates Tome of Battle. He calls it "The Book of Weaboo Fightan' Magic" I'm sure he coined the term on his own.


Impossible! I too have a DM that refers to Tome of Battle as "The Book of Weaboo Fightan' Magic" How are all these grognards simultaneously discovering such a stupid description for the ToB?!

Heliomance
2010-12-22, 06:21 AM
It's /tg/'s favoured term for the book.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-12-22, 08:35 AM
Your DM is a nightmare.
yeah, your dm is just...just...just awful

His DM is simply...different. He's not objectively bad because he offends your sensibilities (or mine, or this entire forum's). The problem isn't because the OP's DM is just plain awful, the problem is because the DM and the OP come from divergent perspectives on the game.


It's /tg/'s favoured term for the book.
Yes, TVTropes and TGD confirm that Weeaboo Fightan Magic does indeed derive from 4chan, rather than merely being prevalent there.

true_shinken
2010-12-22, 09:15 AM
His DM is simply...different. He's not objectively bad because he offends your sensibilities (or mine, or this entire forum's). The problem isn't because the OP's DM is just plain awful, the problem is because the DM and the OP come from divergent perspectives on the game.
I agree. Saying he is a bad DM because we don't agree with him actually subjects him to the same treatment he subjected the OP for.


I don't know what argumentative fallacy this is, but it's a big one. You just attempted to handwave away an extremely compelling point.
Well, shounen fighting manga and medieval fantasy are very different genres. D&D as a media supports one pretty well, but not the other. I can't really see a fallacy there. D&D is not meant to recreate One Piece, so argumenting that 'in One Piece it happens' is hardly relevant at all.


That said, I've yet to read any classic fantasy with spellcasters who could do half of what a level 6 wizard can do. Gandalf was pretty much a *demigod* in addition to being a wizard, and he's still better statted up as a Factotum.

What do you mean by classical? Because if you count any FR novel...


Well by "fighter" i meant "fighter, paladin, monk, etc."
Glad you made that clear. Any non-fullcaster, basically.



First: Not all Americans are richer than all Nigerians either, but that doesn't mean that Africa is economically stable. Wizards have so many answers to everything a fighter does that it's not even funny.
I don't understand. Did I ever say this wasn't true?


And the point I was getting at was precisely what you said about AD&D: The spells in that game were far more balanced than they are in 3.5, so it is MUCH harder for a fighter to defeat a 3.5 wizard than it was for a fighter to defeat an AD&D wizard. AD&D wizards would have such little HP that most fighters would be able to kill them in one or two turns of attacking, if their attacks all hit.
Spells were not less powerful, actually. Some were even more powerful - Fireball is devastating when even dragons have 90hp.
The mechanics of spellcasting were less forgiving, though. No concentration skill, every hit fizzled a spell and preparing spells could take hours for a single slot.


In AD&D, the difficulty to save VS spell went down as you leveled up, with no way to increase it on the wizard's end, so save or die wouldn't really work.
Not really. Plenty of spells aplied a negative modifier to saves. You could focus on save or dies pretty easily.


So in order to beat a wizard, not only does the fighter have to have 3 high saves, immunity to a lot of things through items, high AC, and high enough damage output, but he also has to be able to follow the wizard should he decide to teleport, see invisibility, fly after the wizard should he choose to fly (or burrow, or swim, or transform into a cheetah and run away), win initiative (so that the wizard can't run away or annihilate our poor flat-footed fighter), and, finally, hope that the wizard doesn't have any number of spells that instantly assure his victory (celerity, timestop, contingency, antimagic field, to name a few).
Yeah, beating a wizard is hard. Even AD&D based CRPGs keep that notion around. That's a stapple of the fantasy genre. A surprised wizard, unless he is very cheesed out, is still in for a world of hurt when faced with a fighter. A low level wizard, without celerity and the like, is simply going to sit there, lose initiative and take loads and loads of damage to his face.
A fighter can beat a wizard, that's a fact. Specially now that you spread your point to 'all nonfullcaster classes'. There are things some nonfullcasters does that a wizard can't do (or has a very hard time doing) - like Iron Heart Surge or the Factotum's standard action spam.
Wizard is crazy good but you can kill him if prepared. Looks like standard fantasy games for me.



Wizards are more powerful than gods, so by your logic, fighters are also more powerful than gods since they can be built in such a way as to defeat certain wizards, and therefore it makes no sense that a fighter cannot be as powerful as a wizard.
Nonfullcasters are also more powerful than most mythical gods, yeah. Did I ever say they weren't? A hulking hurler can destroy planets and you don't see that kind of thing in all myths.

Gullintanni
2010-12-22, 09:37 AM
His DM is simply...different. He's not objectively bad because he offends your sensibilities (or mine, or this entire forum's). The problem isn't because the OP's DM is just plain awful, the problem is because the DM and the OP come from divergent perspectives on the game.

This. Realistically, the DM is just comfortable with the stereotypical. Primary casters should break the world, and primary melee shouldn't. The DM in question appears to accept that DnD melee is just supposed to be about melee, and since they're already better than that (out of the box anyway) than casters, they don't need a further leg up.

Clerics can fight better than Fighters with spells and that means the Cleric is not a better fighter than the Fighter because he has to rely on spells, regardless of the actual outcome.

It's a valid perspective, just one that doesn't really amount to any sense of equality for the players.

If you're not having fun playing the game and your DM is aware of that AND remains inflexible, then this game may not be the one for you. There are 1,000+ ways to demonstrate the nigh offensive imbalance between Casters and Melee inside of Core if you're inclined to break the DM's game a little bit, but doing so just to spite the DM is hardly my idea of fun.

If I were you, I'd certainly be frustrated with the DM too, but if he's immovable on the subject then maybe it's time to walk away from the table. Perhaps you should consider running a game yourself? At that point you'd be free to assert your own (what I view as somewhat more reasonable) perspective at the table. If you're so inclined, then it might merit a frank discussion with the other players in the group about whether they're similarly frustrated. If not, there's still no reason why you couldn't host your own game and have the players sit in on both.

My 2 cp :smallsmile:

WarKitty
2010-12-22, 10:30 AM
There's always the option of building a cleric, taking persistent spell, buffing yourself into oblivion and calling it a paladin...

Coidzor
2010-12-22, 10:34 AM
There's always the option of building a cleric, taking persistent spell, buffing yourself into oblivion and calling it a paladin...

Ordained Champion and Knight of the Raven are supposed to be good PrCs for that, probably some others I'm forgetting.

hangedman1984
2010-12-22, 11:47 AM
This. Realistically, the DM is just comfortable with the stereotypical. Primary casters should break the world, and primary melee shouldn't. The DM in question appears to accept that DnD melee is just supposed to be about melee, and since they're already better than that (out of the box anyway) than casters, they don't need a further leg up.

Clerics can fight better than Fighters with spells and that means the Cleric is not a better fighter than the Fighter because he has to rely on spells, regardless of the actual outcome.

It's a valid perspective, just one that doesn't really amount to any sense of equality for the players.

but its not really a valud perspective when running a game. the game should be about the entire group of adventures, not the caster and his plucky sidekicks. there should be some level of mechanical balance

Telasi
2010-12-22, 11:52 AM
but its not really a valud perspective when running a game. the game should be about the entire group of adventures, not the caster and his plucky sidekicks. there should be some level of mechanical balance

That's your opinion. I play non-casters frequently, and I'm ok with having to do some actual work to get some recognition. I find it much more satisfying to not have the easy button, even if my nerdy buddy with the spellbook does.

Stegyre
2010-12-22, 12:04 PM
Note that Vaarsuvius is specifically referenced as The most powerful member of the Order of the Stick. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0467.html)
He doesn't look so tough (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0452.html) hiding from the sort of hobos that Belkar eats for breakfast (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0439.html).

Truly, Xykon said it best: Power equals power (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0657.html), and if you can blow it with two failed Will saves, or running out of slots, you never really had it.

true_shinken
2010-12-22, 01:48 PM
That's your opinion. I play non-casters frequently, and I'm ok with having to do some actual work to get some recognition. I find it much more satisfying to not have the easy button, even if my nerdy buddy with the spellbook does.

I agree completely. Heck, my favourite moment in Year of Rogue Dragons is when Taegan Nightwind, having spent all his spells (he is a Bladesinger, a gish-type with access to 4th level spells) has his buffs dispelled... while fighting a dracolich. On his own. You know what he does? He shrugs and beats the thing just with steel and skill (being an avariel helped, though).
Another D&D novel mention: War of the Spider Queen, book 1. The mage and the fighter invade a fortress, mage runs away like a wussie leaving the fighter alone with no way to go about. Our badass Ryld goes into a trance and enters a special 'killing state of mind' that allows him to kill almost everyone in the building and then get out. Phaerun, the mage in question, could have collapsed the building on top of them. The fact that Ryld, without magic, managed to do something similar is what makes it badass.
'Your power source is reality bending, his power source is swordskill, it all works the same' is nowhere near as satisfying.

Kurald Galain
2010-12-22, 02:48 PM
He doesn't look so tough (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0452.html) hiding from the sort of hobos that Belkar eats for breakfast (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0439.html).
What, you mean after having killed more of those than five Belkars combined?

Amphetryon
2010-12-22, 02:53 PM
Using the novels as a gauge for power levels in 3.X is tricky business, since all the characters there have the Power of Plot behind their abilities. What the writers say can happen isn't necessarily what's likely to happen when you sit at the gaming table and crack open that tube of dice.

Gullintanni
2010-12-22, 03:00 PM
but its not really a valud perspective when running a game. the game should be about the entire group of adventures, not the caster and his plucky sidekicks. there should be some level of mechanical balance

Fighter =/= supernaturally powerful therefore not world breaking vs.
Caster = supernaturally powerful therefore world breaking is a valid premise. Balancing the game as such is fair from a roleplaying perspective.

That being said, I limit my players to the classes as written in core + anything in the Complete series. If my melee players have trouble measuring up to Casters, then I have no trouble helping them optimize to the point that they're good enough at their schtick that they can at least have fun doing what they're designed to do.

IMHO, a good DM should balance for fun, not mechanics. If everyone's enjoying themselves, mechanics aren't that important.

true_shinken
2010-12-22, 03:09 PM
Using the novels as a gauge for power levels in 3.X is tricky business, since all the characters there have the Power of Plot behind their abilities. What the writers say can happen isn't necessarily what's likely to happen when you sit at the gaming table and crack open that tube of dice.

Well, I'm talking about feel, atmosphere and what I find interesting. My point is: it is harder for non-fullcasters to do spetacular things. Because of that, when a fullcaster does something spetacular, it is really really spetacular.
Basically, when the Hulk defeats Dr. Doom, it's pretty much what we expected. When Daredevil single handedly defeats Dr. Doom, it's OMG that's awesome.

Occasional Sage
2010-12-22, 03:36 PM
It's a valid perspective, just one that doesn't really amount to any sense of equality for the players.

If you're not having fun playing the game and your DM is aware of that AND remains inflexible, then this game may not be the one for you.

If I were you, I'd certainly be frustrated with the DM too, but if he's immovable on the subject then maybe it's time to walk away from the table. Perhaps you should consider running a game yourself?

I agree, but would remove all the "maybe"s and "perhaps"es. Don't stick around a game that isn't fun, especially if (as this one appears to be) it is set up primarily to be fun for the DM, with everybody else secondary or tertiary; DMPCs are an excellent clue.

Really. Why fight to have fun? That's not what any game should be like, RP or not. Find or start a game where you'll have a better time.

Heck it might be better for him, too, if he gets another player who is of his mindset!

Godskook
2010-12-22, 04:26 PM
You know, you've spent several posts asserting that the arguments for Vaarsuvius being the most powerful are somehow invalid, but you've so far made zero arguments for Durkon being most powerful.

Just cause you don't agree with what I said, doesn't mean I didn't say it:


2."Defeat 3 elementals" is an amusing statement to make, but it isn't nearly as impressive as "Stand toe-to-toe with Druid", which Vaarsuvius is not capable of doing, but Durkon is.

Regardless, I'm done with this VxDurkon discussion.

Popertop
2010-12-22, 04:29 PM
That's your opinion. I play non-casters frequently, and I'm ok with having to do some actual work to get some recognition. I find it much more satisfying to not have the easy button, even if my nerdy buddy with the spellbook does.

I really don't care about having an easy button either.


I agree completely. Heck, my favourite moment in Year of Rogue Dragons is when Taegan Nightwind, having spent all his spells (he is a Bladesinger, a gish-type with access to 4th level spells) has his buffs dispelled... while fighting a dracolich. On his own. You know what he does? He shrugs and beats the thing just with steel and skill (being an avariel helped, though).
Another D&D novel mention: War of the Spider Queen, book 1. The mage and the fighter invade a fortress, mage runs away like a wussie leaving the fighter alone with no way to go about. Our badass Ryld goes into a trance and enters a special 'killing state of mind' that allows him to kill almost everyone in the building and then get out. Phaerun, the mage in question, could have collapsed the building on top of them. The fact that Ryld, without magic, managed to do something similar is what makes it badass.
'Your power source is reality bending, his power source is swordskill, it all works the same' is nowhere near as satisfying.

See, those are bad examples because they are from a book, power of plot and all that plus, the guy is by himself. A writer can easily have epic things happen for any reason he wants to, and the characters fates aren't up to dice and you don't have to try and have the team together. Still, I would love to have an experience like that. Unfortunately we don't play very often as it is, and the likelyhood of a situation like that occurring isn't very high at all.


Well, I'm talking about feel, atmosphere and what I find interesting. My point is: it is harder for non-fullcasters to do spetacular things. Because of that, when a fullcaster does something spetacular, it is really really spetacular.
Basically, when the Hulk defeats Dr. Doom, it's pretty much what we expected. When Daredevil single handedly defeats Dr. Doom, it's OMG that's awesome.

Our combat isn't very likely to last long enough to provide for our daredevil to beat Dr. Doom, since the cleric or wizard can just cast a spell at him.
Also, we don't have extended combat during the same day, it's typically just one encounter, which I find really boring.

It's already been said throughout the thread, and the points about differing perspectives on the game is certainly very valid and I understand that. I'm sure I can start DMing and try to find other groups that match my gaming philosophy.

Which thread do I use to find players in my area?

Occasional Sage
2010-12-22, 05:09 PM
That said, I've yet to read any classic fantasy with spellcasters who could do half of what a level 6 wizard can do. Gandalf was pretty much a *demigod* in addition to being a wizard, and he's still better statted up as a Factotum.


There's a Dragon Magazine article from the early 80s titled, "Gandalf was a second level magic-user".

Kurald Galain
2010-12-22, 05:22 PM
That said, I've yet to read any classic fantasy with spellcasters who could do half of what a level 6 wizard can do.

Raymond Feist's Magician classic enough for you?

How about Mercedes Lackey's Magic's Price?

Roger Zelazny's Blood of Amber?

Coidzor
2010-12-22, 05:50 PM
Raymond Feist's Magician classic enough for you?

How about Mercedes Lackey's Magic's Price?

Roger Zelazny's Blood of Amber?

That last one at least, supports the idea that non-casters shouldn't be PCs. So if that's how you think casters should be, it's a disservice to allow non-casters as PCs in such a game.

Kurald Galain
2010-12-22, 05:57 PM
That last one at least, supports the idea that non-casters shouldn't be PCs.

How's that again? You think Corwin is not a PC? You think Benedict needs a caster around?

true_shinken
2010-12-22, 05:59 PM
I really don't care about having an easy button either.
I'm sorry, but wasn't the whole point here that you wanted a more powerful Paladin? Sounds like an easy button to me.


See, those are bad examples because they are from a book, power of plot and all that plus, the guy is by himself. A writer can easily have epic things happen for any reason he wants to, and the characters fates aren't up to dice and you don't have to try and have the team together.
Yeah, I was just mentioning stuff I like to see in books and that I bring to my table. Of course books are different.

Still, I would love to have an experience like that. Unfortunately we don't play very often as it is, and the likelyhood of a situation like that occurring isn't very high at all.
That's too bad. I really find that to be the best part of roleplaying games.


Our combat isn't very likely to last long enough to provide for our daredevil to beat Dr. Doom, since the cleric or wizard can just cast a spell at him.
Also, we don't have extended combat during the same day, it's typically just one encounter, which I find really boring.
Well, that's the problem right there. Spellcasters, specially at low levels, can't contribute meaningfully all the time because they need to conserve resources. If you simply have a single encounter a day, well... now that is what I call a double standard.


It's already been said throughout the thread, and the points about differing perspectives on the game is certainly very valid and I understand that. I'm sure I can start DMing and try to find other groups that match my gaming philosophy.

Which thread do I use to find players in my area?
There is a 'finding players' area to the forums, you could try that. Incidentally, I'm starting a pbp game (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=179325), if you are interested. You'd get a chance to play Daredevil vs Dr. Doom. :smallsmile:

Munkay
2010-12-22, 06:04 PM
The real issue here in the melee vs full-caster discussion going on is simple to me.

Rarity.

Full casters with extreme power shouldn't be common or everyday. From a literary standpoint and even game mechanic standpoint your world should contain many more fighter types than full-caster types.

This is why high level wizards are seen as overly powerful in novels being they attained something that is DIFFICULT to attain.

Now in regards to the OP's issue, it sounds like the DM is a bit biased towards full-casters. As someone that plays with a DM like that your answer is simple. Join em (play a full caster) or annoy him (make an archer occult slayer fighter rogue).

I chose the latter =)

The Glyphstone
2010-12-22, 06:16 PM
The real issue here in the melee vs full-caster discussion going on is simple to me.

Rarity.

Full casters with extreme power shouldn't be common or everyday. From a literary standpoint and even game mechanic standpoint your world should contain many more fighter types than full-caster types.

This is why high level wizards are seen as overly powerful in novels being they attained something that is DIFFICULT to attain.

Now in regards to the OP's issue, it sounds like the DM is a bit biased towards full-casters. As someone that plays with a DM like that your answer is simple. Join em (play a full caster) or annoy him (make an archer occult slayer fighter rogue).

I chose the latter =)
The latter only works if the DM is both biased towards full-casters, and not particularly knowledgable about how to really abuse them. Mundanes can kill unoptimized casters, or moderately optimized ones under the right circumstances, but if he's actually as good at character-building as he seems to think he is, only a caster can beat his casters. And he's the DM, which makes the whole point moot anyways.

Callista
2010-12-22, 06:21 PM
What nobody's mentioned yet about role-playing is that if you want to RP a character, he has to stay alive long enough to develop a personality. If you keep on playing commoners wielding pointy sticks (yeah, I know you can optimize that, but say you don't), then you're just going to have a bunch of dead redshirts, none of them with an actual storyline.

You don't have to powergame to the point that your character is going to smash through every encounter. In fact, I suggest you don't; easy is boring. But you do have to make a character that can survive and be useful most of the time; and that means that if you're dead set on a Monk, you'd better optimize him, or he's going to get smashed into Monk paste before you get the chance to define who he is.

The Glyphstone
2010-12-22, 06:36 PM
Another amusing way to be passive-aggressive is character cloning. When Bob the Fighter gets fiated to death, make Bob the Second, his identical twin. Then, Bob the Third, the identical triplet of Bob the First and Bob the Second. Progress until Bob The Googol is randomly butchered or the DM gives up out of frustration.

Coidzor
2010-12-22, 06:58 PM
^: That trick works even better if you have a necromancer friend in on it. Then you have the traveling Bob Family Circus. :smallbiggrin:
How's that again? You think Corwin is not a PC? You think Benedict needs a caster around?

:smallconfused: All of the members of the Courts of Amber and Chaos are casters as far as I could ever tell.

Popertop
2010-12-22, 06:59 PM
I'm sorry, but wasn't the whole point here that you wanted a more powerful Paladin? Sounds like an easy button to me.


Yeah, I was just mentioning stuff I like to see in books and that I bring to my table. Of course books are different.

That's too bad. I really find that to be the best part of roleplaying games.


Well, that's the problem right there. Spellcasters, specially at low levels, can't contribute meaningfully all the time because they need to conserve resources. If you simply have a single encounter a day, well... now that is what I call a double standard.


There is a 'finding players' area to the forums, you could try that. Incidentally, I'm starting a pbp game (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=179325), if you are interested. You'd get a chance to play Daredevil vs Dr. Doom. :smallsmile:

A more powerful paladin =/= A paladin that has answers to every situation.
As a matter of fact, I like working a little harder to be successful,
but that should come from making intelligent choices and thinking
outside the box in the game, not from a hamstrung class.
I really don't think Pathfinder paladin is too strong at all.

Also I'm shying away from PbP because I would much prefer to have face-to-face interactions. Hanging out is a part of it, and I like to enjoy someone's company besides just D&D.
Thanks though, I'll browse the forums.


The real issue here in the melee vs full-caster discussion going on is simple to me.

Rarity.

Full casters with extreme power shouldn't be common or everyday. From a literary standpoint and even game mechanic standpoint your world should contain many more fighter types than full-caster types.

This is why high level wizards are seen as overly powerful in novels being they attained something that is DIFFICULT to attain.

Now in regards to the OP's issue, it sounds like the DM is a bit biased towards full-casters. As someone that plays with a DM like that your answer is simple. Join em (play a full caster) or annoy him (make an archer occult slayer fighter rogue).

I chose the latter =)

I've tried the "annoy him" builds, and he just says he doesn't like whatever I'm trying to do and disallows it.

I'm coming to terms with what he's going to allow.
If he thinks cleric isn't too strong, whatever.
I guess I'll just pimp one out myself.

There isn't much more to say at this point.
Thanks for your swift action response and for your opinions.
It helped a lot to get this off my chest.

Kurald Galain
2010-12-22, 07:01 PM
All of the members of the Courts of Amber and Chaos are casters as far as I could ever tell.
Well, I suppose that depends on your definition of "caster". They have the supernatural ability of shadow walking (Pattern and Logrus imprint), yes. But only a handful of them have demonstrated an aptitude for actually throwing spells around, most notably Brand, Merlin, and Mandor. The rest tends to use swords (Corwin, Benedict), or guile and manipulation (Caine, Florimel).

So you could say they're all "casters" in the same sense that all Whitewolf Vampires are casters, but in my opinion it's more accurate to say that only those with Thaumaturgy or Necromancy discipline actually cast anything.

Coidzor
2010-12-22, 07:03 PM
Well, I suppose that depends on your definition of "caster". They have the supernatural ability of shadow walking (Pattern and Logrus imprint), yes. But only a handful of them have demonstrated an aptitude for actually throwing spells around, most notably Brand, Merlin, and Mandor. The rest tends to use swords (Corwin, Benedict), or guile and manipulation (Caine, Florimel).

Even the ones who didn't sling flashy spells around seemed to augment themselves via passive buffing. So even the more fightery ones seemed more like gishes to me than beatsticks.

Claudius Maximus
2010-12-22, 07:18 PM
Why do people keep offering passive-aggressive actions as advice? To me that sort of thing just seems like it would worsen one's relationship with the DM and cause more bitterness. If you have a problem, talk about it. If reasonable discussion really, seriously won't work, tell them you have a problem with the way they do things and quit if they still refuse to change.

Sticking around but acting like a jerk isn't the right way to do it.

gdiddy
2010-12-22, 07:25 PM
Do an opportunity cost analysis:

Will this dm and his game cause you more stress than working overtime at your job/starting a cult/spending more time with your significant other?

If so, don't play. Do that other stuff. You'll enjoy your life more and live longer.

tyckspoon
2010-12-22, 07:31 PM
Well, I suppose that depends on your definition of "caster". They have the supernatural ability of shadow walking (Pattern and Logrus imprint), yes. But only a handful of them have demonstrated an aptitude for actually throwing spells around, most notably Brand, Merlin, and Mandor. The rest tends to use swords (Corwin, Benedict), or guile and manipulation (Caine, Florimel).

So you could say they're all "casters" in the same sense that all Whitewolf Vampires are casters, but in my opinion it's more accurate to say that only those with Thaumaturgy or Necromancy discipline actually cast anything.

Caster/noncaster is the wrong distinction for Amber anyway, seeing as how the actual 'spells' are generally relatively weak, hard to do, and of lesser use if you're going to explore the multitudes of demiplanes the setting offers (you have to figure out how magic works again each time you shift 'planes' if you plan to use it.) The actual analogy would be Pattern-initiates against non-initiates; a person sealed to the Pattern (and technically any Amberite, compared to somebody from one of the lesser shadows) is just Better. They're stronger, faster, tougher, usually smarter, and that's before you get into the random junk they can do to impose their will on the world by calling on the Pattern.

Lord.Sorasen
2010-12-22, 09:05 PM
My biggest problem with the "casters are significantly more powerful in all ways than non-casters" thing is if that was so the case, why do non-casters exist? For instance, paladins: A paladin gets a calling from her God. She could then take up the sword and practice smiting evil, sure - But by now she should be aware that clerics serve her God much better than she can as a paladin. And anyone can be a cleric, so go for it.

Monks, same issue. The concept of being a monk is to surpass one's human limitations, yes? Well, certainly the monks must have realized by now that the druid is far superior at such a thing, being able to manipulate the self in countless ways, including of course wild shape. Likewise, certainly the fighter has recognized that he'd be a much stronger physical warrior if he was able to become a dire bear.

Perhaps the rogue may stay a non-caster... So long as the factotum and beguiler don't exist.

Worira
2010-12-22, 09:10 PM
I agree completely. Heck, my favourite moment in Year of Rogue Dragons is when Taegan Nightwind, having spent all his spells (he is a Bladesinger, a gish-type with access to 4th level spells) has his buffs dispelled... while fighting a dracolich. On his own. You know what he does? He shrugs and beats the thing just with steel and skill (being an avariel helped, though).
Another D&D novel mention: War of the Spider Queen, book 1. The mage and the fighter invade a fortress, mage runs away like a wussie leaving the fighter alone with no way to go about. Our badass Ryld goes into a trance and enters a special 'killing state of mind' that allows him to kill almost everyone in the building and then get out. Phaerun, the mage in question, could have collapsed the building on top of them. The fact that Ryld, without magic, managed to do something similar is what makes it badass.
'Your power source is reality bending, his power source is swordskill, it all works the same' is nowhere near as satisfying.

Here's the thing: What you're arguing against is allowing these things to happen. A purely martial character CAN'T defeat a dracolich without magical aid. A fighter CAN'T enter a 'killing state of mind' and take out everyone in a building. You are arguing AGAINST allowing these heroic feats to be accomplished in a DnD game.

Claudius Maximus
2010-12-22, 09:27 PM
Well the state of mind could just be barbarian rage, or even just fluff related to the fact that he's motivated to murder a building full of people. A decently leveled fighter should certainly be able to clear a building.

Popertop
2010-12-22, 10:07 PM
Why do people keep offering passive-aggressive actions as advice? To me that sort of thing just seems like it would worsen one's relationship with the DM and cause more bitterness. If you have a problem, talk about it. If reasonable discussion really, seriously won't work, tell them you have a problem with the way they do things and quit if they still refuse to change.

Sticking around but acting like a jerk isn't the right way to do it.

I know, I'm disregarding the passive-aggressive stuff.
That used to be the way I would treat people, but that is behind me.

And this entire thread is my reaction to reasonable discussion not working.



My biggest problem with the "casters are significantly more powerful in all ways than non-casters" thing is if that was so the case, why do non-casters exist? For instance, paladins: A paladin gets a calling from her God. She could then take up the sword and practice smiting evil, sure - But by now she should be aware that clerics serve her God much better than she can as a paladin. And anyone can be a cleric, so go for it.

Monks, same issue. The concept of being a monk is to surpass one's human limitations, yes? Well, certainly the monks must have realized by now that the druid is far superior at such a thing, being able to manipulate the self in countless ways, including of course wild shape. Likewise, certainly the fighter has recognized that he'd be a much stronger physical warrior if he was able to become a dire bear.

Perhaps the rogue may stay a non-caster... So long as the factotum and beguiler don't exist.

My thoughts exactly.

The Glyphstone
2010-12-22, 10:18 PM
I know, I'm disregarding the passive-aggressive stuff.
That used to be the way I would treat people, but that is behind me.

And this entire thread is my reaction to reasonable discussion not working.




My thoughts exactly.

You seem to be running out of options, though. Talking didn't work. Leaving the game won't work. Passive-aggressive is just a waste of time, and beneath you. So what's left? Out-optimizing him is just as passive-aggressive, just from another direction.

Popertop
2010-12-22, 10:30 PM
How will leaving the game not work?

Anyways, we hardly play as-is.
We've never even really gotten into the meat
and potatoes of a game, we've started several campaigns
only to not play for weeks and start another.
I'm pretty sure I don't wanna be a part of that anymore.

The Glyphstone
2010-12-22, 10:32 PM
How will leaving the game not work?

Anyways, we hardly play as-is.
We've never even really gotten into the meat
and potatoes of a game, we've started several campaigns
only to not play for weeks and start another.
I'm pretty sure I don't wanna be a part of that anymore.

Maybe I'm mixing you up with the "DM hates me' thread, I thought it was already mentioned up-thread that you didn't want to leave/quit the game. If leaving and finding a new group is in the cards, that's the best outcome possible, since it makes everyone happy.

true_shinken
2010-12-23, 12:40 PM
Here's the thing: What you're arguing against is allowing these things to happen. A purely martial character CAN'T defeat a dracolich without magical aid.
Maybe you missed on all the ubercharger builds. A martial character just needs a single charge to pulverize a dracolich.
Also, my example was about a gish. Dispelling the bad guy's magical protections than ubercharging him is not only completely acceptable in D&D, it's optimal.

A fighter CAN'T enter a 'killing state of mind' and take out everyone in a building.
Except, of course, they can. Dervish Dance, Whirling Frenzy, standard Rage, Combat Focus, Frendizer Berserker's Frenzy, a gish casting Hunter's Eye, a Ranger using Blade Storm... I could go on and on, really. Even a staight classed vanilla Fighter can take the complete Combat Focus chain, which is based.


My biggest problem with the "casters are significantly more powerful in all ways than non-casters" thing is if that was so the case, why do non-casters exist? For instance, paladins: A paladin gets a calling from her God. She could then take up the sword and practice smiting evil, sure - But by now she should be aware that clerics serve her God much better than she can as a paladin. And anyone can be a cleric, so go for it.
Why do you think anyone can be a Cleric? From the PHB entry, it looks like you need training to be a Cleric. Paladins? They get a calling. It's direct divine intervention. You don't become a Paladin just because it gets you powerful - you become a paladin because it's both an honor and the right thing to do.
Paladins just do stuff that Clerics don't. They are more resistant to evil's lure, just to mention something (Divine Grace).


Monks, same issue. The concept of being a monk is to surpass one's human limitations, yes? Well, certainly the monks must have realized by now that the druid is far superior at such a thing, being able to manipulate the self in countless ways, including of course wild shape. Likewise, certainly the fighter has recognized that he'd be a much stronger physical warrior if he was able to become a dire bear.
How 'becoming a bear' is 'surpassing human(oid) limitations'? Monk is a badly designed class, no denying that, but the concept is not exactly what you meant anyway.


Perhaps the rogue may stay a non-caster... So long as the factotum and beguiler don't exist.
The Factotum is not a full-caster, so I really don't see his place in this discussion. Also, not everyone can become a Factotum or Beguiler. Rogues are far more common.

Coidzor
2010-12-23, 12:49 PM
Maybe you missed on all the ubercharger builds. A martial character just needs a single charge to pulverize a dracolich.
Also, my example was about a gish. Dispelling the bad guy's magical protections than ubercharging him is not only completely acceptable in D&d, it's optimal.

A gish is, unless they're a duskblade or something, a caster who decides that they prefer getting their hands dirty. So they're not really applicable from the angle of non-caster warriors like you had appeared to be arguing.

So, Mr. gish slaughtering a building full of people is not an example of a warrior-type getting nice things. It's a caster playing at being a warrior-type.

Kurald Galain
2010-12-23, 12:52 PM
The actual analogy would be Pattern-initiates against non-initiates; a person sealed to the Pattern (and technically any Amberite, compared to somebody from one of the lesser shadows) is just Better. They're stronger, faster, tougher, usually smarter, and that's before you get into the random junk they can do to impose their will on the world by calling on the Pattern.
Yes, the Amberites are Just Better than almost everything they meet; that's pretty much the point, but it's also remarkably common in any RPG. In Vampire, being a vampire is easily Just Better than a human; in in D&D, having a PC class is Just Better than being a commoner. And so forth.

(incidentally, the Amber RPG does allow you to play a character without Pattern Imprint, and you get twice as many stat points as a tradeoff; as a result, it is not automatically true that Pattern initiates are Just Better)

Coidzor
2010-12-23, 12:54 PM
(incidentally, the Amber RPG does allow you to play a character without Pattern Imprint, and you get twice as many stat points as a tradeoff; as a result, it is not automatically true that Pattern initiates are Just Better)

:smallconfused: Certainly seems to be true in the stories, especially with the universe agreeing with them that they're more real than other creatures.

true_shinken
2010-12-23, 01:12 PM
A gish is, unless they're a duskblade or something, a caster who decides that they prefer getting their hands dirty. So they're not really applicable from the angle of non-caster warriors like you had appeared to be arguing.
I was not arguing that. I was just saying you can do cool things without being a fullcaster.
About gishes, you yourself mentioned how flawed an argument it is to say that the are casters that prefer getting their hands dirty. Duskblade, Suel Arcanamach, Bladesinger, Ranger, Paladin are all examples of gishes who don't do as you mentioned. They outnumber full-caster gishes considerably.


So, Mr. gish slaughtering a building full of people is not an example of a warrior-type getting nice things. It's a caster playing at being a warrior-type.
Except that guy was a Fighter. I even listed a few ways to do just that martially a few posts ago.

You ninja-edited away your bit about PC access, so I won't say anything about that.

Gullintanni
2010-12-23, 01:58 PM
How will leaving the game not work?

Anyways, we hardly play as-is.
We've never even really gotten into the meat
and potatoes of a game, we've started several campaigns
only to not play for weeks and start another.
I'm pretty sure I don't wanna be a part of that anymore.

This is why I recommended possibly starting your own game and running things with a more balanced perspective, especially if you enjoy gaming with the other players and it's just the DM you have a problem with.

Either way you seem to have made up your mind and given the difficulties you've had thus far, I'd agree that the decision you've made is for the best.

Good luck in future games!

Kurald Galain
2010-12-23, 04:20 PM
:smallconfused: Certainly seems to be true in the stories, especially with the universe agreeing with them that they're more real than other creatures.

They are. But so is Chaos.

Susano-wo
2010-12-23, 04:45 PM
:smallconfused: Certainly seems to be true in the stories, especially with the universe agreeing with them that they're more real than other creatures.

actually, this seems a very relevant point.
In universe, they are just plain better. In game, the non-Pattern initiates that you play in the game are just that exceptional. This mindset is one of two that you need, I think, to be able to have magic users and non magic users on the same power level. (the other would be restrictions on magic that play the balancing act of not making it no fun to be a caster, but not making non casters useless)

Callista
2010-12-23, 08:15 PM
Non-casters aren't less powerful; they're less flexible. There's a difference between the two. Flexibility is power; but so is a greatsword and the strength to use it.

And flexibility matters less the larger your group is. In a party of two, yeah, you need at least one caster to be able to deal with any situation. But by the time you get to four, or more typically six- and seven-member parties, the sheer variety of skills in your party is going to make the caster's flexibility stand out a great deal less.

Compare classes as though you were making characters designed to outshine each other, and the caster classes will win every time. But if you consider them as parts of a team, the picture changes--When teamwork is the status quo, casters are still essential, but non-casters (or half-casters) are equally useful.

Susano-wo
2010-12-23, 08:24 PM
Non-casters aren't less powerful; they're less flexible. [snip]

Compare classes as though you were making characters designed to outshine each other,

Yes, I know you can do tons of damage with the right melee build, but there is more to power than hp damage...like circumventing HP altogether, or rendering you useless, thus making how quick they can take down your HP extraeneous.

But just look at this second statment of yours. Doesn't exactly square with the first assertation.:smallconfused:

now I'm not saying "ZOMG Dnd is unplayable!!", but build with any eye toward making good use of and choices about spells, and they are more powerful than, at the very least, non casters, and possibly/probably more powerful than partial casters.

Callista
2010-12-24, 12:15 AM
That only matters if it's a PvP game, though... and it's not. It's a team game. The point isn't to make a more powerful character than the other guy; it's to make a character that works together with the other guy's character.

Grelna the Blue
2010-12-24, 01:00 AM
That only matters if it's a PvP game, though... and it's not. It's a team game. The point isn't to make a more powerful character than the other guy; it's to make a character that works together with the other guy's character.

That's a good point, but when I play a full caster, I frequently find that I have to play far beneath my character's capabilities in order to allow the noncasters to appear effective. It isn't that they couldn't handle encounters without my character (at least, not always that), but that just a very few low level spells completely overshadow their characters' abilities. Often enough one Fear spell and one Black Tentacles spell (for example) do more to win a fight than everyone else's best efforts put together. That's not because I'm a terrific roleplayer (I am, but that's irrelevant) with a super-optimized character (playing those just makes the problem worse, so I don't play optimized spellcasters), but because I've got superpowers built into the class of the character I'm playing and the other players don't. However, player restraint isn't something a GM or the other players in any given game can count on.

Coidzor
2010-12-24, 01:47 AM
That only matters if it's a PvP game

Nope. One can inadvertently make other players' efforts feel worthless to them. That sort of thing is what inspired Ye Olde Tier System's creation by Jaronk.

Tvtyrant
2010-12-24, 03:02 AM
That only matters if it's a PvP game, though... and it's not. It's a team game. The point isn't to make a more powerful character than the other guy; it's to make a character that works together with the other guy's character.

Yes, and in the case of them being reasonable similar in power this would be the most important thing. But a Malconvoker can call creatures that are better then a level appropriate fighter and retain full casting. Even without that OP Prc, a normal Wizard can cast Greater Planar Binding to bind a Pit Fiend, which is supposed to be equivalent to the entire party. And that is core! Not to mention Wildshape, Shapechange, Miracle, Wish, Gate, Glitterdust, Evard's Black Tentacles, Summoned Dire Crocodiles, and all of the other game ending spells they get.

And those would for the most part let another character get a wack in. A SoD, or simply kill spell makes the entire fight a one second show. "The BBEG is a level 20 Fighter with extreme optimization! What does our poor level 13 party do to stave off defeat??" Wizard: "I cast Reverse Gravity" DM: :smallfrown:

Freylorn
2010-12-24, 03:07 AM
That only matters if it's a PvP game,

This argument has always confused me. D&D 3.5 is set up so that monsters and PCs work off of basically the same system - it's to be expected that you'll fight things with class levels sometimes. That's not PvP (least, not the sort I think you're describing) and it still puts two classes in direct conflict with each other.

Susano-wo
2010-12-25, 02:57 PM
That only matters if it's a PvP game, though... and it's not. It's a team game. The point isn't to make a more powerful character than the other guy; it's to make a character that works together with the other guy's character.

other people have commented in the issue of power disparity in a PVP game, so I will comment only on the PVP issue itelf

Dnd is not a team game
its not a PVP game
Its a fantasy RPG.
Everyone will have different expectations of PVP. Typically, in my group, you are playing characters, who are, in a general sense working together, but we don't bind people to any sort of *you are a team above all else* dogma.
sometimes two different characters will have different goals. Sometimes to the point that they might need to strive against each other--even if its not to the death. and sometimes, you just might want to have some basic capacity to stop someone from doing something you see as bad/dangerous/etc, or prevent them from doing the same.


But now that I thin of it again, that's a digression from my main point: which is that in order to make casters that don't overpower non casters you have to either present a drawback to magic that still alows the casters to have fun while making non casters viable, power-wise, or make non casters inherently more badassed than nomral somewhow, though stats, or whatnot

Callista
2010-12-25, 04:25 PM
I suppose it's too much to assume that people won't use broken spells when they know they're broken, and will back off and change their selection if they inadvertently find out that it's overpowered... kind of the way I don't routinely Baleful Transposition things 120 feet up in the air anytime we're near a tall building or tree I can touch for the connection... First time I did that, it was funny; but if I did it repeatedly, it would be broken. So I came up with a reason my character wouldn't do it (which was easy; the ooze I dropped from eighty feet up was pretty hurt, but it managed to kill a teammate before we killed it, so my character won't take that risk again)... and that was that.

Yes, your high-level wizard can win the encounter on his own. He can, however, just as easily help everyone else win the encounter, with a similar chance of success. Choose that second option and everyone's happy. Technically, of course, the wizard is still "more powerful"; but he's working through the rest of the party.

Another issue with spellcasters is the way most DMs don't generally use four encounters per day... nor have enemies use intelligent anti-spellcaster strategies. I've yet to see anyone try to counterspell my character's Haste, for example, even though it's such an obvious opening move that a spellcaster on the opposing team really ought to be trying it. I've never had a wizard grappled (though of course I'd just Benign Transposition with the grapple-specialist monk if that happened). Only recently have we faced magic-immune things. At high levels, your enemies should have just as much magic as you do; and if it works right, the magic cancels out with just enough left over on your side to win.

Coidzor
2010-12-25, 05:55 PM
I suppose it's too much to assume that people won't use broken spells when they know they're broken, and will back off and change their selection if they inadvertently find out that it's overpowered...

They shouldn't have to, and the fact that such things exist is the reason for the discrepancies in the first place. Even without the particularly OP methods available to them, there are still issues. So, no, you can't just say that the players are bad and the system is good.

true_shinken
2010-12-25, 07:11 PM
They shouldn't have to, and the fact that such things exist is the reason for the discrepancies in the first place. Even without the particularly OP methods available to them, there are still issues. So, no, you can't just say that the players are bad and the system is good.

But that's not what Callista is saying. He is saying 'the game has issues alright but it's easy enough not to touch them'. And he is right.

Callista
2010-12-26, 04:17 PM
Yes, exactly. Just because a system can be broken doesn't mean that the system is broken. Any system with such a huge set of possible mechanics you can use is inevitably going to have problems coming from a few of those rules--there are so many of them and they all work together in different ways; most of the time, it's balanced, but sometimes, you get pun-pun and polymorph. However, it's still a very playable system; keeping it playable is easy and takes little more than common sense and the ability to back off if you find that something's too powerful. I would much rather have a system with as many possibilities as 3.5 does and deal with the glitches than have a system that's tightly controlled, totally balanced, and with very little variety.

Tvtyrant
2010-12-26, 04:31 PM
No the system is broken, you can make it unbroken by ignoring half of the available spells. Seriously, if I ignore all of the summoning abilities, and all of the SoDs, and most of the utility spells, and the more crazy buffs, then yes it isn't broken. Maybe. Or the Wizard Scrys the enemies and teleports the party there and invalidates the dungeon, or rock to mud/mud to rocks the whole dungeon.

To play a Wizard that isn't broken takes intimately knowing the game and knowing which options are suboptimal, or banning the two largest schools of magic (Conjuration and Transmutation).

Callista
2010-12-26, 04:36 PM
To play a Wizard that isn't broken takes intimately knowing the game and knowing which options are suboptimal, or banning the two largest schools of magic (Conjuration and Transmutation).That's not actually a problem. In order to play a broken wizard, you need the same knowledge you need to NOT play a broken wizard. The newbies will just blast away at things with fireballs and be pretty much balanced. You always have the choice whether or not you want to abuse those spells. I've got no sympathy for anyone who says, "Waaah, but I can't help it, wizards are too powerful!" because if you're playing an overpowered wizard, you're doing it by choice.

ScionoftheVoid
2010-12-26, 05:05 PM
That's not actually a problem. In order to play a broken wizard, you need the same knowledge you need to NOT play a broken wizard. The newbies will just blast away at things with fireballs and be pretty much balanced. You always have the choice whether or not you want to abuse those spells. I've got no sympathy for anyone who says, "Waaah, but I can't help it, wizards are too powerful!" because if you're playing an overpowered wizard, you're doing it by choice.

Unless you happen to be a newbie who wants to buff instead of blast, or gets creative with illusions, or wants to do summoning, or wants to stay in character when they discover just how powerful a spell is (though this is the weakest point, it can completely ruin suspension of disbelief to suddenly never use a spell after knowing that it is a good spell having seen it in action). If you can break a game using most tactics other than blasting without having any special knowledge then it is the problem of the game, not the players.

Coidzor
2010-12-26, 05:12 PM
That's not actually a problem. In order to play a broken wizard, you need the same knowledge you need to NOT play a broken wizard. The newbies will just blast away at things with fireballs and be pretty much balanced. You always have the choice whether or not you want to abuse those spells. I've got no sympathy for anyone who says, "Waaah, but I can't help it, wizards are too powerful!" because if you're playing an overpowered wizard, you're doing it by choice.

You're still committing the oberoni fallacy and shifting the blame for the system's flaws onto the players, and insinuating that only morally inferior players will ever use those spells, and the virtuous as well as the innocent and pure will just play blasters as the designers intended.

Grelna the Blue
2010-12-26, 05:26 PM
@Callista,

You did make a very good point when you wrote:
Another issue with spellcasters is the way most DMs don't generally use four encounters per day.Outside the dungeon environment, most casters aren't forced to conserve their spells. Given that when the game was first designed dungeon adventures took up a larger proportion of the PCs time, that may mean the game is less balanced now than it was then. However, it would not enhance realism to enforce dungeon-style peril constantly during adventuring.


That's not actually a problem. In order to play a broken wizard, you need the same knowledge you need to NOT play a broken wizard. The newbies will just blast away at things with fireballs and be pretty much balanced. You always have the choice whether or not you want to abuse those spells. I've got no sympathy for anyone who says, "Waaah, but I can't help it, wizards are too powerful!" because if you're playing an overpowered wizard, you're doing it by choice.

Forget about feeling sorry for players overcome with self-pity at their own awesome might--what about the players of the other characters in those games? Aren't they due a bit of consideration? Between the super optimizers and the newbies is a wide field of players who know more or less how to be effective in their class. Very few of them were issued notes alerting them that it was their job to support their parties well, but not too well.

This argument reminds me of the one between players who support character stats generated through random dice rolls and players who support character stats generated through point buy. The only difference is that at least with random rolls it is possible that you can end up with subpar stats (for the short time such characters tend to last), whereas the person who chooses to play a cleric or mage over a monk or fighter is guaranteed to have a stronger character and has to work not to overshadow the other players.

My favorite system is Ars Magica. In that game each player generally plays a mage and also a second string non-Gifted companion of some sort whose only function is to be a meat shield or a skilled expert on matters a mage shouldn't have to worry about. There's an honesty to that lack of pretense of any balance whatsoever that is very refreshing.

Amphetryon
2010-12-26, 05:44 PM
That's not actually a problem. In order to play a broken wizard, you need the same knowledge you need to NOT play a broken wizard. The newbies will just blast away at things with fireballs and be pretty much balanced. You always have the choice whether or not you want to abuse those spells. I've got no sympathy for anyone who says, "Waaah, but I can't help it, wizards are too powerful!" because if you're playing an overpowered wizard, you're doing it by choice.

If you're saying that no newbies can accidentally wreak havoc by choosing more powerful spells, all I can say is I'm happy for you that you had that experience. I've yet to see a newbie Druid who didn't radically tip the balance of power by spamming Summons once they realized they could convert spells, for example, out of 4 Druid players who'd never rolled a d20 before.

Nero24200
2010-12-26, 06:00 PM
That's not actually a problem. In order to play a broken wizard, you need the same knowledge you need to NOT play a broken wizard. The newbies will just blast away at things with fireballs and be pretty much balanced. You always have the choice whether or not you want to abuse those spells. I've got no sympathy for anyone who says, "Waaah, but I can't help it, wizards are too powerful!" because if you're playing an overpowered wizard, you're doing it by choice.

Not true. In fact, just about every single overpowering thing I've seen IG RL was unintentional. The very first time I used Polymorph on the table wasn't because it was powerful, it was because I was playing a character with a heavy shapechanging theme. Not everyone wants to play blasty wizards - powerful or no.

Unlike yourself, I have plenty of sympathy for people who see overpowering things IG and want to stop it. Saying "the game is balanced as long as you don't take options X Y or Z" doesn't solve anything as the options are still there and should be there so that not everyone has to play the game the exact same way WOTC wanted it. If I can't have non-blasty spells for my wizards or non-healing spells for my clerics then I'll look for other classes.

WarKitty
2010-12-26, 10:59 PM
It's actually hard to fill certain roles sometimes without becoming overpowered. I like playing a controller style character because I enjoy that kind of strategy and mess things up type of game. It lets me plan and analyze weaknesses and then exploit them in a unique way. But it's very hard to play a controller as the levels go up without rendering your friend who likes to play a fighter superfluous. Now, either way you go, you're telling one of us to not play the role we enjoy. I like playing a controller; he likes playing a beatstick. In 3.5 they just don't work that well together.

Callista
2010-12-27, 11:10 AM
So branch out into buffing and make him more useful. The fighter-types are played with the presumption that they've got magical backup; if they don't have it, of course they'll be useless.

ScionoftheVoid
2010-12-27, 11:31 AM
So branch out into buffing and make him more useful. The fighter-types are played with the presumption that they've got magical backup; if they don't have it, of course they'll be useless.

If some classes require help from others to be able to be something other than useless against supposedly level-appropriate encounters then I'd say that is a broken system. The party should ideally be roughly as effective whether or not they have casters, IMO. That 3.5 will slaughter a high-level party without full-casters (4, maybe 5, of the 11 Core classes) looks to me like 3.5 is kinda broken. That doesn't bother me much, because I think it has enough benefits to balance the downsides (and my players and I like casters), but it does bother other people. "If you play the game according to the standard guidelines without at one of these classes (which are in the minority), your party will/should not survive" doesn't seem like something you could say about a system that is not inherently broken. Just IMO, YMMV and all that.

Edit: And controlling is the other side of the buffing coin. They both do the same thing (balance the playing field, or when done more powerfully, tip the scales), buffing takes your side up and controlling the other side down. But if one player's contribution makes or breaks a conflict (which is what it sounds like, from the post you quoted)? That seems overpowered. And controlling isn't exactly an uncommon archetype or something the system doesn't support. Sleep, Entangle and Grease are all 1st level control spells, all Wall of X spells are control. Web, many illusions, all summons, Rock to Mud (and its opposite), Black Tentacles and others are all control spells. Controlling is a playstyle that makes the other characters effective, or at least brings opponents down to their level. The trouble is that controlling (and buffing, really) means that all other characters are essentially unskilled clean-up. Almost anyone else could do the same thing, and many would do it more effectively (casters, who can take down multiple foes at a time with no special dedication, where a weapon-user needs at least two feats) or would be able to help the process (also casters).

Tyrrell
2010-12-28, 12:51 PM
My favorite system is Ars Magica. In that game each player generally plays a mage and also a second string non-Gifted companion of some sort whose only function is to be a meat shield or a skilled expert on matters a mage shouldn't have to worry about. There's an honesty to that lack of pretense of any balance whatsoever that is very refreshing.

That's kind of a downer description of companions and not one that matches up with my games. Companions have just as important a role in the story as the magi do. More of my players favorite characters have been companions than have been magi. Not wielding the power of uber convenient magic doesn't mean having no purpose other than being a meat shield or a hired tool.

WarKitty
2010-12-28, 01:01 PM
So branch out into buffing and make him more useful. The fighter-types are played with the presumption that they've got magical backup; if they don't have it, of course they'll be useless.

Hence why I said "one of us can't play the role we enjoy." If I have to spend my energy buffing, I can't be doing control. Most buffs don't last that long, which means I would have to either anticipate combat reliably and cast buffs beforehand, or spend my first turn buffing. Control spells don't work that well if you can't get them cast in the first round. Persist spell gets around this, but then my top-level slots get eaten with that +4 cost. Hence I'm no longer playing a controller if I have to spend my energy buffing my friend up.

Grelna the Blue
2010-12-28, 02:01 PM
That's kind of a downer description of companions and not one that matches up with my games. Companions have just as important a role in the story as the magi do. More of my players favorite characters have been companions than have been magi. Not wielding the power of uber convenient magic doesn't mean having no purpose other than being a meat shield or a hired tool.

I suspect it's just the different games we play in. I've seen the potential for companions to be a lot more, but almost all of the exceptionally selfish and shortsighted magi in the two covenants I've had PCs at have treated their companions very badly, so the good companions tend to die or leave and the so-so ones have not been given sufficient opportunities to improve. That may be changing, as the last time I had the GM hat I allowed a number of the magi's past mistakes to catch up with them, but it's a little early to tell.

Regardless, balance beween casters and companions is barely attempted in Ars Magica. And by that barely, I refer only to the rule stating that if you play one of the exceptionally strong Faerie companions (who generally have their own magical abilities), it counts as a mage rather than a companion.

None of this has stopped me from having lots of fun with companions in Ars Magica too, but the game doesn't pretend that they are on an equal footing. Even their descriptive title, "companion", is a sign that the game is about the magic-slingers. Of course, the name of the game would also be a hefty hint.

However, because you get to play multiple characters in Ars Magica and the imbalance is out there front and center, the fact that companions don't measure up power-wise isn't really an issue. It's a feature of the game, not a bug. However, although in D&D you can have plenty of fun playing a lower tier class like a fighter, or a monk, or a bard, the pretense wears thin at higher levels that they are truly equal to their Tier 1 friends. I have seen one fighter's player who truly enjoyed playing her character as second fiddle to a cleric and resisted entering the limelight herself when the GM attempted to give her more face time. I don't think she was typical.

WarKitty
2010-12-28, 02:39 PM
As a Tier 1, it's frustrating to have to think about game balance during the game. Balance is fundamentally a metagame construct. Now, I'm not of the school where metagame concerns should never affect the game. But, when I sit down to an RPG, I want to get into the character. My character is going to look over his spell list, decide what's most effective, and cast it. Trying to worry about game balance tends to end up with my character holding the idiot ball all the time in-game, because there is absolutely no reason for my character to not use the most effective strategy. It's very jarring and means I don't get fully into my character.

true_shinken
2010-12-28, 02:48 PM
As a Tier 1, it's frustrating to have to think about game balance during the game.

Hm, don't play a tier 1 then. That's the whole point of tiers.

Starbuck_II
2010-12-28, 02:52 PM
As a Tier 1, it's frustrating to have to think about game balance during the game. Balance is fundamentally a metagame construct. Now, I'm not of the school where metagame concerns should never affect the game. But, when I sit down to an RPG, I want to get into the character. My character is going to look over his spell list, decide what's most effective, and cast it. Trying to worry about game balance tends to end up with my character holding the idiot ball all the time in-game, because there is absolutely no reason for my character to not use the most effective strategy. It's very jarring and means I don't get fully into my character.

You can avoid that take Shapeshift option for a Druid: More like Tier 2.
Wizard could become Mystic theurge to lower to Tier 2.

balistafreak
2010-12-28, 03:01 PM
My character is going to look over his spell list, decide what's most effective, and cast it. Trying to worry about game balance tends to end up with my character holding the idiot ball all the time in-game, because there is absolutely no reason for my character to not use the most effective strategy. It's very jarring and means I don't get fully into my character.

This.

Tier 1s are defined by their wide range of choice to solve a problem. Of course, selecting the most effective way to solve a problem requires intelligence. For an intelligent character (coughWizardcough) this is... not a problem. And so an intelligent character should play to maximize his power, because it's in character.

Put it this way: in real life, once your physical stats are enough to keep you from dying of a stubbed toe/runny nose, Intelligence is the most powerful statistic you can have. This comes full circle in D&D... intelligent players make ridiculous Wizards. :smallwink:


You can avoid that take Shapeshift option for a Druid: More like Tier 2.
Wizard could become Mystic theurge to lower to Tier 2.

Arguable - (6th level) Mystic Theurge is more like Tier 4 at any level less than 10th-12th, in my opinion, due to the loss of spell levels compared to the expected enemies you should be facing at that particular level. Early entry "cheese" by 4th level (Precocious Apprentice Wizard1/Cleric3/Mystic TheurgeX) makes it better, maybe Tier 3, but it still feels bad next to a Beguiler/Dread Necromancer.

Tankadin
2010-12-28, 03:08 PM
This.

Tier 1s are defined by their wide range of choice to solve a problem. Of course, selecting the most effective way to solve a problem requires intelligence. For an intelligent character (coughWizardcough) this is... not a problem. And so an intelligent character should play to maximize his power, because it's in character.

Put it this way: in real life, once your physical stats are enough to keep you from dying of a stubbed toe/runny nose, Intelligence is the most powerful statistic you can have. This comes full circle in D&D... intelligent players make ridiculous Wizards. :smallwink:

Then again, it isn't without its hazards. Near-paralyzing neuroses, paranoia, other mental health issues--these things can all happen to highly intelligent people. Ted Kaczynski was a brilliant mathematician.

You can maximize your power without ending an encounter with a spell or two. A highly paranoid wizard might always keep the problem-ending tool in reserve in case something really nasty comes up--I mean, that's happened to all of us with video game inventories, right? You could easily justify smart role-playing that way.

Thiyr
2010-12-28, 03:28 PM
So I just realized something. High int, depending on how you look at stats representing one's mental capacities, doesn't by itself reflect the whole "must cast effective spells". That almost seems more like a Wis thing by nature. Int tells you that, say, sleet storm is better than fireball. But it doesn't tell you those situations when sleet storm isn't the best choice. Almost the spot-search difference, the difference between taking your time to figure out where something is or just seeing it. So high int tells you to use a better spell than fireball, high wis tells you how to use fireball well (or whatever spell you've been given.)

Callista
2010-12-28, 03:41 PM
There's also the question of whether your DM has allowed you access to a spell. As things stand, your wizard only gets to research those spells he gets at new levels--the rest is entirely dependent on whether your DM lets him find or buy the spells. I think many of these issues with Tier 1 characters come from Tier 1 characters who have very unrealistic access to the totality of magic available in their campaign worlds.

Regarding "A smart caster should pick spells intelligently," that's true; but remember that PCs are not robots who dispassionately optimize themselves; they're characters in a world who are trying to do their best at what they do, and their personalities play into that. If your wizard loves the power of being able to directly kill people with magical force, then he's going to go blaster--intelligent blaster, but still a blaster. If, on the other hand, he's the sort of person who prefers to back up other people and work from behind the scenes, then chances are his style will lend itself to buffing/support.

A competent wizard or cleric will also be aware of the fact that he can only do so much (i.e., limited actions per round), and be working out ways to spread his power out across the party, effectively letting him use that power for more actions per turn. Also, he'll be aware that a spell cast on himself may be less useful than that same spell cast on someone else who can make better use of it (polymorphing the fighter > polymorphing the wizard). A powerful wizard who is trying to "optimize" himself, in-character, will be aware of the fact that the largest potential gain in power often involves making others more powerful, or making it possible for them to use power they already have, and acting through them.

I have never said, and will never say, that 3.5 is perfectly balanced; what I do claim is that the imbalance that exists is less extreme in practice than it is in theory.

WarKitty
2010-12-28, 03:44 PM
There's also the question of whether your DM has allowed you access to a spell. As things stand, your wizard only gets to research those spells he gets at new levels--the rest is entirely dependent on whether your DM lets him find or buy the spells. I think many of these issues with Tier 1 characters come from Tier 1 characters who have very unrealistic access to the totality of magic available in their campaign worlds.

Regarding "A smart caster should pick spells intelligently," that's true; but remember that PCs are not robots who dispassionately optimize themselves; they're characters in a world who are trying to do their best at what they do, and their personalities play into that. If your wizard loves the power of being able to directly kill people with magical force, then he's going to go blaster--intelligent blaster, but still a blaster. If, on the other hand, he's the sort of person who prefers to back up other people and work from behind the scenes, then chances are his style will lend itself to buffing/support.

A competent wizard or cleric will also be aware of the fact that he can only do so much (i.e., limited actions per round), and be working out ways to spread his power out across the party, effectively letting him use that power for more actions per turn. Also, he'll be aware that a spell cast on himself may be less useful than that same spell cast on someone else who can make better use of it. A powerful wizard who is trying to "optimize" himself, even in-game, will be aware of the fact that the largest potential gain in power often involves making others more powerful, or making it possible for them to use power they already have, and acting through them.

Personally I tend to play divine casters. So high wisdom and access to all spells. Generally high intelligence, because it's easier for me to play that way. At least at the levels I'm playing, casting buff spells is much less effective and uses up more spell slots than hitting with a control spells. Most of my control spells are AoE, so I can potentially hit the entire set of enemies with a single spell. This is almost universally more effective than casting a buff on a single fighter who can only hit one opponent.

As far as the smart caster: The original problem I mentioned wasn't just that casters get good spells. It's that I really love being a controller. I have a personal allergy to building a character that's mostly about direct damage. My style is to find the weak point on an opponent and exploit it. That's just the way I like to play - not just D&D, that's how I play computer games, board games, you name it. It's related to how I solve real life problems. So, naturally, a controller/debuffer is the way to go. It's just really hard to build one of those that isn't either overpowered or holding the idiot ball.

Callista
2010-12-28, 03:49 PM
You should be able to affect your entire party with buff spells... But battlefield control really works best when you're also taking account your friends' ability to fight the enemies whose day you just ruined. If you cast your spells in such a way that your friends can't take advantage of the effects too, then you're not really using all your resources.

WarKitty
2010-12-28, 03:54 PM
You should be able to affect your entire party with buff spells... But battlefield control really works best when you're also taking account your friends' ability to fight the enemies whose day you just ruined. If you cast your spells in such a way that your friends can't take advantage of the effects too, then you're not really using all your resources.

What level are you playing? I haven't managed to get to the levels where you have the mass versions of anything. And I do take advantage of what my friends can do, but it's still boring for the fighter to be shooting at a trapped enemy that can't hit him back effectively, especially when he can't use his sword. After all, if I can trap everyone so we can snipe at them safely until they die, why should I open the rest of the party to getting hit just so the swordswinger can get in? Then we'd have to burn resources healing.

Edit: My preferred class is druid. There's not a lot of really good mass buff spells afaik.

Grelna the Blue
2010-12-28, 05:51 PM
There's also the question of whether your DM has allowed you access to a spell. As things stand, your wizard only gets to research those spells he gets at new levels--the rest is entirely dependent on whether your DM lets him find or buy the spells. I think many of these issues with Tier 1 characters come from Tier 1 characters who have very unrealistic access to the totality of magic available in their campaign worlds.

Excellent point. Aside from the increase in WBL (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/arcaneSpells.htm) for every spell added to a mage's spellbook (given that a completely filled 100 page standard spellbook is only worth 5000 gp, this small increase is negligible when compared to the increase in power), so far as I know there is no guidance provided to players or GMs in this regard. I think that is unfortunate. Only a couple weeks ago I started a thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=179517) asking whether anyone had seen any resources that might help a GM and player know what number of spells in a wizard's spellbook was appropriate. In the few responses, no one listed any they had seen.

WarKitty
2010-12-28, 06:16 PM
Excellent point. Aside from the increase in WBL (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/arcaneSpells.htm) for every spell added to a mage's spellbook (given that a completely filled 100 page standard spellbook is only worth 5000 gp, this small increase is negligible when compared to the increase in power), so far as I know there is no guidance provided to players or GMs in this regard. I think that is unfortunate. Only a couple weeks ago I started a thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=179517) asking whether anyone had seen any resources that might help a GM and player know what number of spells in a wizard's spellbook was appropriate. In the few responses, no one listed any they had seen.

Still doesn't affect the cleric or druid though.

Grelna the Blue
2010-12-28, 06:35 PM
Still doesn't affect the cleric or druid though.

Very true. Where a mage is restricted by spells known, clerics and druids are really only restricted by the class flavor. The GM potentially has clerics on a tighter leash then any other type of PC other than paladins. It's not as if the power clerics get is supposed to come free, after all. The gods expect their servants to work their will with that power, not use it to the clerics' own ends. However, many GMs sort of skate right over the whole idea that clerics have a specifically religious duty and druids generally get a free pass, no matter how unrelated their adventures might be to protecting nature or "the balance".

Regardless, there aren't that many Tier 1 classes. Helping GMs to make even one of them more playable is still a worthwhile goal.

WarKitty
2010-12-28, 06:48 PM
Very true. Where a mage is restricted by spells known, clerics and druids are really only restricted by the class flavor. The GM potentially has clerics on a tighter leash then any other type of PC other than paladins. It's not as if the power clerics get is supposed to come free, after all. The gods expect their servants to work their will with that power, not use it to the clerics' own ends. However, many GMs sort of skate right over the whole idea that clerics have a specifically religious duty and druids generally get a free pass, no matter how unrelated their adventures might be to protecting nature or "the balance".

Regardless, there aren't that many Tier 1 classes. Helping GMs to make even one of them more playable is still a worthwhile goal.

True. Although I've seen this one work the other way too. I shudder to think what would happen if my DM tried to enforce rules on a cleric that I was playing. I play chaotic good characters, and he has a very lawful mind with difficulty separating the lawful from the good. I find a lot of what he thinks of as good to be just stupid or outright suicidal. He finds a lot of what I think of as good to be neutral or self-interested.

And that's ignoring the three-day debate on druids and zombies. It just wasn't making sense to me why I should object to them.

Grelna the Blue
2010-12-28, 09:05 PM
True. Although I've seen this one work the other way too. I shudder to think what would happen if my DM tried to enforce rules on a cleric that I was playing. I play chaotic good characters, and he has a very lawful mind with difficulty separating the lawful from the good. I find a lot of what he thinks of as good to be just stupid or outright suicidal. He finds a lot of what I think of as good to be neutral or self-interested.

And that's ignoring the three-day debate on druids and zombies. It just wasn't making sense to me why I should object to them.

When people IRL have difficulty recognizing that some of their problems discussing morality come from assuming that everyone is on the same side of the deontological/teleological debate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontological_ethics), there isn't much hope that this won't be an issue in the game. A GM could theoretically decree by fiat that the religious doctrine of any given faith on right and wrong was deontological, but that just lampshades the issue.

Zombies, OTOH, pose a moral question that should be relatively cut and dried, although the answers could justifiably be different across campaigns. As with any action that is impossible in our world, GMs should decide whether or not creating them is or is not intrinsically evil in every case and, if so, why it is.

In one of my campaigns I established it as a fact knowable with a successful Knowledge: Planes or Knowledge: Religion check that the Negative Energy Plane literally was the god of Entropy and Destruction, who wished to end all creation. All undead in that campaign acted as siphons draining the life force of the world into this world-destroying deity. Their unlife was powered by the world's life force streaming through them on its way to hungry nothingness. As such, to create undead was not only an act of homage to that dark god, it created a wound in the world itself. But that was a local ruling, just for that campaign. In another campaign it might be an issue of respect for honored ancestors, in which case it'd be ethically fine to animate animals, monsters, or miscreants. In yet another hypothetical world, it might be the case that one or more gods had forbidden it. For followers of those gods, it would be evil (Divine Command Theory), while for followers of other gods it might not be a moral issue at all and instead just an occasionally aesthetic issue (no one likes the smell of dead bodies) except when they came into conflict with the people upset by the practice.

Unfortunately, the game has traditionally posed issues like this in which an action's immorality sometimes seems to boil down to visceral revulsion on the part of a game designer without any part of an underlying justification for a prohibition made explicit (poison use would be another example).

WarKitty
2010-12-28, 09:27 PM
Lawful DM and chaotic player try to agree on what constitutes good. Hilarity ensues.

Popertop
2010-12-28, 09:59 PM
Lawful DM and chaotic player try to agree on what constitutes good. Hilarity ensues.

I smell a sitcom!

One of the issues I have that is also involved in this issue is WBL.

Fighter types have to spend SO MUCH of it to not be totally
useless when anything remotely hard to deal with happens.
And most of it is spend just duplicating spells.

The only solution I can see is limiting spellcasting (either by spell access, or by adding drawbacks to make it more dangerous) and cutting some of the WBL, but somehow still giving a fighter his toys.

EDIT: Thanks Grenla, for these well written posts, I enjoyed reading them.

Grelna the Blue
2010-12-29, 01:04 AM
I smell a sitcom!

One of the issues I have that is also involved in this issue is WBL.

Fighter types have to spend SO MUCH of it to not be totally
useless when anything remotely hard to deal with happens.
And most of it is spend just duplicating spells.

Regarding WBL, the rules allow casters with Craft Item feats to bend or break the curve. Non-casters don't get that option (well, in PF they can, but it's a lot more chancy and involves skill checks they can easily fail). GMs can attempt to keep PCs from benefiting from Craft feats, but only by punishing players for choosing abilities it is logical for them to take. If a player knows his GM will do that, then the feats are an attractive trap. If a player knows his GM will not, then (at least in 3.5) the scales are tipped even farther against non-casters.


The only solution I can see is limiting spellcasting (either by spell access, or by adding drawbacks to make it more dangerous) and cutting some of the WBL, but somehow still giving a fighter his toys.

I didn't care for the way they implemented the mechanics of 4th Ed. I bought the books, tried it a few times with friends, and decided it wasn't for me (as did everyone else in my gaming circle). However, one thing I thought was a promising idea was giving the different classes at will, encounter, and daily abilities. The problem in 3.5 is that fighters, rogues, monks et al have a bunch of weak at-will abilities, and some weak to moderate encounter abilities that are situational (Great Cleave, Sneak Attack, Stunning Fist, etc) and affect either a single opponent or a small number of them. Meanwhile, the casters in Tiers 1 and 2 have a very large number of weak to OMG-powerful dailies, and when they run out or even come close the whole party usually collaborates to give them the time they need to recover them.

There is a semblance of balance in that the non-casters can do what they do forever and the casters only last as long as their spells, but as the non-casters generally won't (can't) go on without healing or spell support, in reality that balance is illusory any time the party is not forced to regularly push past its casters' limits, giving the noncasters their chance to shine.


EDIT: Thanks Grenla, for these well written posts, I enjoyed reading them.

Obviously, I enjoyed writing them, so I have to thank you for raising the subject.

Popertop
2010-12-29, 01:57 AM
There is a semblance of balance in that the non-casters can do what they do forever and the casters only last as long as their spells, but as the non-casters generally won't (can't) go on without healing or spell support, in reality that balance is illusory any time the party is not forced to regularly push past its casters' limits, giving the noncasters their chance to shine.

That's what people bring up when you say the casters are too strong, but I haven't ever seen a caster on their last leg, and anything hard enough to push them that far is likely to kill the non-casters much faster.

MeeposFire
2010-12-29, 02:38 AM
I ave found that most of my optimizers have to do the most optimizing on lower tier characters. The upper tier characters did not have to do much outside of picking spells. They did not have to go nuts. The lower tier characters were doing all the "unbalancing" things and they were still weaker than the unoptimized tier 1s.

Now in 4th ed while the encounter and daily powers make combat more interesting they are not the biggest reasons why 4e has less of these problems. The two largest reasons were toning down the power of spells (spells in 3.5 can change the world and reality 4e "spells" do not) and the strong connection to having a party role (so even if you do not deal the most damage you could still be useful to a party since you bring other abilities like leading or control).

Grelna the Blue
2010-12-29, 02:54 AM
Then again, it isn't without its hazards. Near-paralyzing neuroses, paranoia, other mental health issues--these things can all happen to highly intelligent people. Ted Kaczynski was a brilliant mathematician.

You can maximize your power without ending an encounter with a spell or two. A highly paranoid wizard might always keep the problem-ending tool in reserve in case something really nasty comes up--I mean, that's happened to all of us with video game inventories, right? You could easily justify smart role-playing that way.

+1.

I have my 11th level mage/2nd level rogue take at least one Teleport and 2 Dimension Doors every day, at least 2 of those spells Silenced. She also spends at least one of her precious 6th level slots on Superior Resistance (+6 resistance bonus to saves for 24 hours). Often she spends two and buffs another PC as well. She typically takes False Life twice, Mage Armor twice, and Feather Fall, Fly, Shield and Secure Shelter at least once. She frequently also takes Resist Energy. So in part because the character is somewhat paranoid (having seen how effective anti-caster tactics can be from having devised and used them herself), she has a greatly reduced offensive/utility spell capacity. She very rarely really needs all the defense spells I typically load her down with, but the way she sees it, any time the party is going into a serious fight, if it's a short one she won't need many offensive spells anyway and if it's long she's going to want all the protection she can get. Because so much of her daily capacity is committed, she can only significantly contribute in about 2-3 serious fights a day, so she holds back on the minor encounters. And as far as feats go, she is barely optimized, and that only on defense.

And still, even with all that self-nerfing, the only person in the party who even comes close to her in effectiveness is the party cleric.

Psyx
2010-12-29, 06:20 AM
this is... not a problem. And so an intelligent character should play to maximize his power, because it's in character.


Someone needs to come up with a pithy name for this fallacy, because it gets bought out to play nearly as much as Stormwind.

People generally do not min-max every aspect of their real life. They don't neglect to walk their dog because it's more effective to cram Japanese. They don't not bother to learn to dance because it's more XP effective to put some extra time into acrobatic lessons.
Even very ambitious people do things they like to do regardless of effectiveness, and 'waste' portions of their time on trivial hobbies and interests. Even near-perfect very successful people have faults and make mistakes in their life and career choices.

Ruthlessly optimising isn't good roleplaying. Such a line is generally a poor justification for optimisation. Ruthless optimisation is very seldom good roleplaying.

Often, an optimised choice might have a good story justification tacked on afterwards, but that never made it a roleplaying choice. Just an optimisation one that's been IC-justified. Heck: I do it, too.





Put it this way: in real life, once your physical stats are enough to keep you from dying of a stubbed toe/runny nose, Intelligence is the most powerful statistic you can have.

Lots of very successful people/Emperors/dictators would point out that Charisma -the eternal dump-stat- is probably a better bet.

Psyx
2010-12-29, 06:26 AM
Then again, it isn't without its hazards. Near-paralyzing neuroses, paranoia, other mental health issues--these things can all happen to highly intelligent people. Ted Kaczynski was a brilliant mathematician.

You can maximize your power without ending an encounter with a spell or two. A highly paranoid wizard might always keep the problem-ending tool in reserve in case something really nasty comes up--I mean, that's happened to all of us with video game inventories, right? You could easily justify smart role-playing that way.


This.

Of course, it's less optimised if that blistering Intelligence comes with a negative aspect. And why deliberately take any kind of flaw unless you're getting a feat for it...?

High Intelligence is not a justification for always following the 'best' metagame path.

Coidzor
2010-12-29, 07:13 AM
Someone needs to come up with a pithy name for this fallacy, because it gets bought out to play nearly as much as Stormwind.

Eh, it has a point, to a point. If one's life is often on the line in a life and death struggle(so, the setup the characters deal with in most games of D&D), then a rational actor will work to maximize his or her chance of staying alive. So most intelligent characters that have the necessary knowledge to make the connections in the first place will see why Choice A is more likely to keep them alive than Choice B, and so they'll be more likely to choose that one.


People generally do not min-max every aspect of their real life. They don't neglect to walk their dog because it's more effective to cram Japanese. They don't not bother to learn to dance because it's more XP effective to put some extra time into acrobatic lessons.
Even very ambitious people do things they like to do regardless of effectiveness, and 'waste' portions of their time on trivial hobbies and interests. Even near-perfect very successful people have faults and make mistakes in their life and career choices.

A bit of a false dichotomy. The example here seems to be more along the lines of practicing one's marksmanship instead of mastering close-quarters combat because one is going to be fighting at a distance much, much more often and being able to hit the enemy before they close to melee range prevents their CQC abilities from being a realized threat. Or choosing to neglect one's studies of courtly virtues and manners while on military campaign in favor of tactics and strategy.

Or if one had the ability to do so, dumping the space occupied by table manners and fine etiquette in order to learn how to survive in the wild without others to feed one's self.

That, and most games aren't meant to model real life that closely. You'd have to have a lot more skills and skill points to even begin to come close.

I hate it too, but even the skillful characters get too few skillpoints to fulfill their stated roles and spend skillpoints on redundant skills or skills that will never see use in the campaign.


You can maximize your power without ending an encounter with a spell or two. A highly paranoid wizard might always keep the problem-ending tool in reserve in case something really nasty comes up--I mean, that's happened to all of us with video game inventories, right? You could easily justify smart role-playing that way.

So what's your point? :smallconfused: Ending the encounter with minimal spell expenditure is the key to keeping spells in reserve in order to have spells on call in case something really nasty turns up. Unless the wizard doesn't want to cast any spells and wants to have the oh so pleasurable experience of going back to her roots and plinking away with a crossbow.

If it can be accomplished in such a way so as to have other players have fun and also keep from needing too many additional resources expended to get the party back to combat readiness, well, that's probably the ideal.

Saying all intelligent people are insane is not a very good patch for the power of casters. Especially not when it's so alien to the base system.

2xMachina
2010-12-29, 07:41 AM
People generally do not min-max every aspect of their real life. They don't neglect to walk their dog because it's more effective to cram Japanese. They don't not bother to learn to dance because it's more XP effective to put some extra time into acrobatic lessons.
Even very ambitious people do things they like to do regardless of effectiveness, and 'waste' portions of their time on trivial hobbies and interests. Even near-perfect very successful people have faults and make mistakes in their life and career choices.

Ruthlessly optimising isn't good roleplaying. Such a line is generally a poor justification for optimisation. Ruthless optimisation is very seldom good roleplaying.


You know what I'd love to do in RL? Ruthlessly optimize every last inch of my life.

Alas, I do not have the ability/willpower to do so.

EDIT: What fun it would be to have the most optimum path. Minimum amount of study for good grades. Minimum grades for an optimum life. Minimum exercise and be healthy. Minimum sleep and still not sleepy. Live as much life I could ever do. Be the best as I can ever be.

I wouldn't even mind a higher being controlling me onto that path. The optimization of my life would be more fun, but watching it work is a close 2nd.

Psyx
2010-12-29, 08:54 AM
If one's life is often on the line in a life and death struggle(so, the setup the characters deal with in most games of D&D), then a rational actor will work to maximize his or her chance of staying alive.

I'm afraid that history is scattered with hundreds of rich examples to the contrary. A lot of very rational people are dead or screwed up their lives because they did not make the optimal life choice; be it not cleaning their rifle, getting drunk when they should have been revising, or whatever.*



A bit of a false dichotomy.

/chuckle. I was waiting for that. It's as nearly as hackneyed a phrase on here as Stormwind.


Or choosing to neglect one's studies of courtly virtues and manners while on military campaign in favor of tactics and strategy.

Or choosing to completely neglect learning manners or indeed any hobby at all for one's entire formative life because it won't be optimal when the town is unexpectedly swept up in an elemental magic wind, forcing one into a life of adventure at some point in the future. Because that's about how ridiculous skill-point expenditure normally is...

Or to cut to the real world: How many of us -during formative years- actually sat and studied solidly while we were supposed to be doing so and achieved ace grades, got scholarships at a top university and relentlessly studied there, because it was 'optimum' for life?

Or didn't bother learning to play pool because it was more important to be able to spend some extra time memorising the Periodic Table?



I hate it too, but even the skillful characters get too few skillpoints to fulfill their stated roles and spend skillpoints on redundant skills or skills that will never see use in the campaign.


We agree that's a problem with the system. Now give your group of new players another 30 skill points each at first level, and let's see where they spend it. Most will have the decency to 'round' characters out with life skills. Some people will continue to ruthlessly optimise. Some people will have the gall to call that 'good roleplaying'.

Kudos to the first group. As to the second: Some will always consider RPGs to be a competitive sport - that's their choice. It's the third group that are generally either deluding themselves or trying to fool others.



Saying all intelligent people are insane is not a very good patch for the power of casters. Especially not when it's so alien to the base system.

Wizards being 'eccentric' is in no way particularly alien to the genre. It's just not optimal because you don't get anything extra for it mechanically**. And sometimes that is pretty alien to the D&D 'genre'. /pessimism


You know what I'd love to do in RL? Ruthlessly optimize every last inch of my life.

No more fun for you, then. For sadly our society does not measure our worth nor 'level' by how many times we laugh each day...



*Me, for example. Well: I'm not dead. But I've not achieved half of what I should have done, despite being fairly clever.

**Just in terms of roleplay experience and in maybe creating a character the GM likes and sympathises with. Most optimisers are frankly rubbish at it because they fail to do it properly: You success in an RPG is dependant on one thing and one thing only: The GM. They trump all rules. So creating an 'unkillable' character that the GM hates and wants to remove from the game isn't optimising at all. Creating a character that the GM likes and favours is far more useful, and far more optimal.

Coidzor
2010-12-29, 09:09 AM
I'm afraid that history is scattered with hundreds of rich examples to the contrary. A lot of very rational people are dead or screwed up their lives because they did not make the optimal life choice; be it not cleaning their rifle, getting drunk when they should have been revising, or whatever.

We can't really know how many of those people actually were rational actors.

And I'm kind of horrified by the idea of revising as a life and death situation.


I was waiting for that. It's as nearly as hackneyed a phrase on here as Stormwind.

Well, that might just be because there's a ring of truth to it. :smallwink:


Or to cut to the real world: How many of us -during formative years- actually sat and studied solidly while we were supposed to be doing so and achieved ace grades, got scholarships at a top university and relentlessly studied there, because it was 'optimum' for life?

Humans, during their formative years, are not rational actors.


Or choosing to completely neglect learning manners or indeed any hobby at all for one's entire formative life because it won't be optimal when the town is unexpectedly swept up in an elemental magic wind, forcing one into a life of adventure at some point in the future. Because that's about how ridiculous skill-point expenditure normally is...

Heck, if you want to get into that, the skill system doesn't even cover that much of a character's life, its immersement covers, maybe, the equivalent of the basic technical training of the class. And really, your complaint here is more about the nature of the skill system.


We agree that's a problem with the system. Now give your group of new players another 30 skill points each at first level, and let's see where they spend it. Most will have the decency to 'round' characters out with life skills. Some people will continue to ruthlessly optimise. Some people will have the gall to call that 'good roleplaying'.

Ok, I think you've set the ceiling too low on "ruthlessly optimise," here. :smallconfused: And appear to be passing judgment on others' playstyles as morally inferior to your own, which is a problematic assertion to say the least. I mean, if you think picking useful skills that contribute to the characters' ability to fulfill its role in the game as "ruthlessly optimizing," then I don't think any common ground can be reached between us.


Wizards being 'eccentric' is in no way particularly alien to the genre. It's just not optimal. And sometimes that is pretty alien to the D&D 'genre'. /pessimism

Wizards being eccentric and anyone of above average intelligence being crippled by neuroses or insane or otherwise told how they have to act or behave by the DM because the DM doesn't want to deal with the players' having as much room on their leash as the big stupid fighter are two different things.

WarKitty
2010-12-29, 09:20 AM
Honestly, I don't consider picking the best spell for the job to "ruthlessly optimizing." If I'm faced with a problem in real life, the first thing i do is sit down and figure out the best way to approach it. And frankly most of what I do doesn't have that much on the line. If I were routinely placed in life and death situations like adventurers are, I would devote more time to figuring out the best approach and using it. I'm a divine caster, choosing different spells isn't exactly a huge expenditure of my time and energy.

Re: Insanity - that's what I meant by saying the caster ends up with the idiot ball to not e overpowered. Holding the idiot ball all the time isn't much fun either. Most of the flaw or "roleplaying a less powerful character" suggestions I hear also fall into this category. Never seen it done in a way that wouldn't make me want to strangle the character if I was playing with them. Not good roleplaying there.

Psyx
2010-12-29, 09:33 AM
Of course, the burden is on you to prove that they were actually rational actors.

/sigh.
Seriously? Because you're just trying to hide within the walls of false logic here. Saying 'prove it' doesn't make you right. Look around you: You are completely surrounded by people making non-optimal choices. Like waffling on this forum instead of memorising more stats from the MM3, for example. By being here, debating this topic you are being what you'd call a non-rational actor.



Humans, during their formative years, are not rational actors.


So why are 3.5 PC's first level skill points invariably spent optimally by those same people claiming that optimal choices are 'good roleplay'. You've just shot down a line of argument there... and not one of mine, either.

And I would debate the fact anyway. An eighteen year old is a rational actor, yet still just starting to learn vocational skills. Psychology kinda disagrees with you, too if you want me to get away from my own opinions.



And really, your complaint here is more about the nature of the skill system.


The skill system is duff, but that aside:
We all know that however generous and 'realistic' the skill system is, some will ruthlessly optimise it, and elect to take no 'life skills'.
Some of those people will claim it to be good roleplaying.



Ok, I think you've set the ceiling too low on "ruthlessly optimise," here. :smallconfused: And appear to be passing judgment on others' playstyles as morally inferior to your own, which is a problematic assertion to say the least.

If my assertion that ruthlessly optimising a character from the ground up and then saying 'it's good roleplaying, because that's what people would do' ISN'T good roleplaying is in some way problematic then...

Erm... actually, it's not problematic at all. If that's the least that can be said about it, then what's the most? That I am a horrible tyrant?



I mean, if you think picking useful skills that contribute to the characters' ability to fulfill its role in the game as "ruthlessly optimizing," then I don't think any common ground can be reached between us.


Darn. No sleep again for me tonight. :(

No, I don't think that. I'm not sure where that idea was plucked from. I min-max (or optimise as it's called these days... can't beat a good re-branding to reinstate brand image!) as well. It's just that I like to firstly temper it with a touch of consideration for humanity in adding a bit of characterisation, and secondly would never have the pure gall to pick ALL the best options and then try to defend it as good roleplaying.





Wizards being eccentric and anyone of above average intelligence being crippled by neuroses or insane or otherwise delegated in how they have to act or behave by the DM because the DM doesn't want to deal with the players' having as much room on their leash as the big stupid fighter are two different things.

:smallconfused:

Not every wizard is insane or crippled by neuroses. Although I can see it being quite common. However, some people seem never to WANT to play anything other than THE BEST[tm] and never bother with such characterisation.

WarKitty
2010-12-29, 09:59 AM
/sigh.
Seriously? Because you're just trying to hide within the walls of false logic here. Saying 'prove it' doesn't make you right. Look around you: You are completely surrounded by people making non-optimal choices. Like waffling on this forum instead of memorising more stats from the MM3, for example. By being here, debating this topic you are being what you'd call a non-rational actor.

If it's like most characters I've seen, stuff like playing games and having a nice chat are presumed to occur offscreen. Being on this forum doesn't give me anything that would go on my character sheet.



So why are 3.5 PC's first level skill points invariably spent optimally by those same people claiming that optimal choices are 'good roleplay'. You've just shot down a line of argument there... and not one of mine, either.

I always assumed the first level was more analogous to your first year or two of training, not the early years of your life. There's some overlap, but most of the stuff kids do wouldn't make it onto a character sheet.


And I would debate the fact anyway. An eighteen year old is a rational actor, yet still just starting to learn vocational skills. Psychology kinda disagrees with you, too if you want me to get away from my own opinions.

Personally I think this one is covered by "you're an adventurer." The kid that slacked off in his studies isn't likely to be the adventurer. You're out there because you're that focused. Oh there might be a few exceptions, but not a lot. And anyway, if your character spent a year off drinking and wenching, what's the difference on his sheet going to be?


The skill system is duff, but that aside:
We all know that however generous and 'realistic' the skill system is, some will ruthlessly optimise it, and elect to take no 'life skills'.
Some of those people will claim it to be good roleplaying.

Eh, I haven't found that many life skills as options in the skill system. Maybe the craft and profession checks, but usually the characters that would take those are the ones without the skill points to spare.


If my assertion that ruthlessly optimising a character from the ground up and then saying 'it's good roleplaying, because that's what people would do' ISN'T good roleplaying is in some way problematic then...

Erm... actually, it's not problematic at all. If that's the least that can be said about it, then what's the most? That I am a horrible tyrant?




Darn. No sleep again for me tonight. :(

No, I don't think that. I'm not sure where that idea was plucked from. I min-max (or optimise as it's called these days... can't beat a good re-branding to reinstate brand image!) as well. It's just that I like to firstly temper it with a touch of consideration for humanity in adding a bit of characterisation, and secondly would never have the pure gall to pick ALL the best options and then try to defend it as good roleplaying.

If I remember correctly, where we started was that in an unoptimized party a Tier 1 can still make the others feel useless. The character in question - yes I selected the best spells I could. I also stuck the character with a totally unnecessary code of conduct and spent skill points on a couple of skills I didn't need. It wasn't a completely optimized character by any means.

Edit: Honestly, I wasn't even picking spells by the best thing out there. I decided to play a controller because that was the style that best suited my character. I was not at the time aware of how broken it could be at the levels we were playing. I chose a type of spell that looked fun and then picked out all the spells that fit that type.



:smallconfused:

Not every wizard is insane or crippled by neuroses. Although I can see it being quite common. However, some people seem never to WANT to play anything other than THE BEST[tm] and never bother with such characterisation.

Eh, my problem with neuroses is they always seem to end up taking up a ridiculous amount of game time when frankly no one else wants to deal with them. That or turning the character into a joke character when it's not appropriate.

Coidzor
2010-12-29, 10:08 AM
Part 1:
By being here, debating this topic you are being what you'd call a non-rational actor.

We all are. That's what the internet is for. That and a number of more unsavory activities. Like commerce. :smalleek:


So why are 3.5 PC's first level skill points invariably spent optimally by those same people claiming that optimal choices are 'good roleplay'. You've just shot down a line of argument there... and not one of mine, either.

Or am I merely showing that few humans are actually rational actors? *shrug* But really, why should the rarity of humans that are rational prevent the PCs, who many accept to be exceptional and above the human(or goblin) norm, from being rational actors, at least as well as the humans playing them can approximate?


And I would debate the fact anyway. An eighteen year old is a rational actor, yet still just starting to learn vocational skills. Psychology kinda disagrees with you, too if you want me to get away from my own opinions.

Ah, but an 18 year old human is out of its formative years. I thought we were talking about children here. But, even in the case of 18 year olds, all of the psychological and neurochemical data I've been exposed to have supported the idea that humans aren't at peak rationality and command of their mental faculties until they're in their early mid twenties.

But human PCs don't start training at 18, they start training much younger than that, by the table.

...And elves start at like... gah....x,x Why did I have to think of elves? :smallfrown:


The skill system is duff, but that aside:
We all know that however generous and 'realistic' the skill system is, some will ruthlessly optimise it, and elect to take no 'life skills'.
Some of those people will claim it to be good roleplaying.

And what do you define as a life skill? Most of the things that my definition would qualify are handwaved by virtue of not being covered by the existing skill structure. Offhand I can think of Profession: Cook being required to cook food.

Part 2:


If my assertion that ruthlessly optimising a character from the ground up and then saying 'it's good roleplaying, because that's what people would do' ISN'T good roleplaying is in some way problematic then...

Yes, it is, because of where you set the ceiling for your use of the term. If you apply it to so minor a thing, the term "ruthlessly optimize" loses all meaning. That, and you're not going to be speaking the same language as those you address more often than not.


No, I don't think that. I'm not sure where that idea was plucked from.

Because you applied the term "ruthlessly optimizing" to "picking useful skills that contribute to the character's ability to fulfill its game role."

So that is where I "plucked" the idea from.
I min-max (or optimise as it's called these days... can't beat a good re-branding to reinstate brand image!) as well. It's just that I like to firstly temper it with a touch of consideration for humanity in adding a bit of characterisation, and secondly would never have the pure gall to pick ALL the best options and then try to defend it as good roleplaying.

Indeed, character generation isn't and shouldn't be a roleplaying exercise. Your character is not making your character. You are. It'd take too long, for one, and run the risk of all subplots focusing on a single player of leaving the rest of the group bored and/or annoyed at twiddling their thumbs. Now, exposition and the backstory of the character can definitely aid in roleplaying, but are not actually roleplaying themselves.

And what is the problem with taking the best options available to one's self to build the character that one wants such that one has to defend it?

How is one harming humanity by not adding a bit of characterization? How do you know that the norm for character generation lacks even a bit of characterization?


Not every wizard is insane or crippled by neuroses. Although I can see it being quite common. However, some people seem never to WANT to play anything other than THE BEST[tm] and never bother with such characterisation.

Because a lot of people don't like being reminded of insanity, don't want to play insane characters, and find that insane characters might just be a tad offensive to people who actually have ties to those who are mentally ill or they themselves deal with such conditions. Mental illness is one of those areas which, from what I've seen, if it's thought about at all, is seen as one of those areas to tread more carefully in. Which isn't really accomplished by DM fiat dictating that people of a certain intelligence become progressively hobbled in arbitrary ways. If people wanna play that way, yeah, they'll play that way. I said what I did on it in the first place in response to a perceived assertion that such a houserule would be a good patch for the power discrepancy between casters and non-casters.

And yeah, some people do play the game to be idealized and "the best." That's one component of what fantasy is, the escapism angle. What's wrong with it as long as they get along in the group and game?

Edit: wow, this is getting pretty monstrous. x.x

The Big Dice
2010-12-29, 10:08 AM
The kid that slacked off in his studies isn't likely to be the adventurer. You're out there because you're that focused. Oh there might be a few exceptions, but not a lot. And anyway, if your character spent a year off drinking and wenching, what's the difference on his sheet going to be?
I'd say the exact opposite. Who wants to be the guy who spends thousands on a cloak rather than a home? Adventurers all have one thing in common: they leave their homes and rarely if ever go back. That's not a sign of someone who is focused, other than them being focused on escaping whatever happened in their past.

Think about it rationally, who wants to live on the road and travel the world looking for new and even more dangerous things that will at best try to kill you and eat you, and the worst things you will face are literally the stuff of nightmares.

The post traumatic stress disorder levels among adventurers should be off the charts.


Eh, my problem with neuroses is they always seem to end up taking up a ridiculous amount of game time when frankly no one else wants to deal with them. That or turning the character into a joke character when it's not appropriate.
Roleplaying takes up an inordinate amount of time? In a roleplaying game?

On a slightly more serious note, D&D doesn't have a system that supports character psychology particularly well. Points buy systems like GURPS and L5R tend to give you points back for Disadvantages. Which is a way of getting a mechanical return for the way you play your character.

A favourite idea of mine comes from GURPS. The Berserker with Post Combat Shakes. The guy sometimes goes into a killing frenzy in combat,but it's not a side of his personality he's proud of. And when he comes to his senses after a rampage, he gets sick over the thought of what he became and what he did.

D&D would treat that as a Barbarian getting Fatigued after his Rage ends. I know which way I think has more depth.

true_shinken
2010-12-29, 10:10 AM
If I remember correctly, where we started was that in an unoptimized party a Tier 1 can still make the others feel useless.
I'll have to mention this again - it's obvious this will happen. This is the whole point of the tier system, to prevent this from happening. Just don't play a Druid.
You want a lesser nature-focused 'controller'? Play a Shugenja.
You want wildshape and melee focus? Play a wildshape ranger.
Druid is overpowered. That much is common knowledge. Of course you can't optimize a Druid in a non-tier 1 party. So either tone it down or don't play a Druid. What's the problem here?

Coidzor
2010-12-29, 10:14 AM
Roleplaying takes up an inordinate amount of time? In a roleplaying game?

I think the idea is that it's a cheap and annoying way for one player to intentionally or inadvertently hog the spotlight and attention to the point where all of the warts and flaws become annoyingly and glaringly obvious.

WarKitty
2010-12-29, 10:22 AM
I'd say the exact opposite. Who wants to be the guy who spends thousands on a cloak rather than a home? Adventurers all have one thing in common: they leave their homes and rarely if ever go back. That's not a sign of someone who is focused, other than them being focused on escaping whatever happened in their past.

Think about it rationally, who wants to live on the road and travel the world looking for new and even more dangerous things that will at best try to kill you and eat you, and the worst things you will face are literally the stuff of nightmares.

That's actually only one archetype of adventurers. I've played a character that literally got sucked through a portal and ended up having to complete an adventure to get home. I've played a character for whom adventuring was considered a rite of passage. Each of these will have different backgrounds and different levels of focus.


The post traumatic stress disorder levels among adventurers should be off the charts.

Actually, ptsd tends to lead to people being more focused on survival skills at the expense of other skills that are unrelated.



Roleplaying takes up an inordinate amount of time? In a roleplaying game?

You've never played with a drama queen, have you? Or the person who insists on bringing a joke character in when no one else wants to be silly? The problem isn't roleplaying, the problem is excessive roleplaying that brings the attention onto a single character at the expense of the others and/or is disruptive to the rest of the group. Share the spotlight.


On a slightly more serious note, D&D doesn't have a system that supports character psychology particularly well. Points buy systems like GURPS and L5R tend to give you points back for Disadvantages. Which is a way of getting a mechanical return for the way you play your character.

A favourite idea of mine comes from GURPS. The Berserker with Post Combat Shakes. The guy sometimes goes into a killing frenzy in combat,but it's not a side of his personality he's proud of. And when he comes to his senses after a rampage, he gets sick over the thought of what he became and what he did.

D&D would treat that as a Barbarian getting Fatigued after his Rage ends. I know which way I think has more depth.

This brings me to my other point. I actually find its easier to roleplay a more optimized and/or higher tier character. I have more abilities and more skill points to make my character actually have the skill to do the things his backstory and personality suggest he ought to do. I want to be a former military officer? Don't play a fighter, you don't have the skill points to spend on knowledge about siege engines.

@ true_shinken: I didn't know how much of a problem it would be at that level until we were too far into the game to change my character. Yes I was aware of the Tier system. I was under the impression that it didn't really kick in until mid to high levels. The campaign is ending at level 10 or 11. I didn't expect my level 6 druid to be that much more powerful that a level 6 barbarian. Plus some of my plans got changed halfway through by the rest of the party (e.g. funneling some of my power into healing until we picked up a cleric after a player death and there was no point for me to do it anymore).

Edit: Also, don't assume everyone is familiar with all the classes. The original choice of class was made when we had only SRD classes available.

Tankadin
2010-12-29, 10:31 AM
So what's your point? :smallconfused: Ending the encounter with minimal spell expenditure is the key to keeping spells in reserve in order to have spells on call in case something really nasty turns up. Unless the wizard doesn't want to cast any spells and wants to have the oh so pleasurable experience of going back to her roots and plinking away with a crossbow.

If it can be accomplished in such a way so as to have other players have fun and also keep from needing too many additional resources expended to get the party back to combat readiness, well, that's probably the ideal.

Saying all intelligent people are insane is not a very good patch for the power of casters. Especially not when it's so alien to the base system.

It was more an argument about how an astronomical intelligence score doesn't necessarily translate into optimal choices. I'll agree that a roleplaying hotfix isn't necessarily the best fix to the structural issues at hand. But it doesn't harm balance for the wizard to not justify ruthless metagaming because of a "flawless" intellect. The most towering intellects are often flawed. Not always in crippling ways (and often in hilarious ways...the mathematicians who cannot do arithmetic always make me giggle), but there are flaws.

I mean, an intelligence score of 28 or 30 or whatever--that should be truly alien to us. If an 18 (or even a 20) represents the far end of the bell-curve of human potential, the once in a generation intellects (who are famous enough to have well-documented neuroses), who is to say that the wizard at a 28 isn't spending a significant amount of brainpower planning for every madly improbable contingency against foes both real and imagined?

Psyx
2010-12-29, 10:34 AM
Personally I think this one is covered by "you're an adventurer." The kid that slacked off in his studies isn't likely to be the adventurer. You're out there because you're that focused.

In our own world, look at the people who become soldiers of fortune, or treasure hunters. Did they make optimal life choices? Are they the epitome of mental stability and focus? Heck no. We'd start the list of personality disorders with 'fantastist' and go from there, basically!

Your opinion that adventurers are focused and in some way 'better' than the man on the street is an opinion that always raises a wry smile from me. So you decided to be the best that you can be, are completely sane and always make the best choice, made all the right life choices, and decided to be an adventurer?

Which kinda bypasses the fact that adventurers are essentially work-shy vagabonds who sleep rough, seldom see or contact their family, seldom have any family of their own, nor romantic interests. They turn their back on normal society and often their own culture and people (travelling across the world to go elsewhere), often deliberately putting themselves into situations where they will be the subject of race-hate, and perhaps never speaking their own language again; instead reverting to trade argot.

They keenly go into horrible places full of danger, facing an 80% [campaign variable: I'm being semi-flippant] mortality rate, claustrophobia, vertigo and buckets of gore. Here they murder sentient creatures at a rate that far outstrips serial killers and soldiers alike, keeping only the company of their fellow sociopaths adventurers, and viewing any hint of outside emotional interest with extreme paranoia ['That serving wench is very forward: Let's true sight her to make sure she's not a Succubus!'].

If their friends die, they squabble over their belongings, and often leave the corpse to rot in a shallow grave. They'll be over the loss within a day, and will seldom shed a tear for them. They'll team up with people whom their personality and morals violently clash with if it means killing bigger things.

They measure their worth by the greatest things they have murdered and the number of magical artefacts they carry for the purpose of helping them murder more things, to help them accrue more artefacts to help them murder more things...

These are people who are happy to nail themselves in a 10x10 room with 4 dead kobolds in it for 48 hours to 'rest up', or -at higher levels- spend weeks straight sleeping in an extra-dimensional space before popping out into the real world for a condensed 20 minutes of killing things, and talking to nobody else aside from their fellow paranoid obsessives adventurers.

They don't have 'proper' jobs, and seldom have a house to their name. Should they become fabulously rich - enough to build a castle and live in riches forever - they instead spend all the money on magic items to help them murder more things. Once they kill something and save a village, they seldom stop long after the victory feast to see how the villager's lives are improved, nor take a break, but instead eagerly seek the next thing to murder for some cause.

They talk to gods, angels, demons, and creatures from weird dimensions with alien minds. Some of them constantly rely on divinations to steer their every choice.

And throughout all this, few are seldom traumatised, bothered by the death that they cause or suffer from PTSD.

Adventurers are not mentally stable. They are not focused in any way that is sane. They are nuts. They HAVE to be.




Eh, my problem with neuroses is they always seem to end up taking up a ridiculous amount of game time when frankly no one else wants to deal with them. That or turning the character into a joke character when it's not appropriate.

It depends how their handled. If it constantly interferes with play then there may be a problem. But -as I've said above- frankly adventurers SHOULD be insane. Because they are. Horribly so. There is no way that anyone doing what they do for a living would be judged sane in our own world, regardless of any 'higher purpose' they are electing to do it for (or self-justifying that they are doing it for, in order to sate their requirement for murder/risk/power).

Grelna the Blue
2010-12-29, 10:43 AM
In our own world, look at the people who become soldiers of fortune, or treasure hunters. Did they make optimal life choices? Are they the epitome of mental stability and focus? Heck no. We'd start the list of personality disorders with 'fantastist' and go from there, basically!

Your opinion that adventurers are focused and in some way 'better' than the man on the street is an opinion that always raises a wry smile from me. So you decided to be the best that you can be, are completely sane and always make the best choice, made all the right life choices, and decided to be an adventurer?

Which kinda bypasses the fact that adventurers are essentially work-shy vagabonds who sleep rough, seldom see or contact their family, seldom have any family of their own, nor romantic interests. They turn their back on normal society and often their own culture and people (travelling across the world to go elsewhere), often deliberately putting themselves into situations where they will be the subject of race-hate, and perhaps never speaking their own language again; instead reverting to trade argot.

They keenly go into horrible places full of danger, facing an 80% [campaign variable: I'm being semi-flippant] mortality rate, claustrophobia, vertigo and buckets of gore. Here they murder sentient creatures at a rate that far outstrips serial killers and soldiers alike, keeping only the company of their fellow sociopaths adventurers, and viewing any hint of outside emotional interest with extreme paranoia ['That serving wench is very forward: Let's true sight her to make sure she's not a Succubus!'].

If their friends die, they squabble over their belongings, and often leave the corpse to rot in a shallow grave. They'll be over the loss within a day, and will seldom shed a tear for them. They'll team up with people whom their personality and morals violently clash with if it means killing bigger things.

They measure their worth by the greatest things they have murdered and the number of magical artefacts they carry for the purpose of helping them murder more things, to help them accrue more artefacts to help them murder more things...

These are people who are happy to nail themselves in a 10x10 room with 4 dead kobolds in it for 48 hours to 'rest up', or -at higher levels- spend weeks straight sleeping in an extra-dimensional space before popping out into the real world for a condensed 20 minutes of killing things, and talking to nobody else aside from their fellow paranoid obsessives adventurers.

They don't have 'proper' jobs, and seldom have a house to their name. Should they become fabulously rich - enough to build a castle and live in riches forever - they instead spend all the money on magic items to help them murder more things. Once they kill something and save a village, they seldom stop long after the victory feast to see how the villager's lives are improved, nor take a break, but instead eagerly seek the next thing to murder for some cause.

They talk to gods, angels, demons, and creatures from weird dimensions with alien minds. Some of them constantly rely on divinations to steer their every choice.

And throughout all this, few are seldom traumatised, bothered by the death that they cause or suffer from PTSD.

Adventurers are not mentally stable. They are not focused in any way that is sane. They are nuts. They HAVE to be.




It depends how their handled. If it constantly interferes with play then there may be a problem. But -as I've said above- frankly adventurers SHOULD be insane. Because they are. Horribly so. There is no way that anyone doing what they do for a living would be judged sane in our own world, regardless of any 'higher purpose' they are electing to do it for (or self-justifying that they are doing it for, in order to sate their requirement for murder/risk/power).

I am SO going to have the group in my game encounter some of these twitchy, paranoid, violence-obsessed hobos. I'll make sure that they're higher level than the party, too, for the proper Ghost of Christmas Future feel.

WarKitty
2010-12-29, 10:45 AM
I think people are applying too much of our modern ideas to a D&D world. There have been many societies where raiding and pillaging were a part of life. It may even have been expected that a young man prove himself on the battlefield before he was considered a proper adult. Personally, I like to draw on viking culture for my own characters. Fame and glory are the highest goods to be gained. It is more honorable to die in battle than of old age. The reprecussions are going to be very different in that world.

Also, ptsd can actually be an advantage in a constant high-stress situation. The guy checking to see if the serving wench is a succubus? Classic PTSD action - always suspect your surroundings, even if there's no obvious threat.

The Big Dice
2010-12-29, 10:46 AM
Actually, ptsd tends to lead to people being more focused on survival skills at the expense of other skills that are unrelated.
Not in the case of the people I've known with PTSD. They all became drug addicts because it was the only thing that kept the nightmares of what they'd seen in the Falklands and first Gulf conflicts respectively.

So I'm afraid I disagree quite strongly there. PTSDis crippling, it's not a benefit to an adventurer at all.


You've never played with a drama queen, have you? Or the person who insists on bringing a joke character in when no one else wants to be silly? The problem isn't roleplaying, the problem is excessive roleplaying that brings the attention onto a single character at the expense of the others and/or is disruptive to the rest of the group. Share the spotlight.
I prefer a drama llama to the kind of player that is obsessed with rolling the dice and proving how powerful his character is. Beating the specialist at his own game isn't good for group dynamics. Everyone should think their character is the most powerful in their area, but that the group doesn't have a most powerful individual.

And there are several ways to deal with the joke character. My favourite is to make that character the hook. Put them front and center for a few sessions and most players will either tone the joke down or ask if they can play something else.


This brings me to my other point. I actually find its easier to roleplay a more optimized and/or higher tier character. I have more abilities and more skill points to make my character actually have the skill to do the things his backstory and personality suggest he ought to do. I want to be a former military officer? Don't play a fighter, you don't have the skill points to spend on knowledge about siege engines.
In my experience, having flaws in your character makes for a better roleplaying experience. The more optimised a character is, the less freedom you have to actually be a part of the game world, rather than have the game world be something that happens around you.

Heavily optimised characters are ultimately boring. You're not playing a character, you're playing an equation. At least that's how I feel. Especially if i'm playing something from 1st level that has a plan mapped out all the way to 20th. To me, that's not playing a character. It's climbing a ladder while wearing shackles. You know exactly where you're going and have no freedom or ability to go anywhere else.

In other words, it's boring.

For a good example of perfect people being perfectly boring,look no further than the bridge crew of Voyager.

WarKitty
2010-12-29, 10:52 AM
Not in the case of the people I've known with PTSD. They all became drug addicts because it was the only thing that kept the nightmares of what they'd seen in the Falklands and first Gulf conflicts respectively.

So I'm afraid I disagree quite strongly there. PTSDis crippling, it's not a benefit to an adventurer at all.

I actually have a version of it. Don't know how typical my own experiences were, just stating how it's worked out for me.



I prefer a drama llama to the kind of player that is obsessed with rolling the dice and proving how powerful his character is. Beating the specialist at his own game isn't good for group dynamics. Everyone should think their character is the most powerful in their area, but that the group doesn't have a most powerful individual.

And there are several ways to deal with the joke character. My favourite is to make that character the hook. Put them front and center for a few sessions and most players will either tone the joke down or ask if they can play something else.

YMMV I guess. Personally, the diceroller at least gets his turn over with so I can do something. The drama player wastes my time sitting around watching them play out their own little fantasy world without giving me a chance to interact with anything.



In my experience, having flaws in your character makes for a better roleplaying experience. The more optimised a character is, the less freedom you have to actually be a part of the game world, rather than have the game world be something that happens around you.

Heavily optimised characters are ultimately boring. You're not playing a character, you're playing an equation. At least that's how I feel. Especially if i'm playing something from 1st level that has a plan mapped out all the way to 20th. To me, that's not playing a character. It's climbing a ladder while wearing shackles. You know exactly where you're going and have no freedom or ability to go anywhere else.

In other words, it's boring.

For a good example of perfect people being perfectly boring,look no further than the bridge crew of Voyager.

Sounds like another YMMV problem. To me, an unoptimized character is supremely boring. I can't plan, I don't have options, because no matter what the situation is I only have one or two things I can do. I can choose not to do things that my optimized character is capable of on paper because they don't fit my character. I can't do things that my unoptimized character doesn't have on his sheet, no matter how much it would be in character for me to have that ability.

Jayabalard
2010-12-29, 11:02 AM
We were talking about pathfinder because I looked it over and I really like what it does with some of the classes. (monk & paladin)
So I told him and he said this:

"I don't think that much power makes sense, role-play-wise."

So yeah. Stormwind fallacy.This isn't the stormwind fallacy. He's presenting an opinion about the lack of roleplaying justification for some of the classes in pathfinder.

You could give godlike powers to all of the peasants, and the same sort of statement would apply for many (most?) people:


3.Magic is not the only source of power. This is *THE* fallacy opinion that keeps martial characters from having nice things in 3.5. Compare with One Piece, a setting dominated by demon-fruit users, but 1.there's other 'cheap' powers and 2.simply being powerful is enough to contend with them.Fallacy isn't the right word; there's nothing fallacious about the statement you made, nor is there any fallacy in the belief that an external power source should be necessary. I think you mean "opinion"

Personally I think that One Piece is a terrible counter example; if you were to show an episode to someone who's saying that they don't want martial characters to powered up, the response you're probably going to get is something like "yeah ... ... .... that's exactly what I don't want in my game"

2xMachina
2010-12-29, 11:25 AM
No more fun for you, then. For sadly our society does not measure our worth nor 'level' by how many times we laugh each day...


Honestly? I don't really care about fun. Enough to keep me sane is enough (if I need any. People seem to think we do, so maybe we do)

I wouldn't mind studying/working and resting only.
Alas, my lack of willpower. Though if you make me do work and no play, I probably wouldn't mind at all. I had busy days, and I was just as happy doing them, tiring though it was.

Achievement and ability makes me happy. With a lack of real work to do, I go create some 'work' for myself. Like achieve something in a game.

If I had access to a handbook to the universe, I would read every bit, and choose every best thing there is, and try to achieve them.

There are people who likes to do everything efficiently. Choose everything that is best for them. Change themselves to be better.
Why can't someone decide to join the best organization. Train in the best schools. (PrCs)
Use a chainsaw rather than a saw when cutting trees. (Best spells for the job)
Plan ahead, so that they know what they want to achieve till they die. (1 to 20 lvl plan)
Wouldn't they look back and smile at what they achieved? For that is what they want, and will be happy with.

And what's important is not what society want from us. It is what we want from the world. If we want happiness, we OPTIMIZE for happiness. If we want friends, we try to get friends. If we want to be strong, we train our strength. If we want to be smart, we study.

Working out the best way to be who we want to be. That is what optimization is.

balistafreak
2010-12-29, 11:57 AM
And what's important is not what society want from us. It is what we want from the world. If we want happiness, we OPTIMIZE for happiness. If we want friends, we try to get friends. If we want to be strong, we train our strength. If we want to be smart, we study.

Working out the best way to be who we want to be. That is what optimization is.

*slow clap*

This is good advice not just for D&D, but for life in general. Have a cookie. :smallbiggrin:

gourdcaptain
2010-12-29, 11:58 AM
(I'm someone who came into D&D through 4e, and later got into 3.5/Pathfinder, so I'm probably on a weird perspective here).

My problem with systems with a massive split in tiers is that it drives me nuts if I have to play specifically bad options in order to let everyone else have a chance to shine - it feels really patronizing personally. I usually make up for partially being the best optimizer in the groups I play in by having odd optimizing focuses - like being a Paladin who dual wields pistols.

I do have a slightly odd counter planned in a game - I'm playing a Bard, but my idea there is that while magic may trump martial might, being able to play the resources of entire cities/kingdoms can trump that in the right setting.

kc0bbq
2010-12-29, 12:01 PM
Personally, I like to draw on viking culture for my own characters. Fame and glory are the highest goods to be gained. It is more honorable to die in battle than of old age. The reprecussions are going to be very different in that world.Except the real Vikings weren't much like that at all. That's modern romanticism. You don't last long as a people by being suicidal. You don't have colonies 1000 miles away to the south, east, and west by doing that.

They weren't 'ideal' warriors. They were good, yes, but not everything in their lives revolved around being good in a fight. They had a lot of highly technical skills, none of which helped in battle. They picked up these skills all over the world, and they aren't optimized for battle. We're only just learning how skilled they were as lensmakers, for example. Not the skill of a man who intends to die in a fight.

Real people just aren't optimized like that. It's fine if people want to play in a game like that, but you can't claim in reflects reality.

Grelna the Blue
2010-12-29, 12:05 PM
In my experience, having flaws in your character makes for a better roleplaying experience. The more optimised a character is, the less freedom you have to actually be a part of the game world, rather than have the game world be something that happens around you.

Heavily optimised characters are ultimately boring. You're not playing a character, you're playing an equation. At least that's how I feel. Especially if i'm playing something from 1st level that has a plan mapped out all the way to 20th. To me, that's not playing a character. It's climbing a ladder while wearing shackles. You know exactly where you're going and have no freedom or ability to go anywhere else.

In other words, it's boring.

For a good example of perfect people being perfectly boring,look no further than the bridge crew of Voyager.

Sounds like another YMMV problem. To me, an unoptimized character is supremely boring. I can't plan, I don't have options, because no matter what the situation is I only have one or two things I can do. I can choose not to do things that my optimized character is capable of on paper because they don't fit my character. I can't do things that my unoptimized character doesn't have on his sheet, no matter how much it would be in character for me to have that ability.

I think it depends, to a large extent, on what class you are playing, how you are optimized, and whether the GM is willing to make that particular optimization relevant to the majority of your encounters. Because beatsticks and archers are focused already, many optimization routes they take will tend to be generally useful. Of course, grapplers won't be very effective against elementals, ghosts, and oozes; trippers are lousy against dire sharks; and Great Cleavers really only shine in fights with moogs. Still, almost any combat feat chain or PrC you give to a fighter, monk, or paladin is likely to upgrade them over the base class and many of them grant them abilities they lacked before and sorely need.

The higher tier classes, OTOH, already have multiple options open to them. Optimization for them will either add yet more options, making them even more versatile, or will make some of their existing options irresistible. A druid, for instance, can cast spells that cover all the basics (heal, summon, blast, buff, control, utility), can fight well in animal form, has an animal companion that is at least as good as a nonspellcasting cohort, and gets more skill points than most other classes. That's before any feats are taken into account or any PrC is taken. The other Tier 1 classes are almost as strong, which is why the majority of all campaign BBEGs tend to either be wizards or clerics or at least have some in their employ.

WarKitty
2010-12-29, 12:09 PM
Except the real Vikings weren't much like that at all. That's modern romanticism. You don't last long as a people by being suicidal. You don't have colonies 1000 miles away to the south, east, and west by doing that.

They weren't 'ideal' warriors. They were good, yes, but not everything in their lives revolved around being good in a fight. They had a lot of highly technical skills, none of which helped in battle. They picked up these skills all over the world, and they aren't optimized for battle. We're only just learning how skilled they were as lensmakers, for example. Not the skill of a man who intends to die in a fight.

Real people just aren't optimized like that. It's fine if people want to play in a game like that, but you can't claim in reflects reality.

Probably true. But yeah, the games I play in aren't that high on grit, no matter how realistic it would be. The world and the players in it are a romanticisation, not realistic fighters. Most of our group deals with enough neuroses in real life that we don't want to deal with it in game. A character with a severe, realistic case of ptsd or bipolar or something wouldn't be welcome in the group, because it would disrupt the dynamics we like.

Edit @ grenla: Yeah that's kind of my point. The problem character was a not very optimized druid, and I'm still much more powerful than some of my friends. I optimized my wisdom score to very high (justified by a backstory of being bred as a druid), but that's really the only place I put a lot of focus into optimization per se. I picked spells to fit a theme. I took an animal companion that seemed thematically appropriate (PF, taking a companion is a suboptimal choice). I spent skills in a way that seemed natural for the character, including in craft (woodworking) for purely rp reasons. Spent a feat on heavy armor proficency for similar reasons. And it's still an overpowering character.

Psyx
2010-12-29, 12:38 PM
I think people are applying too much of our modern ideas to a D&D world. There have been many societies where raiding and pillaging were a part of life.

Well -as I'm am constantly being told- D&D-world is a reflection of our own world and morals, not medieval ones.
If we shift to those morals, things possibly get worse. Adventurers have no place in a feudal system. With no lord and no fixed abode, they are pretty low on life's totem pole: Vagabonds, and pretty much unprotected by law. Becoming one would be turning your back on society and essentially becoming untrustworthy scum with no value to society as far as everyone is concerned. And mercenaries are basically bandits in seasonal employment. Hardly an aspirational 'perfect' choice in life.



The reprecussions are going to be very different in that world.

Some of them, but hardly all. Not by a long chalk. There is a massive difference between killing due to need, and actively going and obsessing about it, for example. Make an adventurer a viking and re-read what they go through. It's still not sane.



Also, ptsd can actually be an advantage in a constant high-stress situation.


Erm. We'll have to disagree on that one. I've never known anyone with shell-shock to be the better for it.


the diceroller at least gets his turn over with so I can do something.

The dice-roller though is often the one bugging the GM with rules queries, thumbing through books at the table, or blowing massive holes in the campaign with optimised blag. YMMV, but both types can be very disruptive. I find them both annoying.



If I had access to a handbook to the universe, I would read every bit, and choose every best thing there is, and try to achieve them.

There are lots of handbooks to stuff out there? Why are you here when you should be reading them? That lack of willpower? Welcome to being human and non-optimal. And even if you had worked out the best choices, that doesn't put them in your reach.

Maybe you were born a flimflam elf instead of a shoeblicker dragonkin. Darn. Non-optimised from birth! Then the best mage school is 4000 miles away and out of your parent's price league. And your society doesn't like chainsaws because they offend your culture and your ancestors.

And...life happens. Things change. No plan survives contact with the enemy.

[And... even if you did play a character who 'optimised' their life... welcome to insanity, population: you. Obsessing over becoming the 'perfect' mage/warrior and refusing to dedicate time to hobbies, relationships, family and fun is insane in itself.]

There are infinitely more reasons for characters to be far-from-perfect than there are for them to be 'optimised'.

In short, I don't think I can name anyone whose life turned out how they intended it to, and who perfectly optimised. I know a lot of successful people, but all of them put some skill points or feats somewhere stupid somewhere along the line*. There aren't many such people in the world. And if there were, what kind of maniac capable of enacting this master plan includes 'I'll spend five years murdering sentient creatures with a 10% survival chance' in it?
Anyone focused and disciplined enough to optimise their life so well is more likely to be Grand Vizier to the Great PoohBah, apprenticing themselves to the best mage on the planet, or marrying themselves into money, rather than a psychotic, paranoid, adventurer.


All of which is why I think that perfectly optimised, sane and flawless characters are basically a laughable and complete crock. I find them unrealistic, boring, unimaginative and ultimately cardboard cut-out characters. I find being around such vat-grown-ninja types to have rather a negative impact on my game, because they're basically like having a really bad character in an otherwise great movie.
The whole 'it's good roleplaying to be perfect' thing is a laughable crock, and basically a paper-thin excuse. I prefer someone to be up-front honest about wanting the BEST list of numbers around the table.
I like to play competent characters too, and I agree that min-maxxing isn't automatically indicative of poor roleplaying. But ruthless min-maxxing pretty much IS indicative of bad character conceptualisation because they've failed to consider pretty much any of the points that I've written about.

Heck: Even Stephen Seagul has the decency to give his characters a flaw these days, as well as thirty years of CIA/SEAL/ninja training.



*Although I still refuse to learn how to roll a cigarette, because I don't want to waste the XP

Psyx
2010-12-29, 12:41 PM
My problem with systems with a massive split in tiers is that it drives me nuts if I have to play specifically bad options in order to let everyone else have a chance to shine - it feels really patronizing personally. I usually make up for partially being the best optimizer in the groups I play in by having odd optimizing focuses - like being a Paladin who dual wields pistols.

See: I love that. It means that I can play a mechanically poor character that is very characterful, and still be a valuable party-member, rather than dead weight. If I play in a group where people don't min-max, then chalk me in for a monk or something equally 'bad'.

Psyx
2010-12-29, 12:46 PM
Except the real Vikings weren't much like that at all.

There's an awful lot to be said for telling all the big, stupid people in the village who like bullying others that it's great to fight and die in battle a long way from home fighting other people. And if they come back with gold to spend on all the things everyone else makes that's great, you pat them on the back, tell them their tale will be forever remembered and send them out to die find more fame and fortune again.



trippers are lousy against dire sharks

And man don't they whine about it as soon as it crops up. Like the sniper character who sulks when there isn't always a building overlooking the bad guy's HQ... :smallamused:

WarKitty
2010-12-29, 01:10 PM
See: I love that. It means that I can play a mechanically poor character that is very characterful, and still be a valuable party-member, rather than dead weight. If I play in a group where people don't min-max, then chalk me in for a monk or something equally 'bad'.

You're running into the books problem again. I want to play a controller; I don't personally enjoy melee or archer characters. We didn't have access to a bunch of different splatbooks when we chose character classes. I happen to like nature-themed characters, so I went with a druid. Could I have done a shunenja or whatever? Maybe, if I had any clue what that was, what book it's in, and how it handles. And if the DM wants to deal with a class that he doesn't know at all.

Anyways, the original stormwind fallacy issue: It is quite possible to play an optimized flavorful character. From what I've found, in some cases it's even necessary. One of our party barbarians got bored just hitting things all the time. He had one time thrown a greataxe at an enemy he couldn't close with, critted, and dropped the guy. He decided that he wanted to do more of that and less of whacking things in melee. So we started looking at how to optimize a throwing character. That's how optimization is supposed to work.

I've also had plenty of characters who took quirks/flaws just to be able to have their characters in the spotlight all the time. And characters who refused to contribute to the party on a regular basis because of "roleplaying." So less optimized character does not equal well roleplayed character, either.

true_shinken
2010-12-29, 01:48 PM
You're running into the books problem again. I want to play a controller; I don't personally enjoy melee or archer characters. We didn't have access to a bunch of different splatbooks when we chose character classes. I happen to like nature-themed characters, so I went with a druid. Could I have done a shunenja or whatever? Maybe, if I had any clue what that was, what book it's in, and how it handles. And if the DM wants to deal with a class that he doesn't know at all.
Shugenja is from Complete Divine.
So you only had Pathfinder and you wanted a controller? Hello, mr. Oracle. Even a Wizard or Sorcerer would be better balancewise than a Druid (specially a Sorcerer; pretty hard to break it accidentaly).
Seriously, the problem here (and you admited it yourself) is that you ignored the tier system because you though it wouldn't kick in at low levels. Well, it kicks in at lower levels as well, now you know it. So you either
a) buff your mates instead of 'controlling'
b) get your group to switch to 4e (bleh)
c) bear with it
d) roll another character
e) move your character in a less problematic, more party-friendly direction (say, War Weaver)
That's plenty of choices, IMHO.


Anyways, the original stormwind fallacy issue: It is quite possible to play an optimized flavorful character.
That's the whole point of the stormwing fallacy, so I don't understand why you are saying it again.

Thiyr
2010-12-29, 01:50 PM
There are lots of handbooks to stuff out there?

Yknow...This kinda ignored an important point from that post. I'll quote it again for you



And what's important is not what society want from us. It is what we want from the world. If we want happiness, we OPTIMIZE for happiness. If we want friends, we try to get friends. If we want to be strong, we train our strength. If we want to be smart, we study.

Working out the best way to be who we want to be. That is what optimization is.

You tell me I don't optimize my life because, say, I focused on Philosophy in school rather than business, or medicine. Or because I didn't study all day. I say that I optimized for precisely what I wanted to do: enjoy school. I'd be miserable if I failed, so I did my work. But I'd be just as bad if I worked constantly, so I took time off. My -performance- wasn't perfect, but that wasn't the goal I set out for myself. Similarly, you seem to be holding a lot of people to a standard that they didn't hold themself to, and then tell them that standard was unrealistic. I agree with a statement you made,

Obsessing over becoming the 'perfect' mage/warrior and refusing to dedicate time to hobbies, relationships, family and fun is insane in itself
But what you were referencing with that statement I disagree with. I optimize my life. I search for deals when I want to buy something. I study to make sure I know what I need to know. I've done things I don't want to do because it'll come in handy later. But "optimizing" and "being a perfectionist" are different things, and you seem to be confusing the two. Optimizers can make mistakes, and even if they never did, there's no guarantee that they want to optimize the best things. Just like how you can make a stupid mistake on a math test (even though you knew what to do), your character can botch a spell resist roll, or choose a bad spell, or choose toughness. And then, they'll keep going. If a detail isn't right, if the character spent a few skill points on craft woodworking instead of knowledge whatever, the player keeps going not realizing it wasn't worth it...or that was a goal they wanted to achieve and this was how they planned to achieve it. But the perfectionist is more like what you're describing. Must be best at everything forever. Must be perfect. Mistakes are unforgivable. You become Manfred von Karma (from Phoenix Wright). Somebody tarnishes your perfect record, and instead of saying "well darn, somebody beat me once. Oh well.", instead you kill the man and pin the blame on someone else. That IS crazy. I don't think anyone would deny that. But I don't think anyone is really optimizing for perfect success rate on everything they ever do forever and ever.

As for the "drama vs big numbers player", I'll say this. Both are annoying. I've played with both. Drama is much worse. Because hearing the jubilations on every crit threat and every huge damage hit is bad, but that doesn't guarantee constant rules-questions and referencing. To be honest, we had more issue with that with the drama-guy at our table, who refused to look at how stuff worked beforehand, had to decide what to do during his round and not a moment sooner, gave constant, intricate descriptions of stuff nobody really cared about during combat, never input into group plans (while we were trying to get him more involved, going so far as to create situations as a party to make him useful), all to...do the same thing he did last time. The diceroller can still prepare beforehand, have page references, ask before game, or only need to check stuff once. I have to reference things or ask for DM adjucation for stuff -all the time-. I just ask the question when my round comes up, have all the references I can think of ready beforehand, and try to keep it simple. And "blowing a hole in the campaign" has little relation to optimization, even if optimization can be used to do as such. That said, my favorite DMs all pretty much shrug and roll with it, because they fully expected that the players would do something to go a bit off the rails. because no plan survives an encounter with the players. Its led to our DMs occasionally throwing a situation without an obvious answer to see what our solution will be. (Favorite example, breaking into functionally a supermax prison and then getting out with a specific prisoner. We had no set way in, way out, way of knowing where he'd be, or otherwise. So we brainstormed and made use of what we had for quite an awesome prison break.) Honestly? If me making a good character means your campaign is irrevocably broken, end the session and take some time to salvage it. Because your campaign -isn't- irrevocably broken. It's just inconvenienced. Improv is the greatest skill a DM can learn, even when stuff is going according to plan.

EDIT: Wow. Wall of text. Sorry for that guys.

2xMachina
2010-12-29, 01:55 PM
There are lots of handbooks to stuff out there? Why are you here when you should be reading them? That lack of willpower? Welcome to being human and non-optimal. And even if you had worked out the best choices, that doesn't put them in your reach.

Maybe you were born a flimflam elf instead of a shoeblicker dragonkin. Darn. Non-optimised from birth! Then the best mage school is 4000 miles away and out of your parent's price league. And your society doesn't like chainsaws because they offend your culture and your ancestors.

And...life happens. Things change. No plan survives contact with the enemy.

[And... even if you did play a character who 'optimised' their life... welcome to insanity, population: you. Obsessing over becoming the 'perfect' mage/warrior and refusing to dedicate time to hobbies, relationships, family and fun is insane in itself.]

There are infinitely more reasons for characters to be far-from-perfect than there are for them to be 'optimised'.

In short, I don't think I can name anyone whose life turned out how they intended it to, and who perfectly optimised. I know a lot of successful people, but all of them put some skill points or feats somewhere stupid somewhere along the line*. There aren't many such people in the world. And if there were, what kind of maniac capable of enacting this master plan includes 'I'll spend five years murdering sentient creatures with a 10% survival chance' in it?
Anyone focused and disciplined enough to optimise their life so well is more likely to be Grand Vizier to the Great PoohBah, apprenticing themselves to the best mage on the planet, or marrying themselves into money, rather than a psychotic, paranoid, adventurer.


All of which is why I think that perfectly optimised, sane and flawless characters are basically a laughable and complete crock. I find them unrealistic, boring, unimaginative and ultimately cardboard cut-out characters. I find being around such vat-grown-ninja types to have rather a negative impact on my game, because they're basically like having a really bad character in an otherwise great movie.
The whole 'it's good roleplaying to be perfect' thing is a laughable crock, and basically a paper-thin excuse. I prefer someone to be up-front honest about wanting the BEST list of numbers around the table.
I like to play competent characters too, and I agree that min-maxxing isn't automatically indicative of poor roleplaying. But ruthless min-maxxing pretty much IS indicative of bad character conceptualisation because they've failed to consider pretty much any of the points that I've written about.

Heck: Even Stephen Seagul has the decency to give his characters a flaw these days, as well as thirty years of CIA/SEAL/ninja training.



*Although I still refuse to learn how to roll a cigarette, because I don't want to waste the XP

I've read a large bunch of stuff actually. I actually spent most of my day reading this or that when I'm free.

And I think Stormwind is about "Powerful cannot be roleplayed". So, if there exists someone who could be that, you can roleplay it. Not everyone can slay a dragon in mythology, but you roleplay to be one. You roleplay into the person who was born right, went to the right school, did the right things. You roleplay into the person who IS the best. There is always a best.

Sure, they need to have a life. So, just give them a life. They have family they send money to. Visit on festivals. Enjoy drinking Elven wine, good food.
But make no mistake. They are from the best there is.

And I feel your argument is mostly about them using metagaming things. But they could want to be the best, and is willing to train. The Olympics athlete do. They want the gold medal, and they will train for it, hard though it is.

Yes, you may like to roleplay a normal person with flaws. But some people like to roleplay a person who is the best. It's OK, either way. It's just our preferences. And we may not like what others like to do (eg, partying away, and not study while we do). But there's no right and wrong way to live. It's just the same with roleplaying. There's no right or wrong way to roleplay.
There's just the way we like.

WarKitty
2010-12-29, 02:06 PM
Shugenja is from Complete Divine.
So you only had Pathfinder and you wanted a controller? Hello, mr. Oracle. Even a Wizard or Sorcerer would be better balancewise than a Druid (specially a Sorcerer; pretty hard to break it accidentaly).
Seriously, the problem here (and you admited it yourself) is that you ignored the tier system because you though it wouldn't kick in at low levels. Well, it kicks in at lower levels as well, now you know it. So you either
a) buff your mates instead of 'controlling'
b) get your group to switch to 4e (bleh)
c) bear with it
d) roll another character
e) move your character in a less problematic, more party-friendly direction (say, War Weaver)
That's plenty of choices, IMHO.

That character was brought up in response to someone saying the tier system wasn't really a big deal if people wouldn't be such munchkins. I was pointing out how easy it is to build a game-breaking character even if you're not trying to do so. In my group, the problem actually got dealt with by optimizing the lower-tier characters. But that wasn't the point I was making.

Also, the SRD I was referring to was the 3.5 SRD, and I said specifically I wanted to have a nature themed character. Things kind of got changed up after I'd decided on the character I wanted to play, which incidentally also changed how I played so I couldn't really be the support character I'd planned without stepping on someone else's toes.


That's the whole point of the stormwing fallacy, so I don't understand why you are saying it again.

Because that is what the thread was originally about. :smallwink: And several people were going off on how you can't roleplay a powerful character because there's no reason for you to do anything.


I've read a large bunch of stuff actually. I actually spent most of my day reading this or that when I'm free.

And I think Stormwind is about "Powerful cannot be roleplayed". So, if there exists someone who could be that, you can roleplay it. Not everyone can slay a dragon in mythology, but you roleplay to be one. You roleplay into the person who was born right, went to the right school, did the right things. You roleplay into the person who IS the best. There is always a best.

Sure, they need to have a life. So, just give them a life. They have family they send money to. Visit on festivals. Enjoy drinking Elven wine, good food.
But make no mistake. They are from the best there is.

And I feel your argument is mostly about them using metagaming things. But they could want to be the best, and is willing to train. The Olympics athlete do. They want the gold medal, and they will train for it, hard though it is.

Yes, you may like to roleplay a normal person with flaws. But some people like to roleplay a person who was the best.

This +1. I'm playing D&D to be a hero. Of course I'm the best there is - maybe not the best out there, but I'm way better than your average village mage! And I know I'm good at it and I want to get better.

Callista
2010-12-29, 06:38 PM
I think that the issue of power and roleplay really only comes into the picture once you get to the extremes--the characters that are created with such odd combinations of classes/feats/etc. that their abilities force you to lose all ability to suspend disbelief. But you do have to get truly ridiculous before that happens. And most optimized characters are pretty realistic (well, in a world where "realistic" includes fireballs and resurrection spells, anyhow). If you're going to get that extreme, though, then it's likely you're in it for the theoretical optimization challenges anyway, not the role-play. The vast majority of people who like to optimize their characters are just trying to make sure that their character will survive and contribute while they play out his story. So yeah, maybe you do end up with a small group of people who will optimize at the expense of role-playing. But hardly anybody is actually like that--it's just a tiny group that gives everybody else a bad name. And I do mean tiny. In eight years of role-playing, I've only met one person like that.

WarKitty
2010-12-29, 06:55 PM
Most of the complaints I hear are not about the extremes so much as about mismatch. I tend to enjoy high-power play. I like having a nova button, and I like my teammates having their own nova buttons. With my group, once I showed them a few more options, this works fine. If I were to switch to a lower optimization group, I would have to tone it down or play a lower-tier character in order to fit in. Neither play style is inherently wrong, they just don't fit together in the same group very well.

Callista
2010-12-29, 07:02 PM
Yeah, I agree with that; but the problem can be solved. Since it's harder to learn to optimize than it is for someone who knows how to optimize to make a character at a lower power level (or play a support character that increases the power level of other characters), it generally falls to the people who are good at optimizing to build characters that match the party power level. Playing a lower-tier class is one option; but higher-tier classes can always bleed off XP through item-crafting for the party, strengthening the weaker characters and putting the high-tier character on equal footing.

That's going to happen in any system that allows extensive customization rather than just forcing all characters to be pretty much variations on the same thing. Paying attention to party balance is just the entrance fee you pay to use an interesting, flexible system.

WarKitty
2010-12-29, 07:47 PM
Although I notice that people don't say "help the other people optimize" too often. That's actually what worked best for our group, did some cooperative heavy optimizing on the lower-tier characters so that they were really good at the things they wanted to do. The lower tier players were happy because now they could do a bunch of cool stuff instead of just swinging big sticks around repetitively, and the casters filled in as needed.

Callista
2010-12-29, 08:59 PM
Heh, yeah, if you can get everybody to build characters and coordinate the group, then the problem does vanish.

wayfare
2010-12-29, 09:27 PM
If people want to optimize, fine -- but I think it should be a party decision. In other words -- you all go stormwind or no one goes stormwind.

Its just not fun having one or two players who can solve everything -- who are specially made to solve everything. I find that it often strains creduility...but thats ok if everybody is up for that.

true_shinken
2010-12-29, 09:32 PM
If people want to optimize, fine -- but I think it should be a party decision. In other words -- you all go stormwind or no one goes stormwind.
That's not what the stormwind fallacy is about.

WarKitty
2010-12-29, 09:56 PM
If people want to optimize, fine -- but I think it should be a party decision. In other words -- you all go stormwind or no one goes stormwind.

Its just not fun having one or two players who can solve everything -- who are specially made to solve everything. I find that it often strains creduility...but thats ok if everybody is up for that.

Then again, I've also found that having one or two players that can't keep up also strains credulity, in the sense of "how did this guy make it into the hero's guild"? The onus is not always on the more powerful people to tone it down. And the guy who sticks on a bunch of flaws and calls it roleplaying is just annoying, both in-game and out. There has to be more to your character than his flaws and quirks, too.

wayfare
2010-12-29, 11:21 PM
A terribly flawed character can be fun...for about 4 seconds.

In D&D, I feel like this issue can be magnified, because there is such a big disparity between classes. Lets say you want to play a swashbuckling hero...it makes sense to make a swashbuckler, right? Well, if you try to build an optimized character, a good swashbuckler will probably be some sort of Swordsage, Rogue, Kensai mix with a healthy dose of some classes so obscure you have to buy a new book just to finalize your build. So if I build a straight swashbuckler with great dex and strength and pump my AC like mad, it just won't ever matchup to a wizard who is similarly optimized.

Popertop
2010-12-30, 12:47 AM
okay this thread has had a long enough life

mods you can kill this thread

Psyx
2010-12-30, 07:32 AM
If people want to optimize, fine -- but I think it should be a party decision. In other words -- you all go stormwind or no one goes stormwind.

There's degrees. We all optimise when we take 4 ranks in knowledge: Arcarna instead of Profession: Flower arranging. You can optimise without being silly. I'll put my hand up and say that I optimise. But I've never played an Incantrix, Planar Sheppard or similar nonsense. I optimise so that my character is good at doing what it does and is in line with the expectations of the GM and the power level of the other players. The Monk has to optimise more heavily than the wizard to be of equal use in the party. Optimisation can be a tool for good as well as evil!

A character who is 'over' optimised for the party in my mind needs to be BETTER at roleplaying, in order to move the limelight away from numbers and in order to allow others to do things. If I was going to be a jerk and optimise a summoner in a party full of un-optimised monks then the decent thing for me to do would be to roleplay a whole bunch of flaws and issues in order to bring myself back down to something approaching the other's level.
The problem is of course that the worst optimisers - those who HAVE to be the best at the table - are not going to do this. They aren't going to want to be anything that takes away from that uberness. The problem essentially isn't optimisation, it's some of the people who do it.


I say that I optimized for precisely what I wanted to do: enjoy school....I optimize my life. I search for deals when I want to buy something.

Valid, but outside of the scope of optimisation of characters. Nobody optimises wizards to have fun at school. :smallsmile:


had to decide what to do during his round and not a moment sooner, gave constant, intricate descriptions of stuff nobody really cared about during combat, never input into group plans

To be fair, only one of those is a 'drama' issue. One of the most pro-optimisation players invariably doesn't start thumbing through spell-lists until his initiative phase.



There is always a best.

And they are invariably a mental mess, if we look at history. They aren't perfect. They are horribly flawed people, almost to a man. Perfect heroes exist only in Hollywood.

Roleplaying perfection is frankly a joke. Because those who have the drive to get to the peak of their field have the strength to do so due to an abnormal mental state.

Elite athletes commonly suffer from crippling OCD, because only people who are obsessive can put in that much training*. Just look at the number of compulsive rituals that the world's top athletes have. A huge number of successful businessmen are psychopathic, because it gives them the mental edge and ruthlessness that they need. You don't get to be a top model without having the narcissism to want to be seen as that image and to have practised your poses for hours in front of the mirror**. Autism spectrum conditions aren't uncommon amongst those at the top of theoretical fields.

And those that reach the peak do so despite not making perfect choices. Lots of billionaires didn't go to the +1 school of business, because they didn't get the lucky break. Even those who had all the talent and used it well are flawed in their 'build'. eg The world's greatest mathematician: Well educated, went to the finest university, functionally sane (has a few issues and deviancies still though), perfect career... oh... but completely physically crippled.



Yes, you may like to roleplay a normal person with flaws. But some people like to roleplay a person who is the best.

No: I like to roleplay a competent or even elite person who is believable as a human being.

Again: My point is that 'the best' have a TON of flaws. And also that you NEED those flaws if the rest of the party aren't playing 'the best, without flaws' too, because otherwise it's frankly an ego trip where you get to wander around and be 'the best' by being better than your friends***.



mods you can kill this thread

Or others can carry on discussing it, and you move on and don't carry on reading it, perhaps?




*I date one. I should know!
**I've had to put up with this, too.
***My friends already know I'm the best. I don't need to prove it to them by making a better set of numbers than them. :smallbiggrin:

WarKitty
2010-12-30, 09:23 AM
Personally, I've never seen a character with that many flaws roleplayed in a way that doesn't make the rest of the party want to kill them on the spot. So I'm a bit suspicious of the whole "add flaws" line of argument. After all, in-game I want my buddy to be doing the most effective thing in the situation. If he has that many flaws, my in-character response would be to drop him off at the nearest town and find someone who I can trust.

Psyx
2010-12-30, 09:48 AM
Personally, I've never seen a character with that many flaws roleplayed in a way that doesn't make the rest of the party want to kill them on the spot. So I'm a bit suspicious of the whole "add flaws" line of argument.

You don't have to have ALL the flaws mentioned.

And...erm... you don't want to play a mentally flawed character, but you're happy to play a guy that instantly wants to murder another human being who displays mental abnormality. That's psychotic behaviour right there!



After all, in-game I want my buddy to be doing the most effective thing in the situation. If he has that many flaws, my in-character response would be to drop him off at the nearest town and find someone who I can trust.

Err... hang on... you're not sure that you can trust the homeless vagabond who cheerfully murders things for kicks because he has to count and tidy all his possessions before kipping next to you in your rope-trick abode, so you're gonna ditch him and pick up another random psychopath in the nearest bar to come and help you murder people, because he's more trustworthy?

That's actually quite funny, in an absurd kind of way.

WarKitty
2010-12-30, 09:55 AM
You don't have to have ALL the flaws mentioned.

And...erm... you don't want to play a mentally flawed character, but you're happy to play a guy that instantly wants to murder another human being who displays mental abnormality. That's psychotic behaviour right there!



Err... hang on... you're not sure that you can trust the homeless vagabond who cheerfully murders things for kicks because he has to count and tidy all his possessions before kipping next to you in your rope-trick abode, so you're gonna ditch him and pick up another random psychopath in the nearest bar to come and help you murder people, because he's more trustworthy?

That's actually quite funny, in an absurd kind of way.

"Wants to kill him" wasn't literal. I'm using it the same way that is meant when I say "I want to kill whatever idiot keeps leaving her dishes out in the common room until they smell" - I'm pretty annoyed, but I don't actually intend to commit murder.

And not all adventurers are psychopaths. Never played a character that tries to avoid killing people when he can, but recognizes it is inevitable sometimes?

Psyx
2010-12-30, 10:02 AM
I've maybe seen about 5% of adventurers use minimum force. The rest are pretty psychotic.

I tend not to play overly pacifistic types as a rule. I have a hard time accepting that someone with such a nature is happy to hang out with a bunch of murderers and change the world through essentially violent means. In real-world parlance; pacifists don't tend to join the military: Not even to make the world a better place or to be a radio-man.

The Glyphstone
2010-12-30, 10:04 AM
You don't have to have ALL the flaws mentioned.

And...erm... you don't want to play a mentally flawed character, but you're happy to play a guy that instantly wants to murder another human being who displays mental abnormality. That's psychotic behaviour right there!



Err... hang on... you're not sure that you can trust the homeless vagabond who cheerfully murders things for kicks because he has to count and tidy all his possessions before kipping next to you in your rope-trick abode, so you're gonna ditch him and pick up another random psychopath in the nearest bar to come and help you murder people, because he's more trustworthy?

That's actually quite funny, in an absurd kind of way.

I think it's less a case of moral trust, and a case of 'ok, this guy has obsessive counting disorder, is a cleanfreak, and dual-wields swords larger than the halfling thief despite being barely able to lift them. When the fireball material components hit the permanent Gust of Wind spell, am I really going to be able to trust this sad sack of neuroses to watch my back, or should I dump him for another random psychopath who looks competent despite his quirks?'

It's less the random flaws and more the need to be effective/competent despite or because of those flaws. Similar, if Psychopath #2 turns out to also be OCD and insists on delaying the party's escape from the dragon cave so he can count every copper piece and sort them by minting date, it's time to go find Psychopath #3, because his 'quirk' has changed from irrelevant/annoying to actively life-threatening.

WarKitty
2010-12-30, 10:04 AM
I've maybe seen about 5% of adventurers use minimum force. The rest are pretty psychotic.

I tend not to play overly pacifistic types as a rule. I have a hard time accepting that someone with such a nature is happy to hang out with a bunch of murderers and change the world through essentially violent means. In real-world parlance; pacifists don't tend to join the military: Not even to make the world a better place or to be a radio-man.

About half our group prefers to use minimum force. Even the ones that don't would prefer to bluff or diplomicize their way out of a fight. Usually they only go for the kill if the person has attacked them or previously hurt something they care about.

Edit: +1 at glyphstone. I suppose it's possible to roleplay a flawed character that's still competent, but the ones I've seen are about as useful as a deck of many things. Plus I've had as much to more trouble with the dramamongers than the munchkins, so lots of flaws sets off the alarm bells for "person who is going to take up all my time angsting about how their character just has to do things this way."

Earthwalker
2010-12-30, 10:07 AM
Oddly most of my DnD games I have started at level 1 with some background. Out of 3 characters I have played only one had killed someone before thier life turned to adventuring.

This meant they normally started with the idea not to kill everything. Of course one thing I have learned coming to these boards is I play DnD alot differently then most.

Hell of a thing killing a man...

Psyx
2010-12-30, 10:09 AM
I think it's less a case of moral trust, and a case of 'ok, this guy has obsessive counting disorder, is a cleanfreak, and dual-wields swords larger than the halfling thief despite being barely able to lift them. When the fireball material components hit the permanent Gust of Wind spell, am I really going to be able to trust this sad sack of neuroses to watch my back, or should I dump him for another random psychopath who looks competent despite his quirks?'

Given the choice between going on a killing spree with someone with OCD and an actual psychotic, I think I'd personally stick with the OCD! I'd be less likely to die, I figure.

I'm not sure why being a clean freak would make someone less trustworthy if it wasn't impacting on 'combat rounds'.

I'm also always amused by party trust issues. I know it's a game construct, but the party is always unwilling to trust anyone who shows any romantic interest in them, but is happy to perfectly trust the next professional murderer who they see and to accept them as a boon companion, so long as it's within 24 hours of one of their number dying.

WarKitty
2010-12-30, 10:13 AM
Given the choice between going on a killing spree with someone with OCD and an actual psychotic, I think I'd personally stick with the OCD! I'd be less likely to die, I figure.

I'm not sure why being a clean freak would make someone less trustworthy if it wasn't impacting on 'combat rounds'.

I'm also always amused by party trust issues. I know it's a game construct, but the party is always unwilling to trust anyone who shows any romantic interest in them, but is happy to perfectly trust the next professional murderer who they see and to accept them as a boon companion, so long as it's within 24 hours of one of their number dying.

Actually, our party wouldn't trust any of the number. New characters are put in on probation, and usually the DM puts us in situations where we don't have a choice about working with them.

And the clean freak wouldn't be an issue, but neither would it help with the power balance that was the original issue. If you're going to use flaws to balance power back out, you're going to have to introduce something that effects combat.

Psyx
2010-12-30, 10:14 AM
Hell of a thing killing a man...

Indeed.

And hell of a thing to then say 'let's strip his corpse bare, take his stuff, sell it and buy more stuff, so we can go and kill someone else.'

And if questioned 'Why?'

'To be The Best!'

'Eh?'

'If I kill enough people and take their stuff to help me kill other people, then I'll be The Best at killing people. It's my ambition. I have to be The Best. I've worked and studied all my life and optimised my life choices in order to further this goal.'



I would not sleep within a mile of such a person, because they clearly need locking up somewhere with soft walls.

WarKitty
2010-12-30, 10:21 AM
Indeed.

And hell of a thing to then say 'let's strip his corpse bare, take his stuff, sell it and buy more stuff, so we can go and kill someone else.'

And if questioned 'Why?'

'To be The Best!'

'Eh?'

'If I kill enough people and take their stuff to help me kill other people, then I'll be The Best at killing people. It's my ambition. I have to be The Best. I've worked and studied all my life and optimised my life choices in order to further this goal.'



I would not sleep within a mile of such a person, because they clearly need locking up somewhere with soft walls.

Now who's not doing the roleplaying?

"Me? I don't much like killing, myself. But there's some bad people out in the world, and a fair few of them won't listen to anything that don't threaten their life. And some of them's pretty powerful themselves, so I got to be powerful to match. I'd rather have this here sword in my hands where I know it's only gonna be used on them as deserve to die."

"Killing is dirty work. It's not my first choice. But I wasn't born to have that choice. Killed a man before my 15th birthday. That's how it was where I grew up. You killed, or you died. It's not fair or right, but it's how things are for us. But I don't need to kill now, you ask? I suppose you're right. But if I don't, some kid like me will have to. So I learn my trade so I can take out those who threaten the innocent. And maybe for every bad guy I kill, some kid can grow up without having to learn how."

Earthwalker
2010-12-30, 10:24 AM
'If I kill enough people and take their stuff to help me kill other people, then I'll be The Best at killing people. It's my ambition. I have to be The Best. I've worked and studied all my life and optimised my life choices in order to further this goal.'


See I think DnD wants this kind of attitude, or at least it seems popular. Playing characters with other goals comes into confict with some of DnDs basic principles.

Force into a life of adventuring to live, your only source of income, doesn't work as by level 10 you could sell your stuff and settle down for life.

I must admit I do agree with all you say Psyx but I think if I was to join games with people taking the oppersite view to you I would be labeled a whiny dramaqueen so there you go.

The Glyphstone
2010-12-30, 10:31 AM
Given the choice between going on a killing spree with someone with OCD and an actual psychotic, I think I'd personally stick with the OCD! I'd be less likely to die, I figure.

I'm not sure why being a clean freak would make someone less trustworthy if it wasn't impacting on 'combat rounds'.

I'm also always amused by party trust issues. I know it's a game construct, but the party is always unwilling to trust anyone who shows any romantic interest in them, but is happy to perfectly trust the next professional murderer who they see and to accept them as a boon companion, so long as it's within 24 hours of one of their number dying.

I think you missed the point I was trying to make by fixating on the quirks - both characters are under the 'psychopath' generality, whether they're actually psychopathic or just OCD. The emphasis was on the visible signs of both odd neuroses and evident lack of combat effectiveness...when your day and night job is breaking and entering to kill people and take their stuff, the calculated ability of a potential teammate/criminal in arms should be based on how well they seem capable of killing people and taking their stuff. Trying to wield oversized Swords Akimbo that are obviously too heavy for you is not a positive sign of such, far more so than being a clean freak.

Though I do agree with your second point.

Earthwalker
2010-12-30, 10:43 AM
Oddly given the number of Pyscopaths you seem to be able to find to join along your rag tag band you would think the person with the goal to be the best would just wait till he was on guard, kill the other four pyschos as no one will miss them. Then go into town tag along with another band till he can kill them and get thier stuff.

I am sure with that much more money his goal of advancment would go much smoother.

jseah
2010-12-30, 11:10 AM
IMO, the psychopath mass-murderers as presented here (I've read only the last ~10 posts or so) doesn't appear to be anything like the party I would expect from a group of players.
I expect my players to use the setting. NPCs are there to be interacted with, not just be targets that shoot back.

And definitely isn't anything like how I'd play a character. FYI, I mostly played tier 1 types, with the exception of disliking cleric. Mostly wizards, archivists and StP erudites. So although my op-fu is only low to moderate, I'm not exactly a 'weak' character.
Of course, my leanings towards characters with poor combat ability tends to result in a kind of balance. I just find other ways to apply my power.

Some extra attention to the campaign setting really helps in roleplaying these so-called "uber characters". And a look around the setting serves as a place to get involved with the NPCs.
I figure that most of roleplaying is essentially "what would my character do in this situation?" and if that situation is some quest or other that your character had a reason to participate in, you'd try to complete it obviously.

Psyx
2010-12-30, 11:23 AM
Now who's not doing the roleplaying?


I was actually parodying the 'I take optimum choices because I'm roleplaying a character who wants to be The Best' character. It's a way to highlight just how utterly and completely insane or totally absurd such a character would be.



See I think DnD wants this kind of attitude, or at least it seems popular. Playing characters with other goals comes into confict with some of DnDs basic principles.

It does. D&D wants us to kick in doors, kill monsters, and take their treasure, and then use that treasure to repeat the cycle. D&D is the trashy movie of the RPG world. I find it quite bizarre that a game with such an in-ground concept even bothered with a morality system of any kind.

Adventurers are not nice, reasonable, sane people. They really aren't. They're either scum who do what they do knowingly, or suffering from massive, massive mental issues. Or most likely: Both.

Some games get the fact over really quite well and use the character's passions to affect their in-game performance (Pendragon, RoS), while others ensure that characters operating outside the bounds of sanity will eventually end up actually insane (CoC, WFRP2, Dark Heresy). Some games just brush over the fact completely and let players act like complete nuts without ever mentioning the issue, while others seem to do a great job of subtly reminding the players that they are -at the end of the day- professional murderers.

But the fact is that if you think about it, it's practically impossible to come up with a character who is both an adventurer and sane. Unless you want to be a character who is thrown into the situation... in which case they're likely to either quit as soon as the 'need' is over, or become suitably traumatised in order to want to go back and kill more people. So roleplaying a character without any mental flaws and never giving it a second thought is pretty bad roleplaying. And... back to where I was a while back... If you play a freelance killer...err I mean adventurer... who operates perfectly, optimised their life, is driven to be 'the best', always takes the best course of action, but has no hang-ups, phobias, flaws, manias, or downsides, then you possibly need to think about the character a little more.

The argument that it's 'good roleplay' to optimise really holds no water, other than being a justification for wanting to have a good character. Likewise, the line of 'I'm roleplaying being the best' without taking on the mantle of any one of a number of manias is also something that strikes me as poor characterisation. YMMV, but just think for a moment about what your favourite PC did on their last adventure, and think 'Were those the actions of a sane individual. If my roomie did that, would I ever sleep at night in the same building?'

WarKitty
2010-12-30, 11:31 AM
I was actually parodying the 'I take optimum choices because I'm roleplaying a character who wants to be The Best' character. It's a way to highlight just how utterly and completely insane or totally absurd such a character would be.

I don't think anyone is saying a character who takes 100% the most powerful choice is realistic. But a character who mostly makes good choices and generally chooses the more powerful option over the lesser is.


The argument that it's 'good roleplay' to optimise really holds no water, other than being a justification for wanting to have a good character. Likewise, the line of 'I'm roleplaying being the best' without taking on the mantle of any one of a number of manias is also something that strikes me as poor characterisation. YMMV, but just think for a moment about what your favourite PC did on their last adventure, and think 'Were those the actions of a sane individual. If my roomie did that, would I ever sleep at night in the same building?'

And what if the answer is yes? Those were the actions of a sane individual in an insane world. In a world very different than mine - it is the world that is insane, not the character. This particular character was charged with gaining power in order to protect a valuable magic item, one that is needed to hold the world together. She got attacked by an evil spirit and helped destroy it. Is she severely shaken and having nightmares from the drain? Yes. I wouldn't call that insane. Did she do her best to prevent the deaths of anyone she could? Also yes.

Psyx
2010-12-30, 11:42 AM
you would think the person with the goal to be the best would just wait till he was on guard, kill the other four pyschos as no one will miss them.

And some people play the game like that.
And... to be fair; they're roleplaying the adventuring lifestyle [ie that of a homeless psychotic] quite well!



IMO, the psychopath mass-murderers as presented here

My point is that your typical adventuring party probably is full of psychopaths and psychotics. Normal-spectrum human beings do not willingly kill other human beings, except under extreme circumstance. I really mean extreme, too. Conscripted infantrymen have been known to get through entire wars and avoided killing anyone. Not in small numbers either, according to research. Normal human beings are not fearless people who crawl around dark holes looking for monsters that will probably kill them [Fact for the day: Psychopaths tend to be].

Let's look at some characteristics, care of wikipedia:

The prototypical psychopath adventurer has deficits or deviances in several areas: interpersonal relationships, emotion, and self-control. Psychopaths Adventurers gain satisfaction through antisocial behavior, and do not experience shame, guilt, or remorse for their actions. Psychopaths Adventurers lack a sense of guilt or remorse for any harm they may have caused others, instead rationalizing the behavior, blaming someone else, or denying it outright. Psychopaths Adventurers also lack empathy towards others in general, resulting in tactlessness, insensitivity, and contemptuousness. All of this belies their tendency to make a likable first impression; psychopaths adventurers have a superficial charm about them, enabled by a willingness to say anything without concern for accuracy or truth. Shallow affect also describes the psychopath's adventurer's tendency for genuine emotion to be short-lived and egocentric, with an overall cold demeanor. Their behaviour is impulsive and irresponsible, often failing to keep a job or defaulting on debts. Psychopaths Adventurers also have a markedly distorted sense of the potential consequences of their actions, not only for others, but also for themselves. They do not deeply recognize the risk of being caught, disbelieved or injured as a result of their behaviour.

Sounding familiar?

I especially like the rationalisation that adventurers use to obscure their psychotic behaviour:
'I'm not a killer. I did it for my king/deity/country/people!'.
Yes, but you still went and did it. You went and wiped out six villages. I don't care what higher cause you used as an excuse, you stepped up to the bat and killed them. You did it because you wanted to.


I mostly played tier 1 types

So... people who are quite happy to snuff out a dozen lives via incineration, half a room away? :smallbiggrin:

Callista
2010-12-30, 11:44 AM
If you want to play a guy who has some kind of mental illness, and you care about making it realistic, you'll be doing enough research to know that there's actually no increase in risk of violence (real-world science has told us that much--crazy people are no more violent than non-crazy ones). So the problem isn't actually, "I can't trust the guy because he's got mental issues." It's unrealistically played mental issues that mess things up. The guy with OCD is not going to take a knife to you unless he'd be a murderer without the OCD. If you want to play a guy with some kind of crazy, then you need to research it, and you need to give him a personality beyond just whatever issue it is (unless you want to play a walking psychology textbook? didn't think so...).

Earthwalker
2010-12-30, 11:48 AM
This is to check what I am thinking is correct. Can I ask you Warkitty if this character I am going to make would be pointless in your game.

We start a level one game and I make a barbarian called Krug.

His stats

Str 14
Dex 17
Con 16
Wis 10
Int 8
Cha 15

Feats - Two weapon fighting, improed initative.

Personality

Krug is likable and almost charming, unfortunatly he is as thick as two short blanks. He is a poor tactician and when faced with a threat his general responce is to rage and charge at his enemy and try to beat it to death.
Krugs main goal in life is to amass enough wealth to settle down with a string of concubines (or as Krug keeps saying porcupines which will cause problems later I am sure) in his own private mansion.

Now as a starting character this is accetable to me. It has huge graling flaws in the build but most notably writing has no tactical judgment is a death sentence in alot of games. Of course things can change, but the guy has int 8 and wis 10.

WarKitty
2010-12-30, 11:48 AM
If you want to play a guy who has some kind of mental illness, and you care about making it realistic, you'll be doing enough research to know that there's actually no increase in risk of violence (real-world science has told us that much--crazy people are no more violent than non-crazy ones). So the problem isn't actually, "I can't trust the guy because he's got mental issues." It's unrealistically played mental issues that mess things up. The guy with OCD is not going to take a knife to you unless he'd be a murderer without the OCD. If you want to play a guy with some kind of crazy, then you need to research it, and you need to give him a personality beyond just whatever issue it is (unless you want to play a walking psychology textbook? didn't think so...).

My point wasn't actually that the guy with mental illness is more likely to kill me. It was that if his mental illness or caricature thereof is interfering enough with his combat ability to serve as a check on his power, I don't have a reason to trust that he can get me out of a tight spot and keep the demons from frying me.

Like Glyphstone said, if the guy needs to count his coins at night every night, fine. If he needs to count his coins when we're trying to run from the dragon, I'm going to leave him behind.

Edit @ Earthwalker: Would probably be a bit underpowered, but it's hard to tell with a level one character. We generally start in the 3-5 range. You'd need to do something about that low strength score pretty fast if you wanted to be able to keep hitting things. Other than that, it would depend. How good is your character at listening and taking advice? If someone he trusts tells him to wait, will he? That's how we manage the low wisdom character in our game - he trusts one of the other characters and is willing most of the time to pause if she says something's not a good idea.

For comparison, here's a level 5 of mine, a bard:
http://www.dndsheets.net/view.php?id=11273

Backstory is unfortunately not up, but the short version is he was trained as a spy by a conniving elven mother. He received a call from the god of life and decided to run away. He's a softie at heart but likes to play at being tough. A bit given to posturing and suffers from inexperience and difficulty in trusting others.

Psyx
2010-12-30, 11:51 AM
Completely (Erm... apart from psychotics, of course!). Most psychopaths don't kill: They run the stock markets and banking and media institutions for us. We let meglamaniacs run our government, narcissists entertain us, and our sport-stars have OCD. To over-achieve tends to require at least mild insanity.*

But we are talking about people who kill for a living here, rather than a normal cross-section of society. It shouldn't be' I can't trust this guy at my back because he's tidy', but 'I can't trust this guy at my back because I just saw him murder four sleeping people without batting an eyelid, and now he's making jokes about it'.


*This is true. Really. Don't you feel safe?

Earthwalker
2010-12-30, 11:57 AM
But we are talking about people who kill for a living here, rather than a normal cross-section of society. It shouldn't be' I can't trust this guy at my back because he's tidy', but 'I can't trust this guy at my back because I just saw him murder four sleeping people without batting an eyelid, and now he's making jokes about it'.

Can I ask Psyx do you play DnD?
Do you play it as a kick open doors and kill whats on the other side style of game ?

I am just curious I generally agree with what you are saying and as I have said its a DnD thing, other systems don't seem that odd to me. Even shadowrun I can play without having to have an insane character (of course insanity does help)

Grelna the Blue
2010-12-30, 01:14 PM
I'm with Psyx on this one. Most adventurers are crazy. And for me, roleplaying that is a lot of the fun.

I've done the obsessive compulsive LG (with LAWFUL! tendencies slathered on top) evilslayer mage, complete with over-the-top Adam West-style cheesy one-liners.

I've done the Lawful Greedy character who wanted to someday own the world (and all adjacent planes), renting it out for extra income.

I currently play a fairly neurotic necromancer. She was taught the Art by your standard evil mastermind and is relatively immune to fear because of that (attitude, PF trait bonus, daily buff spell), even though her Wisdom started at 7, but only because she suffers under the delusion that proper planning makes you invincible (she takes lots of defensive spells). She thinks she's got the moral high ground (she's neutral) because she usually relies strongly on driving off enemies through Fear effects rather than hacking them apart with undead minions or blowing them to smithereens, but is narcissistic and motivated primarily by an ingrained insecurity that leads her to equate magical power with personal worth. Her unspoken fantasy is that someday she can return to her patriarchal homeland as an archmage and that then the people there will respect her. She is generally snarky and disdainful to her less Gifted companions, and doesn't even really want to be an adventurer, but pulls her weight on the missions they get pulled into because she feels she has to prove her utility. Her neuroses are what make her fun to play. A well-adjusted character would not do what she does.

The only longterm characters I think I've ever played who were both well-adjusted and nonevil were paladins. And they were each very pacifistic compared to most PCs, seeing themselves more as divine "cops on the beat" than as empowered Judge Dredds.

WarKitty
2010-12-30, 01:31 PM
The only longterm characters I think I've ever played who were both well-adjusted and nonevil were paladins. And they were each very pacifistic compared to most PCs, seeing themselves more as divine "cops on the beat" than as empowered Judge Dredds.

This tends to be more the type of character I play. Not that any of them are actual paladins, or lawful. But a NG druid who's focused on promoting harmony, or a CG rogue whose mission is to protect children and hopes to eventually found a school for the poor.

Callista
2010-12-30, 01:42 PM
My point wasn't actually that the guy with mental illness is more likely to kill me. It was that if his mental illness or caricature thereof is interfering enough with his combat ability to serve as a check on his power, I don't have a reason to trust that he can get me out of a tight spot and keep the demons from frying me.Okay, that I can see; but once again, it really depends on the individual character. There's a world of difference between someone who, say, has dementia and forgets that you're in the range of his fireball, and someone who has OCD and never uses fireballs because it's the only way to be sure he'll never hit an ally.

Even within the same real-life label there are big differences. Say you've got two guys with really low INT scores, like 3 or 4--mental retardation, IRL. One guy is irresponsible, lazy, and generally doesn't think ahead much; his low INT will ensure he makes lots of dangerous mistakes. The second guy has a low INT too, but he's perceptive enough to know that he should depend on his friends when puzzle-solving, strategizing, and general heavy thinking is involved (kinda like the way Elan trusts Haley). The first guy is not going to be a very good adventurer; the second guy will probably do just fine. The difference is that the second guy knows to depend on his teammates where he's weak.

I guess I'm a bit of a psychology nerd, and have a few labels myself; so I've got a background that has exposed me to a lot of the real-life stuff in the area of various kinds of crazy... (yeah, so I'm politically incorrect, so sue me...) The one big thing that's the most obvious is that people are individuals, labels or no labels, and you can't really predict anything about a person by just knowing his label--you've got to know the actual person in question and then make a judgment. And that goes for PCs, too. (Though it's entirely reasonable to make a PC who is prejudiced against mental illness and jumps to the "mentally ill=incompetent" conclusion without actually making the analysis.)

2xMachina
2010-12-30, 01:53 PM
There could be someone with an OCD that they utterly kill/disable any enemy with a single spell. Failing that, they keep throwing powerful spell after powerful spell till it is dead/disabled. When they run out, they run away and lock themselves up in a extremely safe area

Of course, playing with someone who does that isn't fun either.

WarKitty
2010-12-30, 04:26 PM
Here's the issue with optimization that I've found:

I have a PF bard that's filling in as a trap-person and sneak. To do this, I need perception, disable device, stealth, and hide all high. As a caster, I of course know spellcraft. As a bard, I know how to perform with various things, plus a lot of random knowledge. From my backstory, I would also know how to manage a horse - that's two more skills, ride and handle animal.

The way the game is set up, I can either give up some of those skills, or not be very good at all of them. Neither of those is a particularly optimal roleplaying choice. One of them is also likely to get me killed, as I'm the only one with disable device. Which one do you think I'm going to choose?

Callista
2010-12-30, 04:29 PM
You're trying to play a bard like a rogue; of course it's not going to be a perfect fit... you can start a new topic and ask for ideas, though.

WarKitty
2010-12-30, 04:36 PM
You're trying to play a bard like a rogue; of course it's not going to be a perfect fit... you can start a new topic and ask for ideas, though.

Actually the concept has a fair bit of support in pathfinder. But that brings up a different issue - if the concept I have isn't supported by any of the existing classes, I have to spend a lot of energy optimizing or create a character that's completely incompetent. In this case, the concept was a spy that primarily uses his charm and spellcasting ability to get what he wants and remain undetected, but is also capable of sneaking around. I'm limited to pathfinder core, and we're not high enough level for a PrC.

Besides, how would being a rogue help? The problem isn't that I don't have what I need as class skills; I do. The problem is I don't have the skill points even on a high skill point class to have the things I need to make the class viable and have backstory and pure roleplaying skills. If I weren't a bard, I'd have to be putting ranks into diplomacy and bluff, which are right now covered by versatile performance.

Edit: This is just an example with a high skill point class. Can you imagine trying this with a low-int barbarian?

The Big Dice
2010-12-30, 05:02 PM
The problem isn't that I don't have what I need as class skills; I do. The problem is I don't have the skill points even on a high skill point class to have the things I need to make the class viable and have backstory and pure roleplaying skills.
That's a fundamental flaw with D&D, not your concept. The way D&D is structured means that going outside of the fairly narrow confines of the character class pigeonholes makes your concept nigh impossible without some seriously convoluted choices. And it makes your concept almost unplayable at first level.

That is something that ultimately drove me away from 3.X and on editions of D&D. The system will not allow me to make the characters I want to play. D&D just doesn't support Vikings, Princes in Exile, steppe cavalry or woodsmen that neither use a bow nor use two weapons.

It doesn't even have to let me be super competent at first level. But giving the feel and foundations for those kind of characters, and others, just isn't possible in D&D.

WarKitty
2010-12-30, 05:20 PM
That's a fundamental flaw with D&D, not your concept. The way D&D is structured means that going outside of the fairly narrow confines of the character class pigeonholes makes your concept nigh impossible without some seriously convoluted choices. And it makes your concept almost unplayable at first level.

That is something that ultimately drove me away from 3.X and on editions of D&D. The system will not allow me to make the characters I want to play. D&D just doesn't support Vikings, Princes in Exile, steppe cavalry or woodsmen that neither use a bow nor use two weapons.

It doesn't even have to let me be super competent at first level. But giving the feel and foundations for those kind of characters, and others, just isn't possible in D&D.

Hence you have to optimize to make a workable concept for those. Which is why I find it easier to roleplay an optimized character a lot of times. If I'm playing a character that's supposed to be charming and good at picking locks, I'd better have a high charisma score and some ranks in disable device. And since scores and skill points are limited, that means I'm more likely to put points into things that are going to come up in the game.

The Big Dice
2010-12-30, 08:14 PM
Hence you have to optimize to make a workable concept for those. Which is why I find it easier to roleplay an optimized character a lot of times. If I'm playing a character that's supposed to be charming and good at picking locks, I'd better have a high charisma score and some ranks in disable device. And since scores and skill points are limited, that means I'm more likely to put points into things that are going to come up in the game.

Actually, that's not optimising. Optimisation is making a character that is the best they can be at whatever it is they do with the minimal wastage of resources that the game system provides. Having to jump though hoops to get a concept to work isn't optimal. It's system mastery, it's getting something to work that shouldn't because of limitations in the system. But ultimately, it's banging your head against the walls that class based system puts in the way of concepts that are outside the boundaries of the classes the game designers came up with.

jseah
2010-12-30, 09:19 PM
Sounding familiar?
<...>
So... people who are quite happy to snuff out a dozen lives via incineration, half a room away? :smallbiggrin:
Actually, the way I play tends to be quite non-stereotypical. Kick in the door and incinerate everything is like... an absolute last resort.

That kind of thing gets you killed. At least in my circle of friends who play D&D, toe-to-toe combat encounters usually end up disastrously. With the GM saying, "How the hell did you guys just die to that? It was just a *CR 2 monster(s) / ECL 2 NPC(s)*!"


Isolationist psychopaths are *not* optimized. Their builds might be but the playstyle is not.

The truly powerful stuff involves interacting with the setting and using / changing it. Look at the airships, leadership, diplomancy, flying fortresses, how to run a kingdom with magic threads.
The spell create food and water (and the loyalty gained in the population when your church uses it) is strategically far far more powerful than a fireball.

If it came down to using the spell fireball, I'd say you screwed up.

Tiki Snakes
2010-12-30, 09:32 PM
Actually, the way I play tends to be quite non-stereotypical. Kick in the door and incinerate everything is like... an absolute last resort.

That kind of thing gets you killed. At least in my circle of friends who play D&D, toe-to-toe combat encounters usually end up disastrously. With the GM saying, "How the hell did you guys just die to that? It was just a *CR 2 monster(s) / ECL 2 NPC(s)*!"


Isolationist psychopaths are *not* optimized. Their builds might be but the playstyle is not.

The truly powerful stuff involves interacting with the setting and using / changing it. Look at the airships, leadership, diplomancy, flying fortresses, how to run a kingdom with magic threads.
The spell create food and water (and the loyalty gained in the population when your church uses it) is strategically far far more powerful than a fireball.

If it came down to using the spell fireball, I'd say you screwed up.

I managed to turn a 4e warlord with a 14 in his primary ability score into a powerful, setting-altering force using exactly this ethos. Ended up being a rather entertaining character, too.

Thoroughly endorse the above, providing the campaign's focus is such that it is an option at all.

WarKitty
2010-12-30, 09:43 PM
Actually, that's not optimising. Optimisation is making a character that is the best they can be at whatever it is they do with the minimal wastage of resources that the game system provides. Having to jump though hoops to get a concept to work isn't optimal. It's system mastery, it's getting something to work that shouldn't because of limitations in the system. But ultimately, it's banging your head against the walls that class based system puts in the way of concepts that are outside the boundaries of the classes the game designers came up with.

Yes, optimisation is making a character the best they can be at whatever it is they do. The character concept is what defines what they do. In this case, what my character does is sneak and hide and perform. Maxing out those skills is optimising. That's why you can optimise a monk, even though it's not a well-built class. You're ruling out anything that's reasonable as "not really optimising" and then saying that optimising is bad.

Psyx
2010-12-31, 06:36 AM
Isolationist psychopaths are *not* optimized. Their builds might be but the playstyle is not.

Drop the isolationist, then. I completely disagree with the assertion that psychopathy isn't an optimal playstyle.

It's actually a very optimal playstyle, and one which is shockingly common.
Most gamers role-play psychopaths a large proportion of the time. Most people who can't be bothered to roleplay any choice that isn't optimal or roleplay at all are playing psychopaths.

They might not recognise it or want to acknowledge it, but they do. Read through the description again. Psychopaths are self-serving, fearless, get what they want, cheerfully manipulate others, and often justify all of it in some manner. Killing people and not caring is just one aspect of it. This is the typical D&D adventurer.

By being 'optimum' in a play-stlye, you're generally acting in a psychopathic manner. It's not optimal to use minimum force. It's not optimal to care about others.
In the player's head their character is just 'cool' and normal, or maybe biting the bullet for some cause, but from any external viewpoint, they're a psychopath. Because the worst optimisers want to win, and psychopathic behaviour is winning behaviour in many RPGs.



The truly powerful stuff involves interacting with the setting and using / changing it. Look at the airships, leadership, diplomancy...


Psychopaths are good at that. As I've mentioned, psychopathic tendencies are very common in those who are successful in business. They are self-serving and ruthless, and that gives them an edge.



Can I ask Psyx do you play DnD?
Do you play it as a kick open doors and kill whats on the other side style of game ?

Only when I have to!
D&D holds a special place in my gaming calendar: It's not a 'real' roleplaying game to my mind, due to the bad system design and awful way it tends to play out. It's the gaming equivalent of putting on a Stephen Seagul movie. If I want decent roleplay and complexity, I'll play or run a better game. D&D is the lowest common denominator.

I am playing my way through the Castle Ravenloft adventure at present though, and I am indeed playing a wizard [Evoker: Because I don't want to be a douche] with a small collection of mental illnesses that fairly regularly affect play. although I'm avoiding psychopathic behaviour, as there aren't many sentient creatures to kill, which means that the character doesn't have to cheerfully be capable of mass-murdering actual people.

Heliomance
2010-12-31, 08:08 AM
My first character, before I really knew how the system worked, I started off trying to play without the utter nonchalance about killing. I was the scout, and the first combat encounter we had was an orc sentry. I went "I sneak up behind him, put my quarterstaff over his head, and press it against his throat, throttling him."
The DM told me to roll grapple. I failed by quite a lot, not being at all optimised for grappling. I hadn't known what it was when I made the character. I was trying to drop him unconcious non-lethally, without giving him the chance to yell for help. At he point at which he escaped, the rest of the party appeared and horribly murdered him in brutally efficient fashion. At that point I realised that D&D really doesn't suit the mentality of not killing stuff, and the next time we got in a fight I just wailed away with the rest of them.

Psyx
2010-12-31, 09:20 AM
My first character...

The first casualty of war gaming is innocence. :smallwink:

The Big Dice
2010-12-31, 10:58 AM
Yes, optimisation is making a character the best they can be at whatever it is they do. The character concept is what defines what they do. In this case, what my character does is sneak and hide and perform. Maxing out those skills is optimising. That's why you can optimise a monk, even though it's not a well-built class. You're ruling out anything that's reasonable as "not really optimising" and then saying that optimising is bad.
Sometimes there's an easier way (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0050.html)of making things work. In what way is Pun-Pun, the Jumplomancer or the Horizon Tripper a character concept? Who the character is defines what they do. The mechanics of hte game describe how they do it.

There's a fundamental difference at play there.

WarKitty
2010-12-31, 11:05 AM
Sometimes there's an easier way (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0050.html)of making things work. In what way is Pun-Pun, the Jumplomancer or the Horizon Tripper a character concept? Who the character is defines what they do. The mechanics of hte game describe how they do it.

There's a fundamental difference at play there.

No, theoretical optimization builds are not a character concept. I've never seen anyone try to play them, either - they're thought experiments, not characters. What I have seen plenty of times is someone refusing to build a mechanically competent character and calling it roleplaying. It doesn't matter how well you describe what your character can do if the mechanics say you can't. You optimize so you can actually mechanically do what your character concept says you do. What I was pointing out with the bard is, sometimes you don't have the mechanical options to do everything that your character could, so you pick the ones that are likely to come up. If my character used to be a farmer, I can just say that and not put points into Profession: Farmer because it's never going to come up in the game. If I say my character is stealthy and don't put points into stealth, I don't have a stealthy character. That's optimization.

Callista
2010-12-31, 11:05 AM
My first character, before I really knew how the system worked, I started off trying to play without the utter nonchalance about killing. I was the scout, and the first combat encounter we had was an orc sentry. I went "I sneak up behind him, put my quarterstaff over his head, and press it against his throat, throttling him."
The DM told me to roll grapple. I failed by quite a lot, not being at all optimised for grappling. I hadn't known what it was when I made the character. I was trying to drop him unconcious non-lethally, without giving him the chance to yell for help. At he point at which he escaped, the rest of the party appeared and horribly murdered him in brutally efficient fashion. At that point I realised that D&D really doesn't suit the mentality of not killing stuff, and the next time we got in a fight I just wailed away with the rest of them.This looks like a group with a hack-and-slash approach; there are a lot of groups who would be happy to have a player who is willing to knock out sentries instead of killing them. And yes, there is support for non-lethal combat in D&D--everything from the sap to non-lethal spells to weapon enchantments.

If I had a player tell me they wanted to do this to the sentry, and they were playing a rogue, I'd just have them roll sneak attack damage. If it leaves the guy unconscious, then you have what you want. You're doing a sneak attack, however you flavor it. Taking to-hit penalty for non-lethal damage, but then that's realistic; you can't fight all-out when you're pulling your punches.

Re. optimizing for a character concept: Yes, I agree that you need to know how to optimize to some degree to get some character concepts to work. But the idea that it's either ridiculously hard or impossible is just laughable. Learning to optimize is something anybody can do; and if you're not too good at it, all you have to do is ask for help, online or in your group. D&D 3.5 is flexible enough to allow for literally any character concept. Re-flavor what you need to, pick the abilities you want your character to have, and you can pretty much get any character you want.

WarKitty
2010-12-31, 11:08 AM
Re. optimizing for a character concept: Yes, I agree that you need to know how to optimize to some degree to get some character concepts to work. But the idea that it's either ridiculously hard or impossible is just laughable. Learning to optimize is something anybody can do; and if you're not too good at it, all you have to do is ask for help, online or in your group. D&D 3.5 is flexible enough to allow for literally any character concept. Re-flavor what you need to, pick the abilities you want your character to have, and you can pretty much get any character you want.

My charisma-based divine bard that has been the subject of two different threads here that both ended with "you'll have to homebrew something" begs to differ.

Or your comment previously about "trying to play a bard like a rogue" - what do I do if I want a sneaky charmer?

Edit: ok that second one would probably have been a beguiler if that had been an option at character creation. Although I'm rather fond of bardic music.

We've been having the same problem with a friend who decided to play a gish. So far, all it's managed to do is create a character who doesn't have the hit points for a melee and doesn't have the caster level for a caster. Sure it'll work once you get high enough for a PrC, but it sucks in the meantime.

The Big Dice
2010-12-31, 11:24 AM
We've been having the same problem with a friend who decided to play a gish. So far, all it's managed to do is create a character who doesn't have the hit points for a melee and doesn't have the caster level for a caster. Sure it'll work once you get high enough for a PrC, but it sucks in the meantime.
Again you've hit on reasons why I don't play D&D anymore. It's limiting inall the places where it should be liberating. It sounds to me like it might be an idea for you to check out some of the alternatives, of which there is no shortage.

Heliomance
2010-12-31, 11:25 AM
This looks like a group with a hack-and-slash approach; there are a lot of groups who would be happy to have a player who is willing to knock out sentries instead of killing them. And yes, there is support for non-lethal combat in D&D--everything from the sap to non-lethal spells to weapon enchantments.

If I had a player tell me they wanted to do this to the sentry, and they were playing a rogue, I'd just have them roll sneak attack damage. If it leaves the guy unconscious, then you have what you want. You're doing a sneak attack, however you flavor it. Taking to-hit penalty for non-lethal damage, but then that's realistic; you can't fight all-out when you're pulling your punches.

Re. optimizing for a character concept: Yes, I agree that you need to know how to optimize to some degree to get some character concepts to work. But the idea that it's either ridiculously hard or impossible is just laughable. Learning to optimize is something anybody can do; and if you're not too good at it, all you have to do is ask for help, online or in your group. D&D 3.5 is flexible enough to allow for literally any character concept. Re-flavor what you need to, pick the abilities you want your character to have, and you can pretty much get any character you want.

I was a ranger, not a rogue. In my newbish innocence, I thought locking a quarterstaff across someone's windpipe would be quite a good way to take them out quietly - and would have the bonus of not requiring a callous disregard for life. Apparently not. We weren't a particularly hack and slash group, but killing things was generally the most efficient way to proceed.

WarKitty
2010-12-31, 11:28 AM
Again you've hit on reasons why I don't play D&D anymore. It's limiting inall the places where it should be liberating. It sounds to me like it might be an idea for you to check out some of the alternatives, of which there is no shortage.

I may. When I DM it's only loosely related to D&D - if you can justify an ability you can have it, with the caveat that you have to give up other stuff for it. Although thankfully Pathfinder did fix my biggest pet peeve, about trapfinding.

Grelna the Blue
2010-12-31, 01:06 PM
Re. optimizing for a character concept: Yes, I agree that you need to know how to optimize to some degree to get some character concepts to work. But the idea that it's either ridiculously hard or impossible is just laughable. Learning to optimize is something anybody can do; and if you're not too good at it, all you have to do is ask for help, online or in your group. D&D 3.5 is flexible enough to allow for literally any character concept. Re-flavor what you need to, pick the abilities you want your character to have, and you can pretty much get any character you want.

My personal whiny complaint about a non-gamebreaking character concept the rules don't let me play: Having been searching extensively for some time, I can tell you that there is precious little out there for a good-aligned arcane necromancer (at some point fairly soon I plan on having my aforementioned neutral necromancer turn toward the Light). There are some very useful feats, but no useful PrCs (well, aside from the decent but not great Paragnostic Disciple 5 level PrC, which I'd take if my GM allowed it in his game) and very few official spells. The Necromancy school is defined in the book as "spells that manipulate, create, or destroy life or life force." If you don't want to create undead and want to do more positive things with necromancy (you know, stuff aside from freezing, cursing, aging, or inducing fear in people), you're much better off playing almost any other specialist. You could make a pretty effective undead-blasting evoker or conjurer if you wanted to play an arcane undead-blaster. But only if you wanted to be a blaster. There are so many published resources for those who are death-obsessed necromancers and so much nothing for those more interested in life that it is clear most of the game designers haven't even considered the possibility.

My GM and I are working on coming up with something homebrew, but he's unfortunately kind of oriented on the blasty side too, although he has been good enough to allow the conversion of a lot of 2nd Ed spells.

Psyx
2010-12-31, 01:36 PM
The problem is I don't have the skill points even on a high skill point class to have the things I need to make the class viable and have backstory and pure roleplaying skills.

This is a failure of the system, though. And -as I said- giving every new player 50 extra skill points does NOT help, because a sizeable proportion will spend them all on spot, listen, tumble and spellcraft, rather than a dot here of ride, a dot here of craft: cheesecake. You can only really solve it by either giving players lifepath skills or by ring-fencing some skill points. And people will still whine that their character has done nothing but learn to fight since childhood, so should be able to put those points in 'carousing' into 'kill stuff with sword'.


No, theoretical optimization builds are not a character concept. I've never seen anyone try to play them, either

Maybe not pun-pun, but Incantrix, Planar Sheppards, and the next tier down of broken all see regular play. They are frankly unbalanced and everyone knows it, but some people still insist on playing them to the max. The character concept is then nailed on as an afterthought, and tends towards 'I basically want to be uber. I don't have any family for the GM to kidnap, either.' now THAT'S over-optimisation by a wide margin to my mind.

As regards optimising for stealth rather than farming, I think that most reasonable players would put a single skill point in there as at least a nod. It's the characters who have and never intend to have anything outside the immediate set of focused skills that they use constantly in game, and won't consider spending points elsewhere until those are maxxed that typically flag warning signs to me.


We've been having the same problem with a friend who decided to play a gish.

The problem here is that D&D is mechanically trash. Seriously: Play something else if you want flexibility. It's not like there's not at least a hundred other RPGs in current print. D&D encourages cardboard cut-out characters.

Aside: I've wanted to play a non-evil necromancer for a while, and one who wasn't focused on having hordes of minions, but rather in using the non-undead-summoning/using stuff. There's pretty much nothing.

WarKitty
2010-12-31, 01:40 PM
Honestly it sounds like what problem you get is dependent on the gaming group. The people I play with don't tend to pull out the high-power builds. We have more issues with the one or two players that absolutely refuse to optimize their characters enough. Sure, it's nice that your character has all this roleplaying potential, but if you can't actually hit something with that fancy heirloom sword of yours, well, why don't you go back to farming and let the party get someone competent?

MeeposFire
2010-12-31, 07:25 PM
Good aligned necromancy spells made more sense when they included healing spells and the like.

Tvtyrant
2010-12-31, 08:27 PM
I think we should move all of the healing and inflict spells to Necromancy and rename the school. Raising the dead is the least effective weapon for a Necromancer Wizard, and it isn't very good for the Cleric.

Actually a reorganization of the spell schools overall would be a good idea. Like Disintegrate to Evocation, Mage Armor to Abjuration, etc. Make them more monopurpose.

jseah
2010-12-31, 09:43 PM
Thoroughly endorse the above, providing the campaign's focus is such that it is an option at all.
To Psyx:
Might be pretty easy to get very optimal playstyles without being a psychopath. Winning cooperation by being nice? LG diplomancy is definitely one way.

Some of the best characters I've seen play were the kind that wielded the power to demolish plot and warp the setting to their wishes. After all, so what if you can whirlwind your way through killing everything that stands in your path to the castle treasury, when with a different character you can simply politick your way into being lord of said castle with a welcome party thrown in?

Of course, this generally doesn't lend itself to playing modules and doing it too much in a non-sandbox environment tends to lead to much GM frustration as the characters are rather more interested in worldbuilding than following X plot hook.
Precisely the thing you say optimizers don't do.

Unless you meant joining a mage's guild or the town guard (low level) is being a psychopath, then lots of NPCs are also being that so it's fine. At higher levels and power, you start your own mage's guild or negotiate for providing military escort to noble houses. Optimize and play in the right way, and you'll be the guys giving the quests to the NPCs instead of the other way around.
Being the guy who sits in the cushy chair while other people go out and risk disembowelment by owlbears demonstrates superiority like nothing else.

Being a psychopath is only necessary if you aren't proactive.

Caphi
2011-01-01, 01:40 PM
As regards optimising for stealth rather than farming, I think that most reasonable players would put a single skill point in there as at least a nod. It's the characters who have and never intend to have anything outside the immediate set of focused skills that they use constantly in game, and won't consider spending points elsewhere until those are maxxed that typically flag warning signs to me.

If you have one character who put his point into stealth and another who put his into farming, and both of them have backstories that say "oldschool peasant ninja", the truth is that while both of them have served their character's assumed skillset equally, only one will actually have that backstory be relevant.

Basically, the one with stealth will be able to stealth as well as his backstory says, and his farming background (or mechanical lack of one) will never be a problem. The one with farming will likewise get to use his point in farming perhaps once, but he won't be able to serve the rest of his backstory.

Psyx
2011-01-02, 07:39 AM
To Psyx:
Might be pretty easy to get very optimal playstyles without being a psychopath. Winning cooperation by being nice? LG diplomancy is definitely one way.

Again: I'll refer you to the psychopaths. Psychopaths are very charming indeed. It's because they're happy to lie without any outward signs of deception and don't feel guilty about doing so.
We are financially ruled by a large number of psychopaths. They don't get to the top in our world by murdering people, they do it via manipulation, superficial charm and ruthlessness. LG does not tend to make you El Presedente. It only gets you so far. Machiavelli had it spot on.


Precisely the thing you say optimizers don't do.

Huh? Where?



Basically, the one with stealth will be able to stealth as well as his backstory says, and his farming background (or mechanical lack of one) will never be a problem. The one with farming will likewise get to use his point in farming perhaps once, but he won't be able to serve the rest of his backstory.

Ok... so a being one point off maxxed in stealth ruins the backstory whereas min-maxxing without even putting a single point into background skills is fine?

We're just going to have to disagree on that one, because I call putting a single skill point into something that you've supposedly spent most of your life doing to be making a nod towards simulating a background, whereas I find avoiding doing so via your manner of justification to be basically a bit of a laughable attempt to justify overly min-maxxing.

jseah
2011-01-02, 08:20 AM
We are financially ruled by a large number of psychopaths. They don't get to the top in our world by murdering people, they do it via manipulation, superficial charm and ruthlessness. LG does not tend to make you El Presedente. It only gets you so far. Machiavelli had it spot on.
If that's your definition of a psychopath, fine.

They're pretty common then, no? So the players playing one should be fine.
They can be one of the so-called psychopaths if those are common enough.


Huh? Where?
I thought you meant that optimized characters aren't interested in the world and seemingly wander around looking for bigger things to kill. You certainly gave that impression earlier.

I'm saying that that playstyle is not optimal. Your character has to take an interest in the world or you're not playing the character optimally.
Optimized characters, played correctly, pay very close attention to the setting they live in. Probably close enough that they qualify as psychopaths by your definition.

If I misunderstood that, then I'll retract that point.

WarKitty
2011-01-02, 09:32 AM
Ok... so a being one point off maxxed in stealth ruins the backstory whereas min-maxxing without even putting a single point into background skills is fine?

We're just going to have to disagree on that one, because I call putting a single skill point into something that you've supposedly spent most of your life doing to be making a nod towards simulating a background, whereas I find avoiding doing so via your manner of justification to be basically a bit of a laughable attempt to justify overly min-maxxing.

My point was once you start getting up a decent backstory those one skill point here and there adds up real fast. Plus I guess I don't consider 1 point to really be doing anything - if I'm going to put points in handle animal because my character was trained in riding, I really ought to have enough points there to make a DC 10 reliably. Putting 1 point in there and calling it being able to ride a horse well is just silly. I still suck at it.

ScionoftheVoid
2011-01-02, 10:23 AM
My point was once you start getting up a decent backstory those one skill point here and there adds up real fast. Plus I guess I don't consider 1 point to really be doing anything - if I'm going to put points in handle animal because my character was trained in riding, I really ought to have enough points there to make a DC 10 reliably. Putting 1 point in there and calling it being able to ride a horse well is just silly. I still suck at it.

Ride is probably a bad example, since the checks are generally very low even for the tasks you need a check for, which are few. Things like being a decent crafter or a famous chef are better examples, because you actually need to focus on those things to succeed.