Flavor vs Optimization...

[Masakan]

Which is more important to you?

[ryu]

Which is more important to you?

They both are. Thing is that the original designers were heavy-handed with both. This is why I reflavor on a whim. Usually with more detail and internally consistent logic than the source material.

[Aquillion]

I feel that the best optimization is optimization that also has a cool flavor to it.

And obviously, flavor that isn't backed up by competent mechanics is likewise going to have trouble in play -- you can play up the flavor of your Samurai as a mighty warrior all you want, but if they're mechanically, uh, not, then it's going to show!

[Aegis013]

Depends on what I'm doing, but generally, optimization is more important to me. Flavor is secondary, though I still appreciate good flavor and try to incorporate flavor into things I create.

[torrasque666]

I go for mid-op, high flavor builds. In my main game I'm currently a Warforged Cleric of the Lord of Blades. Swapped out my sub-op Juggernaut for him. Only thing the Juggy had going for him was the fact that almost nothing could grab him if he happened to fail his checks. And bull rushing into everything without dungeoncrasher was still kind of effective. He's now part of an army of the Lord of Blades. Cleric I just started with, only been through one encounter with. DM focused me and I dropped everything that ran at me. I think it was something like 6 dracotaurs, Swift Sub for War Spells to buff myself and beat the **** out of everything in front of me with my greatsword.



TL;DR: Mid-op is necessary for my group, but I enjoy high flavor builds more.​

[Forrestfire]

If I had to pick one, I'd say flavor, but noting that neither flavor nor optimization has any bearing on the other one.

I build my characters to be decent at what they do, and I write my characters to be interesting. If choosing to reduce the amount of one, I will always choose optimization, if only because I know where the game breaks, and I also know where power becomes difficult for the DM to handle. I've yet to have someone complain about having too flavorful a character, though.

[eggynack]

The answer is yes, I think. You pick flavor, and optimize such that that flavor is maximized. You make a character awesome within the restrictions of what your heart demands, for optimization without restriction is naught but pun-pun. However, if I have to choose, I tend towards optimization. It's just how my brain operates.

[Oneris]

What about when flavor dictates you would do something detrimental to the party's overall effectiveness, like a character taking a Will penalty against being Dominated because they want to know what being mind-controlled feels like?

[Shieldbunny]

What about when flavor dictates you would do something detrimental to the party's overall effectiveness, like a character taking a Will penalty against being Dominated because they want to know what being mind-controlled feels like?

Wouldn't you just fail the save, as opposed to taking a penalty?

[Flickerdart]

Optimization is flavor. The two can't really be separated. If you want to play a character focusing on something unique - say, a whip user - your optimization better be really spot on, because otherwise your character will be remembered as "that one guy that was dead weight."

[RhoTheWanderer]

I myself prefer flavor.

As a dm, it's nice when the players provide detailed backstories so that you can seamlessly tie them into your setting and even use friends or rivals from the backstories to serve as a major component of a story arc. Also as a dm, challenging a well-optimized character without killing the rest of the group of otherwise unoptimized characters can be a challenge. And I like my own characters to be flavorful as it allows me to better imagine the character and attempt to rp it (usually not very well though:smallsigh:)
However, I will say that optimization can be great. As a player, it can mean actually contributing to the party's success (as I found out when I played a fairly well optimized half-ogre recently in a new campaign).

I guess the point is you can (potentially) have your cake and eat it too. You can try to create a flavorful character and then try to optimize it so that it is actually viable. Just for the love of Pun Pun, please do not optimize just for the optimization's sake. Unflavored gimmicky optimized characters (like my spiked chain tripper:smalltongue:) may contribute to the party's success, but they contribute little to any over-arcing story as well as potentially outshining the other pcs.

PS: lol. Even with my half-ogre spiked chain tripper, I still have a short backstory that explains how he got his chain and that shows his Chaotic-Good nature. Albeit, it feels fairly vague and needs some more fluff to it.

[ryu]

What about when flavor dictates you would do something detrimental to the party's overall effectiveness, like a character taking a Will penalty against being Dominated because they want to know what being mind-controlled feels like?

Uh just go up to the party wizard or similar during downtime and ask to experiment? Same benefit less actively dangerous to comrades. Would you adventure with someone who valued the collective lives and safety of the group less than some temporary thrill?

[torrasque666]

What about when flavor dictates you would do something detrimental to the party's overall effectiveness, like a character taking a Will penalty against being Dominated because they want to know what being mind-controlled feels like?

Then you said "F it" and go for it.

D&D was designed as a roleplaying game, not a rollplaying game. And sometimes your role is a person whose a bit dense. Then again I'm a person who would prefer to leave all OOC knowledge at the side of the table and immerse myself into my game. I might build a certain way, but then I will play a certain way too. I play a character, not a spreadsheet with a bunch of numbers on it.

[Oneris]

Wouldn't you just fail the save, as opposed to taking a penalty?

And be eviscerated even more brutally in real life as opposed to the weak excuse of the dice having at least a hand in it?

[Shieldbunny]

And be eviscerated even more brutally in real life as opposed to the weak excuse of the dice having at least a hand in it?

True....very true.

[ryu]

And be eviscerated even more brutally in real life as opposed to the weak excuse of the dice having at least a hand in it?

Pretty sure he meant while not having the attempt made by an enemy.

[shadowseve]

I tend to go flavor. I mean I'm a druid who goes a lot into melee. Not the best use of a druid, however; having a dire bear with the fanged ring and monks belt do unarmed iterative attacks (aka Kung Fu bear) and still get more claw attacks via girallon's blessing plus a bite attack is fun. Add in some levels of sword sage from my gestalt and it's quite fun sometimes. As someone once told me, "maneuver bears are neat".

Edit:

plus getting the wizard to cast Greater Mighty Wallop is icing on the cake.

To me as long as you're not holding your group back. Go flavor all day long.

[Shieldbunny]

I value them both. I tend to pick what I want my character to do, build it to do said action passably well, then come up with an interesting backstory for how they got those abilities.

[Xerlith]

The question boggles me, because I feel like it suggests you can't have both.
I like my flavor with a taste of POWER, of course. It's better to be a useful part of the group, not go "I'm Bubs, the one-handed, blind archer".

Also, I always optimize. Because optimization means many things. I optimize towards a concept. If I have to reflavor, I do it. I also always optimize towards the power level of my group. Because overperforming everyone is not fun. If I have to play God because my team lacks in power, I do it. Be it a buffer/BFC Wizard, DFI Bard or White Raven Initiator.

[Sir Chuckles]

Outside of TO, the two should be working in conjunction to make the best character you want.

[Phelix-Mu]

For me, flavor usually leads to optimization, but the latter always bows to the former. I already know from experience in person and on these and other forums that optimization can trivialize much of the game if not yoked to some greater purpose. Thus, my personal approach is to come up with a flavorful core concept, and then refine it as I work out the mechanics. I love developing backstory and personality for my characters, so making optimization subordinate to story works just fine for me.

But I can also respect other approaches. It takes all kinds, and one of the strengths of 3e (and perhaps D&D more broadly) is that it can support many different tables with many different players that all have their own playstyles and yet manage to hash it out, coming together to cooperatively create an engaging and enjoyable story in a world cast and forged by the DM.

[shadowseve]

Flavor. I never liked power without originality.

BUT

The question boggles me, because I feel like it suggests you can't have both.
I like my flavor with a taste of POWER, of course. It's better to be a useful part of the group, not go "I'm Bubs, the one-handed, blind archer".

I agree with this. A well developed character can have both flavor and raw power but there is a point when power breaks the game and the game is no longer fun.

[Angelalex242]

I've been known to reflavor things when they suit me.

Nymph's kiss, for example.

Well, one character I put that feat on was actually married to an Astral Deva.

So I renamed the feat Celestial Kiss, and went on my merry way. :)

Mechanics are the same, but now the intimate relationship required is with a good outsider instead of a fey.

[Juntao112]

D&D was designed as a roleplaying game, not a rollplaying game.

I'm sorry, but given the fact that D&D descended from wargames like Blackmoore, and that 90% of all feats ever published relate in some way, shape, or form to combat, I would say that the opposite is true.

[torrasque666]

I'm sorry, but given the fact that D&D descended from wargames like Blackmoore, and that 90% of all feats ever published relate in some way, shape, or form to combat, I would say that the opposite is true.

If it was meant to be rollplayed and not roleplayed, then what is the point of having a finely crafted story? The point of these worlds full of lore? These classes, that while mechanically weak, have a definition other than just Caster A/B/C and Hit-with-stick-guy? Such things were designed with interacting in the world through the eyes of your character as a focus because otherwise, what is the point of having any adventure with anything but wave after wave of combat? With no NPC's who the group comes to love and care about and are effected by the death of, or places that the party slowly builds from lowly fishing village to a sprawling metropolis renowned through the planes, what's the point of a story? Remember that a well-made campaign has three pillars: Exploration, Interaction, and Combat. Without the other two, you might as well just be going up against a Random Number Generator and throwing the dice at it. Without fluff, all a character is is numbers on a sheet of paper and at that point who cares what happens to it other than "I spent so much time calculating how to be the most powerful X!" when it dies?

[Spore]

I WAS very guilty of optimization >> everything else but I have made several soulless overly optimized characters that I go for a different approach now:

Step 1) See what flavor I would want to hit.
Step 2) Build an effective character within those constraints.
Step 3) Write a backstory - possibly changing or refluffing mechanical choices.

Oddly enough one of my fellow players always works it out that his suboptimal characters have a huge advantage ingame because they know enough people and have access to many areas that it doesn't matter that my optimized guttersnipe is mechanically better.

[aleucard]

In my opinion, they're both equally important to a good RPG. If you can't do either, or sacrifice one for the other needlessly, then it loses an essential part of what makes this a Role-Playing Game. If you try and Role-play an interesting and flavorful Kung Fu Master by going Monk 20, then your failure to optimize has turned you into what is referred to most commonly as 'Steve Erkel wearing Boxing Gloves', and none but the most extreme levels of self-delusion will be able to tell you otherwise once you actually play it in a campaign both designed for and with the rest of they party being not held back in the slightest. If you go for pure optimization to the exclusion of any and all flavor that isn't picked up by accident, then you either get PunPun (if your DM isn't familiar with how High-Op works) or a lifeless stat block instead of a character. Both options are ones I consider abhorrent.

[ryu]

If it was meant to be rollplayed and not roleplayed, then what is the point of having a finely crafted story? The point of these worlds full of lore? These classes, that while mechanically weak, have a definition other than just Caster A/B/C and Hit-with-stick-guy? Such things were designed with interacting in the world through the eyes of your character as a focus because otherwise, what is the point of having any adventure with anything but wave after wave of combat? With no NPC's who the group comes to love and care about and are effected by the death of, or places that the party slowly builds from lowly fishing village to a sprawling metropolis renowned through the planes, what's the point of a story? Remember that a well-made campaign has three pillars: Exploration, Interaction, and Combat. Without the other two, you might as well just be going up against a Random Number Generator and throwing the dice at it. Without fluff, all a character is is numbers on a sheet of paper and at that point who cares what happens to it other than "I spent so much time calculating how to be the most powerful X!" when it dies?

Now see you would've had a point there if not for the undeniable fact that the vast, and I do mean vast, majority of the literature revolved around combat to the point where all published adventures involve some form of murdering various enemies. It could be to get a desired plot macguffin, some loot, to clear them from area because the local township wanted them gone or what have you. Have you not noticed yet that the main thing the books use in an attempt to make travel engaging is random combat encounters? How the most emphasized point of any creatures entry involves the relevant combat stats? How the literature will go into excruciating detail over how an actual dungeon is laid out while paying relatively little attention to the accompanying town or its people? This was a game designed around the concept of emulating fantasy battles. This becomes more bluntly apparent the closer you look at how systems were budgeted design-time wise.

[torrasque666]

Now see you would've had a point there if not for the undeniable fact that the vast, and I do mean vast, majority of the literature revolved around combat to the point where all published adventures involve some form of murdering various enemies. It could be to get a desired plot macguffin, some loot, to clear them from area because the local township wanted them gone or what have you. Have you not noticed yet that the main thing the books use in an attempt to make travel engaging is random combat encounters? How the most emphasized point of any creatures entry involves the relevant combat stats? How the literature will go into excruciating detail over how an actual dungeon is laid out while paying relatively little attention to the accompanying town or its people? This was a game designed around the concept of emulating fantasy battles. This becomes more bluntly apparent the closer you look at how systems were budgeted design-time wise.

Then what is the point of the rest of the books then? Useless pieces of paper? The parts that, for each race describe philosophy, daily life, religion, activities, interspecies relations, that's all worthless then? It might be a small part of any book, but a topic's worth isn't necessarily deemed by the amount of pages devoted to it. Because in that case most of the bestiaries would be the most important part of a book. Or spells. Certainly not class or race, which is kinda the defining aspect of a character.

[eggynack]

Then what is the point of the rest of the books then? Useless pieces of paper? The parts that, for each race describe philosophy, daily life, religion, activities, interspecies relations, that's all worthless then? It might be a small part of any book, but a topic's worth isn't necessarily deemed by the amount of pages devoted to it. Because in that case most of the bestiaries would be the most important part of a book. Or spells. Certainly not class or race, which is kinda the defining aspect of a character.
There's not all that much point to my mind at least. I tend to just skip everything, and just seek out cool mechanical stuff. Optimization and flavor may be subservient to each other, but that doesn't mean that the flavor has to come from the books.

[ryu]

Then what is the point of the rest of the books then? Useless pieces of paper? The parts that, for each race describe philosophy, daily life, religion, activities, interspecies relations, that's all worthless then? It might be a small part of any book, but a topic's worth isn't necessarily deemed by the amount of pages devoted to it. Because in that case most of the bestiaries would be the most important part of a book. Or spells. Certainly not class or race, which is kinda the defining aspect of a character.

Considering how many other pieces of paper released by the same company often bluntly contradict their own lore in hilarious and sad ways to the point where most of them can be taken as vague suggestions anyways? Yes. The lot of them are badly written and useless for all but an optional starting point in creating an internally consistent world.

Also the bestiaries and spells ARE the most important parts of the books with races and classes taking third and forth place interchangeably. Spells and bestiaries determine the ecosystem in an any given area of the world, what all sides involved are capable of doing, most of the economic power of cities as defined by the magic item trade, how the cities are defended, and from what. How much time in most games pre-published adventure path or no do you think is spent in-combat as opposed to other things? After giving an honest answer to that give an honest guess as to why.

[cheetah]

The best advice I ever received about flavor vs optimization is from our local druid expert. Mr eggyknack himself.


Are you in some sort of crazy high-op game where everything is pimped out tier ones? Unless you're in that exact situation, there's really no need to push things as your DM wants. Really, min/maxing a druid is pretty easy if you're completely unrestricted. Build your crazy cat druid, maybe running it as a good focused lion of talisid type, and if you want to optimize, optimize that. You could emphasize the Egypt thing, and pick up some stuff from sandstorm, perhaps even making it a desert half-orc (probably the first time I've recommended that for flavor reasons, actually). You could play up the docile house cat angle, picking up a bunch of cityscape web enhancement ACF's. Hell, you could even build it as a shifter, and have some werecat elements in there.

Figure out what it means to you for your druid to be super cat focused, and then express that idea in every way possible. If you're really doing things right, then cat-ness should pervade every element of your character's existence, from the feats, to the spells, to the animal companion, to the ACF's. You're a frigging druid, and that means that it's next to impossible for you to suck from a build perspective. The answer to your question is both. The most important thing there is, from a build perspective, is optimizing your very nature towards a particular character concept, preferably without sacrificing too much viability. If you can do that, and do it right, then you'll be way better than any planar shepherd running a fleshraker animal companion (unless that itself is towards a concept). And seriously, I just noticed that there's a rogue in your party. If you try at all, there's no way you'll be the weak link here.



This really helped me out as I was struggling with a gm who wanted me to play a character I didn't want to play. Instead I built every aspect of my character around my favorite animal (cats). From the forms I take to the spells, animal companion I chose, and even down to my race screams I am a bad ass cat who will stalk and kill you.

So in my opinion you take your concept and in every way possible express that through your character and you'll have something special. Though it helps I'm a druid and natural good at everything. :smallbiggrin:

[torrasque666]

Considering how many other pieces of paper released by the same company often bluntly contradict their own lore in hilarious and sad ways to the point where most of them can be taken as vague suggestions anyways? Yes. The lot of them badly written and useless for all but an optional starting point in creating an internally consistent world.

Also the bestiaries and spells ARE the most important parts of the books with races and classes taking third and forth place interchangeably. Spells and bestiaries determine the ecosystem in an any given area of the world, what all sides involved are capable of doing, most of the economic power of cities as defined by the magic item trade, how the cities are defended, and from what. How much time in most games pre-published adventure path or no do you think is spent in-combat as opposed to other things? After giving an honest answer to that give an honest guess as to why.

In my experience, yes, a lot of time in pre-published adventure paths or modules is spent in combat. Why? Because Adventure Paths/Modules are made for DMs who either don't have time to make a plot from scratch or are too lazy to make a good plot. Thus they jump to the flashy bits that everyone is attracted to. But considering that almost every adventure module I have read for pathfinder shows where it is in the world, and how its issues relate to the world, I still have to say that flavor and lore are just as important as number-crunching. Because(at least for PF) otherwise what would be the point of publishing an ~ 30 page book for information that could be covered in 10?(Using Elves of Golarion as an example). And that last bit of your post, the thing about cities and all that? That's fluff for a DM. Its not PC fluff, but its still fluff, considering that the usual response to fluff i see here when it contradicts a build, or at least disagrees with a build is "refluff it to make it fit" and that's what a DM's job is to do. Deciding how the world works, including economics(if they care), defense, magic marts, and militaries, are fluff to a player as that has limited impact on them.

[Klarth]

I always optimize...for flavor!

[ryu]

In my experience, yes, a lot of time in pre-published adventure paths or modules is spent in combat. Why? Because Adventure Paths/Modules are made for DMs who either don't have time to make a plot from scratch or are too lazy to make a good plot. Thus they jump to the flashy bits that everyone is attracted to. But considering that almost every adventure module I have read for pathfinder shows where it is in the world, and how its issues relate to the world, I still have to say that flavor and lore are just as important as number-crunching. Because(at least for PF) otherwise what would be the point of publishing an ~ 30 page book for information that could be covered in 10?(Using Elves of Golarion as an example). And that last bit of your post, the thing about cities and all that? That's fluff for a DM. Its not PC fluff, but its still fluff, considering that the usual response to fluff i see here when it contradicts a build, or at least disagrees with a build is "refluff it to make it fit" and that's what a DM's job is to do. Deciding how the world works, including economics(if they care), defense, magic marts, and militaries, are fluff to a player as that has limited impact on them.

Oh none of those things I mentioned are fluff in any case. They're relevant things to actual game mechanics that come up far more often than you think. What is directly threatening the city and needs to be killed? What can the threat do? What can the city do? Based on economic power available how will the city reward you for helping? Is it some out of the way settlement you can turn into a safe haven where villains won't think to look for you at the lower levels? Is it a town with magical might that will pay in gold or useful magic items? How long can the city hold out against the threat and will they be helping the quest in any direct way? All of those are important questions that I fully expect to know before actually getting started. They're relevant to planning.

[Svata]

Stormwind.

But seriously, one does not preclude the other. I optimize, but the characters also have flavor. Optimization is more important, though, as without at least some, your character is dead weight, and holds the group back, whie flavor is what you make it. Fluff is mutable.

[torrasque666]

Again, that's really only looking at it from a mechanical stand point. Is there a motivation to kill something that's threatening a town OTHER a possible reward? It killed a childhood friend, or its a town you have a connection with in some way. These are also reasons to go on a quest to slay a creature.

[ryu]

Again, that's really only looking at it from a mechanical stand point. Is there a motivation to kill something that's threatening a town OTHER a possible reward? It killed a childhood friend, or its a town you have a connection with in some way. These are also reasons to go on a quest to slay a creature.

Again the point I was making was that those were mechanical questions not fluff questions. Nice of you to admit that.

And the reason is usually irrelevant. Do you know how many princesses I've saved, how many ''family members'' I've avenged, how many people I've come up with complex plans involving ganking for antagonizing me at any given point? The reason doesn't matter. It hasn't mattered in a long time barring some very unusual circumstances like the great wizarding pimp war a few years ago. What matters is what the core engagement is going to consist of and how we as a group of PCs are going to respond.

[Synar]

I tend to go flavor. I mean I'm a druid who goes a lot into melee. Not the best use of a druid, however; having a dire bear with the fanged ring and monks belt do unarmed iterative attacks (aka Kung Fu bear) and still get more claw attacks via girallon's blessing plus a bite attack is fun. Add in some levels of sword sage from my gestalt and it's quite fun sometimes. As someone once told me, "maneuver bears are neat".

Edit:

plus getting the wizard to cast Greater Mighty Wallop is icing on the cake.

To me as long as you're not holding your group back. Go flavor all day long.

I thought the expression CoDzilla came from the fact that buffed clerics and wilshaped druids are unstoppable melee beasts, while still having versatile spellcasting to back them up? So going melee for a druid would be fairly optimized? I might be wrong, thought.


EDIT:I believe there is a fairly popular name in this board for such a (for those using this name, I will remain neutral) fallacy (that flavor and optimization are incompatible).
EDIt EDit: Stormwind fallacy, like other have said before me.




P.S.:What are you two even arguing about? Combat and battles are flavorful. The fact that most things are fluffed toward the things wich will come up the most in most games, id est combat, is not really a problem. I mean, when using ToB maneouvers and thinking that your character is 'so cool', you are fluffing and crafting a character in which you immerse. You may find the character shallow/childish/power fantasy/insert-an-epitheth-here in some cases, but you cannot deny that within combat, the character is flavorful. Epic fantasy battles are epic, and epic does not mean sheet of numbers. I mean, quite a number of fantasy books (or manga, or greek epic tales, or SF fims,...) have passages/chapters/whatever that emphasize on combats/battles, and I don't think anyone will call that rollplaying, because no dices are actually involved. Combats and fantasy battles are just something that fascinate a lot of people, and there is nothing wrong with that. This does not mean that everything has to revolve around combat, and that combat flavor is not improved by good story, backgound and settings, by the way.

[eggynack]

I thought the expression CoDzilla came from the fact that buffed clerics and wilshaped druids are unstoppable melee beasts, while still having versatile spellcasting to back them up? So going melee for a druid would be fairly optimized? I might be wrong, thought.
Melee is alright, but it's probably not the best way to do business. It's a plan that puts you really close to enemies, and has a bunch of solid defenses, including things as easy as distance. In my view, doing it the other way is better. Druids are unstoppable magical beasts, backed up by the movement modes, vision modes, defenses, and stats provided by wild shape. It helps this plan that you can often melee at the same time through the animal companion and summons, especially as you can buff them the same way that you would buff yourself, and leave open actions to do other things. Melee can be good too, but I think it's at its best when you're running out of spell resources, or when you otherwise don't need to cast much to win a battle.

Edit: Do note that the list of magic backup provided by wild shape increases a lot with some feat support. Thus, movement modes become free action dimension door, through exalted wild shape, defenses become a massive pile of immunities, through dragon wild shape, and something or another that went unlisted becomes everything from extra actions, to casting across the ethereal plan, to immunity to mind affecting (just found that last one), through aberration wild shape. It's cool stuff.

[Aquillion]

Combat is definitely a mechanically optimal option for DMM persist clerics and Wild Shape focused druids (although you can build a druid for summoning, too; but even then you would probably want to wade into combat occasionally.)

Standing in the back row doing nothing but flinging fight-ending spells is generally not the best use of an optimized cleric or druid for the same reason blasty spells are generally not the best use for a wizard -- they can be good at it (and it's a good idea to prepare those spells so you have them ready if needed), but if all you care about is optimization and you want to do that as your main shtick, you should play a wizard, because wizards are better at it. Playing a Cleric or Druid trades a somewhat worse spell list for a variety of abilities (bigger HD, more armor/weapon access, higher BAB, and -- by far the most important -- DMM persist / Wild Shape) that, mostly, help make you much better at buffing yourself and wading into combat, so that's generally a more optimal way to use them.

However, this is all relative; a cleric or druid can be built to be extremely effective at basically any role. Which is the most important point to remember, really -- practical (as opposed to theoretical) optimization is about having a concept in your head and then building towards that as effectively as possible, which means it's really about realizing your flavor using the game's mechanics.

[eggynack]

Combat is definitely a mechanically optimal option for DMM persist clerics and Wild Shape focused druids (although you can build a druid for summoning, too; but even then you would probably want to wade into combat occasionally.)

Standing in the back row doing nothing but flinging fight-ending spells is generally not the best use of an optimized cleric or druid for the same reason blasty spells are generally not the best use for a wizard -- they can be good at it (and it's a good idea to prepare those spells so you have them ready if needed), but if all you care about is optimization and you want to do that as your main shtick, you should play a wizard, because wizards are better at it. Playing a Cleric or Druid trades a somewhat worse spell list for a variety of abilities (bigger HD, more armor/weapon access, higher BAB, and -- by far the most important -- DMM persist / Wild Shape) that, mostly, help make you much better at buffing yourself and wading into combat, so that's generally a more optimal way to use them.
The argument here really doesn't support the claim you're making. It doesn't really matter at all whether wizards can toss spells better. All that matters is whether druids can deal with encounters with a higher level of success through magic or through melee. Besides, my style does make use of all of a druid's class features in a way that a wizard can't to the same level of success. You send out the animal companion, allowing you to beat face, and take on a form like desmodu hunting bat, granting distance, high AC, high initiative, and high ranged touch attacks in equal measure, thus making you better at magic. Druids are better than wizards at beating face, and wizards are better than druids at magic, at least in some fields, but that doesn't suddenly make beating face better than magic. Better a reasonable wizard than a great fighter.

Edit: Also, I've gotta say, we're really starting to run out of stuff that a wizard can do and a druid can't. There are a few things, certainly, but the list is getting seriously short.

[BWR]

This is a tough one. I am in general of the opinon that a flavorful character is more preferable to a powerful character, but there are some complications. Flavor without ability can get really frustrating.
If you consistently fail to pull off anything because of weak build, it generally isn't particularly fun. So, since optimizing is a matter of degree, optimizing to let your character do what you want it to do (within the limits of system and setting and other characters) is fine and not at odds with flavor.

Choosing sub-optimal elements in your build because of flavor versus being better at you purported purpose? Flavor wins. E.g., a Fighter spending two feats to take Spellcraft as a class skill and Skill Focus Spellcraft is hard to justify on the grounds mechanical effectiveness, but if that's the flavor of the character, go for it. Yes, you will be weaker than a Fighter who spent those two feats on something directly useful to fighting, but that is less important than your character being what you want it to be.

[Synar]

This is a tough one. I am in general of the opinon that a flavorful character is more preferable to a powerful character, but there are some complications. Flavor without ability can get really frustrating.
If you consistently fail to pull off anything because of weak build, it generally isn't particularly fun. So, since optimizing is a matter of degree, optimizing to let your character do what you want it to do (within the limits of system and setting and other characters) is fine and not at odds with flavor.

Choosing sub-optimal elements in your build because of flavor versus being better at you purported purpose? Flavor wins. E.g., a Fighter spending two feats to take Spellcraft as a class skill and Skill Focus Spellcraft is hard to justify on the grounds mechanical effectiveness, but if that's the flavor of the character, go for it. Yes, you will be weaker than a Fighter who spent those two feats on something directly useful to fighting, but that is less important than your character being what you want it to be.

Why pick a fighter in the first place? Aren't there any class that better fit the concept? And what do skill focus give you that some skill points (even maxing it) can't give you? Because actively hurting a fighter ability to fight considering it already struggles will only work in a very low op group, I guess. But it is also true that there only that much good feats to pick so this might not hurt the fighter that much.

[molten_dragon]

Which is more important to you?

They're equally important. When making a character, I figure out the flavor I want, and then optimize the hell out of it.

[Vhaidara]

As has been covered, optimize your goal. I've been making a lot of characters lately for pbp, and I've created all kinds of interesting characters. And homebrew doesn't have to be scary. I have a tiefling warlock who has been fun, but his job is damage and other party members are doing that better. So I talked to the gm, and I'm going to have him go off the deep end. He's going to do something incredibly evil for information about Grazzt, his ancestor and enemy. But the party will see it. They know hey have my permission to kill if something happens. And then I will bring him back as a hellbred paladin, using a paladin fix I found that makes me a hard tank.

[BWR]

Why pick a fighter in the first place? Aren't there any class that better fit the concept? And what do skill focus give you that some skill points (even maxing it) can't give you? Because actively hurting a fighter ability to fight considering it already struggles will only work in a very low op group, I guess. But it is also true that there only that much good feats to pick so this might not hurt the fighter that much.

The irony of this comment is staggering.

[Yawgmoth]

What about when flavor dictates you would do something detrimental to the party's overall effectiveness, like a character taking a Will penalty against being Dominated because they want to know what being mind-controlled feels like? "But it's what my character would do!" is what bad players say. Don't be That Guy, don't make characters who have or will have desires to do things that will get themselves and others killed or are otherwise a pain in the ass. This is a team game; be a team player with a team character.

[JellyPooga]

"But it's what my character would do!" is what bad players say.

I loathe this kind of comment. I regularly do things, in character, that as an out of character player, I know to be detrimental to either the group or my own character. Why? Because I am not my character; I am sitting at a table with some friends. My character is under very different pressures, from environmental to social to personal and more. Do you always act in the strictly "optimal" manner? No. So why should a character in a roleplaying game?

To answer the OP; optimisation, by definition, is reliant on the "flavour" of a character. If we were talking about a strictly statistical game, then "optimisation" would mean nothing as there would only be one or at least a very limited number of ways to play the game in the best possible manner. This is less a case of optimising and more a case of statistical analysis. Optimising, implies that there are sub-optimal choices that are valid choices to make, that are yet possible to improve upon.

The game under question, being a roleplaying game, means that flavour is a prime consideration; the story comes first. Optimisation is merely a function of making that flavour 'work' for you. That can mean making the best of a bad situation (e.g. making an effective whip build) or improving on a good one (e.g. playing a druid), amongst other things. That we talk about different "levels" of optimisation is indicative that it will always be a secondary consideration to flavour. A "high-op" group, for example, has decided that "low tier" or non-spellcasters are inappropriate characters for the style of game they wish to play, which will probably include some of the more challenging encounters in the various monster manuals and less of the more "mundane" or "stereotypical" critters and adventures. On the other hand, a "low-op" group, is probably happy to play an "easier" mode of play, which itself suggests certain cliche's about what they will encounter. What came first; the decision to play high or low-op, or the decision to play a certain type of game: Exotic and unusual or standard fantasy?

[PersonMan]

Regarding the argument about what the game was made for: whether something is made for X or Y, it doesn't change how important either are. Yes, DnD was made to be large parts combat, smaller parts other stuff. And? That doesn't make it mandatory for you to ignore roleplaying. Whether it was made for "rollplaying" (a term I don't like, myself) or roleplaying doesn't change a damn thing about what you like in a game, what you think is important in a game and what your game is like.

If I'm using DnD to make stories, and someone comes to me with a signed contract from everyone involved making it that said "DnD is made for killing monsters, fluff is just garbage we put in for more pages per book" I wouldn't care. I'm playing a game the way I and other people enjoy playing it. How it was 'meant' to be played never entered the equation (apart from how the system creaks and groans under the strain of things it wasn't meant to do).

[Necroticplague]

The two aren't in conflict. After all, if you put more effort into making sure the gears of a character can move properly, it makes you think about why it has to move the way you're making it do so. Why would this character be so profecient in grappling, instead of trained in the armed methods? What leads a ghost to take advantage of its status, instead of seeking a rez ASAP? How does a character take the ability to shape-change from a god, and improve on it through training, despite being a rogue?

That said, I do like to make sure my characters are actually fun to play. If my actions every single round can be done by a flowchart, I'll quickly get bored, regardless of how interesting it is to have him talk (it doesn't help that most talk I've ever seen is NPC infodumps, followed by Q+A sessions and rolling every relevant knowledge check, something that intensely bores me, because I prefer to learn things as we go along).

[Vhaidara]

"rollplaying" (a term I don't like, myself)

I'm not a fan of the term either, mostly because I feel it is misused. too me, "rollplaying" is mostly a problem with the social skills, especially Bluff and Diplomacy.
Well, I got a 9 million on Diplomacy/Intimidate, so I yell "SIT" and the GWRD (Great Wyrm Red Dragon) sits.
Well, I got a 176 on my Knowledge check, I know every little detail of this thing that has just appeared in the universe for the first time.

[The Insanity]

Can't have one without the other.

Also "Doing stupid stuff =/= good roleplaying".

[JellyPooga]

Also "Doing stupid stuff =/= good roleplaying".

Likewise, not doing stupid stuff =/= good roleplaying.

[The Insanity]

Likewise, not doing stupid stuff =/= good roleplaying.
So doing nothing is good roleplaying, is what you're saying?

[Yawgmoth]

I loathe this kind of comment. I regularly do things, in character, that as an out of character player, I know to be detrimental to either the group or my own character. Why? Because you like causing trouble and think that being irritating = good roleplaying. Do I always act in the most optimal manner? Yes. I certainly try to, in any case. I might not succeed, I may screw it all up in the execution for any number of reasons, but I at least put forth the good faith effort to not be a detriment to myself and others.

I loathe your kind. You actively steal enjoyment of the game away from others.

[torrasque666]

Key word in your argument is TRY. You try to be optimal in life but guess what, most people react on some level instinctively. You just admitted that you screw up some times. So is it really unrealistic that a character you are playing would oh i dunno.... screw something up? Nope. Sure its a bit irritating, but hey, it would be irritating if you did it in real life too. Some times ya gots ta deal with people who don't act like you or in the way you'd expect. That's life. And that's D&D.

BTW, ripping on somebody because they screw up is, guess what, actively stealing enjoyment of the game away from them. So I think you're a bit of a hypocrite there Yawgmoth. You make the choice to insult them because they don't play your way. They made the choice to be a character whose not perfect because what's to differentiate Wizard A from Wizard B then?

[Anlashok]

Key word in your argument is TRY. You try to be optimal in life but guess what, most people react on some level instinctively. You just admitted that you screw up some times. So is it really unrealistic that a character you are playing would oh i dunno.... screw something up?

The scenario in question wasn't someone screwing up or being suboptimal though. No one said those were bad. The example in question was someone going out of their way to intentionally screw with their party.




BTW, ripping on somebody because they screw up is, guess what, actively stealing enjoyment of the game away from them
But intentionally trying to screw over the rest of your party purely because "it's in character guys!" isn't?

[Flickerdart]

It's all well and good to act sub-optimally from your perspective, as long as you act optimally from the perspective of a survivalist who routinely engages in deadly combat against supernatural threats, where a single mis-step could cost him his life. Soldiers are the closest analogy, but still not perfect, because the other side doesn't have demons and golems and ridiculous magic.

The "you shouldn't stop me from having fun" card has never made sense. If you enjoy being a dead weight, more power to you...but your friends probably don't want to deal with that, either out of character (as people trying to have a story happen) or in character (as the aforementioned survivalists who don't really want to split their earnings with anyone actively sabotaging their efforts).

[jjcrpntr]

Personally I prefer flavor. Now once i select the flavor I want to optimize that flavor as much as possible. I to try and play more the character than the numbers. Then again when I make a character I come up with his backstory and personality and play it accordingly.

[torrasque666]

It's all well and good to act sub-optimally from your perspective, as long as you act optimally from the perspective of a survivalist who routinely engages in deadly combat against supernatural threats, where a single mis-step could cost him his life. Soldiers are the closest analogy, but still not perfect, because the other side doesn't have demons and golems and ridiculous magic.

The "you shouldn't stop me from having fun" card has never made sense. If you enjoy being a dead weight, more power to you...but your friends probably don't want to deal with that, either out of character (as people trying to have a story happen) or in character (as the aforementioned survivalists who don't really want to split their earnings with anyone actively sabotaging their efforts).

And this makes sense at higher levels. The level 3 guy? He likely has never encountered a dragon before, so how does he know how to react to one? Or a golem? Or a hydra? At high levels, yes you have routinely engaged such creatures and survived, otherwise you wouldn't be alive. But at low levels, unless you want to actively metagame by using outside knowledge all a PC would know is stuff from legends or fairy tales. So for some of the magical beasts they might know how to handle it but not something like a Xorn. And growing from that level 3 novice to the level 15 survivalist? that allows for a little thing called character growth.

[Pex]

Neither. The desire and ability of doing one of them has no effect on the desire and ability to do the either.

[Gemini476]

Likewise, not doing stupid stuff =/= good roleplaying.

And doing stupid stuff that makes you wonder how this character survived to such a high level =/= good roleplaying either. But that's a separate issue, depending on when you start playing.


In the specific case of the suicidal wizard that wants to be mind-controlled, that's most definitely just willingly failing the saving throw rather than a penalty to Will. Maybe if they have some interest in being mind-controlled but aren't really sure it would be a penalty, but that's maybe a -2 circumstance.
Also, in the case of such a character you really really need to start asking yourself how they have managed to avoid getting mind-controlled so far and why exactly they want to be mind-controlled. Oh, and make sure that the other players know that quirk of your character in advance even if their characters don't, just so that you avoid the argument in the first place.

If you ever need to argue that "but that is what my character would do", then you and your fellow players have some fundamental disconnect regarding what your character is like. You believe that the character would do something - willingly give in to mind-control, for instance - and the other players believe that they wouldn't because it's a pretty horrible idea in pretty much any circumstance whilst adventuring.

It also runs into the thing where not all character concepts are good ideas for adventurers.

Consider Richard, player of an Assassin. During the night, when he is on watch for the party, he slits all of their throats and leaves for the town with all of the loot. Is it a believable concept? Ayup. Pretty much an archetypal con artist slash murderer there. Is it what their character would do? Sure thing, getting four times the treasure is great if you don't need to fight through all the monsters alone. Is it a good idea for an adventurer? NO. Not unless all of the other players agree to that, that is. They should probably be made aware of it out-of-character, at the very least, and if you say that this can be handled with player-DM notes and secrecy I will try my best to punch you through the internet.

Consider Barry. He is playing a Frenzied Berzerker. He is optimized for maximum melee damage. It's a viable character concept, but again it's not that great an idea for an adventurer. Mostly because he's a walking TPK, and parties that recruit Frenzied Berzerkers are not parties that make it into the story books other than as a cautionary tale. Do note that in-character there's pretty much no way to tell him apart from a regular Barbarian until he goes all kill-slash-maim on everything within sight.

Let's take an opposite example, someone that makes a good adventurer but a not-so-great concept. Take a Dragonwrought Desert Kobold Sorcerer with all the relevant templates and insanities and feats to boost his sorcerer level. He's an extraordinarily effective adventurer and will be a benefit to any party. Now then, please explain why this royalty amongst kobolds, twice insane and moreso powerful, is traveling with a wandering minstrel, a thuggish half-orc, and more assorted thieves and murderhobos than you could shake a stick at? Why is someone so intelligent and charismatic and wise beyond his not-inconsiderable years not only first level but also, you know, out adventuring and killing rats in sewers alongside the worst that adventuring has to offer? This is a case where the characters themselves could probably see hundreds of reasons to not party up together, but out-of-character they're a party because they're a party darnit and that's what you do.

Or just slaughter vagrants in general, I guess. A man without a family, home, or anything at all other than what he's wearing (which is worth a decently sized town) is going out and just killing stuff in general to... Do what? The class doesn't really matter - this is just the case of taking your average backstory-less character and looking at their actions. They are the Man With No Name, but even more so than that they might just not have much personality at all beyond "I charge at the lead orc" and "hey, who's got the cheetos?" They might still be contributing, doing hundreds of damage each swing or just defeating the enemy general with a single Disintegrate, but they don't have any character at all.
This is especially egregious in high-level campaigns, where you'd figure that being a 15th-level character would mean that you have some serious connections. But nope, the character just formed out of the ether just before they opened the door to the bar and sat down for a drink next to the three other characters glowing with enough magical auras to bankrupt the city.

Going back to Mr. Wizard McDominated, that doesn't really sound like a PC trait to me. That sounds like the trait of an unwitting villain, a friendly NPC who accompanies the players until they get Dominated by some horrid thing and turn against their former allies. It doesn't sound like a PC, though, unless you really like character death for some reason. And this is your character who is dying, just to be clear. They're getting Dominated, taken over by the DM, and sent against a certain 3v2 death against their former teammates. Unless the other PCs restrain themselves enough to just do non-lethal against you or otherwise incapacitate you, but after they learn about the voluntary mind-control they should just fire you from the party and say "that's what my character would do."

[Flickerdart]

And this makes sense at higher levels. The level 3 guy? He likely has never encountered a dragon before, so how does he know how to react to one? Or a golem? Or a hydra? At high levels, yes you have routinely engaged such creatures and survived, otherwise you wouldn't be alive. But at low levels, unless you want to actively metagame by using outside knowledge all a PC would know is stuff from legends or fairy tales. So for some of the magical beasts they might know how to handle it but not something like a Xorn. And growing from that level 3 novice to the level 15 survivalist? that allows for a little thing called character growth.
To reach level 3, someone had to have fought to the death in 26 fights. They're not a novice, they're not dumb.

[torrasque666]

To reach level 3, someone had to have fought to the death in 26 fights. They're not a novice, they're not dumb.

Fought to the death, or incapacitate(really, just over come the challenge) 26 challengers. Said challengers were likely not magical beasts or aberrants, let alone dragons and outsiders, but NPCs or animals.

[Darkweave31]

I play wizards for the flavor :smallcool:

[Flickerdart]

Fought to the death, or incapacitate(really, just over come the challenge) 26 challengers. Said challengers were likely not magical beasts or aberrants, let alone dragons and outsiders, but NPCs or animals.
Flip through the Monster Manual, you won't find a shortage of Magical Beasts, Aberrations, and Outsiders in that CR range.

[torrasque666]

Flip through the Monster Manual, you won't find a shortage of Magical Beasts, Aberrations, and Outsiders in that CR range.

Fair enough, but not all magical beasts are the same, nor are outsiders, and uniqueness is practically a defining trait of abberations. In that case then, go back to my original point of a level 3 knowing how to effectively fight a golem,(from the srd the lowest CR golem is still CR 7), with no ranks in knowledge arcana. Without being able to know wha it is you are fighting, how can you tell what is the best way to fight it? You'd likely treat it as any other construct you had encountered as it is likely the first time you've encountered a golem. If, as a player, you know various weaknesses or methods of dealing with such a creature, but its the first time a character has seen it outside of a book, is it REALLY bad roleplaying to be a bit purposefully bad?(Well, of course this doesn't apply if your group doesn't give a fireball's worth of bat feces in regards to roleplay)

[ryu]

Flip through the Monster Manual, you won't find a shortage of Magical Beasts, Aberrations, and Outsiders in that CR range.

Pretty sure there's also a few species of dragon that reach that general CR area as babies.

Also GOLEMS? Those iconic construct beasties renowned for giving low level wizards problems due to having basically infinite spell resistance? It doesn't make sense for the party wizard to be worried about something like that at low levels?

[torrasque666]

Pretty sure there's also a few species of dragon that reach that general CR area as babies.

Yes, and how often does the average DM throw a baby dragon at a party without there either being a fair amount of them, say 5 ish, or a mama/papa looking out for the hatchlings?(as it calls out that a dragon of adulthood is usually encountered either alone, in a pair, or with a family with younger dragons as either solitary or 2-5)

The Wizard? Who likely has some sort of background knowledge of the things? Yes. The fighter who has never seen one before in his life, let alone fought one? No.

[ryu]

Yes, and how often does the average DM throw a baby dragon at a party without there either being a fair amount of them, say 5 ish, or a mama/papa looking out for the hatchlings?(as it calls out that a dragon of adulthood is usually encountered either alone, in a pair, or with a family with younger dragons as either solitary or 2-5)

The Wizard? Who likely has some sort of background knowledge of the things? Yes. The fighter who has never seen one before in his life, let alone fought one? No.

And? All we need is one person with knowledge of the things. The wizard can just talk as a free action and call out the infinite SR as well as what he recommends the party do about it. That's hardly rocket science.

[torrasque666]

A round is 6 seconds. How much can you reasonably explain in 6 seconds? Also, it is advised to convert talking into a non-free action after a bit as "In general, speaking is a free action that you can perform even when it isn’t your turn. Speaking more than few sentences is generally beyond the limit of a free action."(SRD)

[NichG]

The D&D world is far less dangerous than the real world. The evidence of that is simple - you've got people wandering around who, to get where they are, had to survive double or triple digit numbers of fights to the death. In the real world, statistics would catch up with you. In D&D, being on the right side of the conflict gives you plot armor, even if you're an NPC (at least, right up until the point where it doesn't). Not to mention the lack of things like 'accidental death', 'loss of limbs', 'infected wounds being relevant', etc.

'Realistic' behavior for PCs and their allies who live in a D&D world would probably be more along the lines of being extremely careless and risk-seeking than it would be being careful, methodical, and optimal. You'd get people who constantly did stupider and stupider stuff as if to dare the universe to smite them down, because even when statistics say they should be dead 20 times over they're somehow still kicking. Then at high level, add resurrection, the ability to shrug off attacks that would level a building, and the ability to personally visit (and/or invade) the afterlives?

'Optimal survivalist' really isn't going to be anywhere on the list of priorities for these people, because they have no reason to be afraid of anything.

Now, monsters are another story. Played realistically, monsters should be the most cowardly, pathetic, paranoid things ever. A single high-level adventurer rises to power bathed in the blood of an entire city's worth of monster corpses.

[aleucard]

A round is 6 seconds. How much can you reasonably explain in 6 seconds? Also, it is advised to convert talking into a non-free action after a bit as "In general, speaking is a free action that you can perform even when it isn’t your turn. Speaking more than few sentences is generally beyond the limit of a free action."(SRD)

As a DM, going overboard with that ruling (as defined by the players) can result in anything from the players being mildly irritated to making you eat your own (they presume) loaded dice. Rule 0 only goes as far as players are willing to put up with it before bringing it OOC.

[Oneris]

For the record, the guy I was describing was a gnome bard that I played as a collector of rare experiences, who knew mostly of adventurers through wildly over-embellished stories. Emphasis on gnome, and bard.
We decided to ultimately turn that part of him into a running gag in the campaign, of how the more prudent party members would reign in his dramatic tendencies much to the detriment of his storytelling.

Another example. What if you had mentioned in your character backstory that your brother was in the City Watch, and your GM decided to reveal that he was the Captain of the Guard sent to arrest your party? Would you Fireball him in the face to scatter his company, or would you be unable to lift your hand in lethal combat against a member of your family and someone you love? There's definitely a compromise between the two, but it's not optimal either, going from a combat perspective.

Then again, if you have a GM who throws in these kinds of plot twists, he's either not expecting you to be a pack of murderhobos, or really trying to punish you for it.

[Juntao112]

Another example. What if you had mentioned in your character backstory that your brother was in the City Watch, and your GM decided to reveal that he was the Captain of the Guard sent to arrest your party? Would you Fireball him in the face to scatter his company, or would you be unable to lift your hand in lethal combat against a member of your family and someone you love? There's definitely a compromise between the two, but it's not optimal either, going from a combat perspective.

"I have known Thaddeus since we were children! We played and fought and slept under the same roof! I am confident that he has enough HP to take 5d6 of fire damage."

[ryu]

A round is 6 seconds. How much can you reasonably explain in 6 seconds? Also, it is advised to convert talking into a non-free action after a bit as "In general, speaking is a free action that you can perform even when it isn’t your turn. Speaking more than few sentences is generally beyond the limit of a free action."(SRD)

The sentences: Magic won't work on it directly. Kick its ass after I trip it with grease. Don't seem like they can be said quickly to you?

[torrasque666]

As a DM, going overboard with that ruling (as defined by the players) can result in anything from the players being mildly irritated to making you eat your own (they presume) loaded dice. Rule 0 only goes as far as players are willing to put up with it before bringing it OOC.

Hell, that's no more Rule 0 than what's available in a store. Probably less so. Doesn't make sense, even in a world of D&D, that a wizard would be able to issue a diatribe of the golem's weaknesses, abilities and how to overcome said abilities in the time it takes for a free action, which is minimal. Less than a swift action.


The sentences: Magic won't work on it directly. Kick its ass after I trip it with grease. Don't seem like they can be said quickly to you?

And that would adequately cover all of its immunities, DR and other abilities? Which would become a problem 3 rounds later(assuming no CL raising shenanigans)

[Juntao112]

Hell, that's no more Rule 0 than what's available in a store. Probably less so. Doesn't make sense, even in a world of D&D, that a wizard would be able to issue a diatribe of the golem's weaknesses, abilities and how to overcome said abilities in the time it takes for a free action, which is minimal. Less than a swift action.

Funny you should say that... (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20051007a&page=3)

[ryu]

Hell, that's no more Rule 0 than what's available in a store. Probably less so. Doesn't make sense, even in a world of D&D, that a wizard would be able to issue a diatribe of the golem's weaknesses, abilities and how to overcome said abilities in the time it takes for a free action, which is minimal. Less than a swift action.

You don't need to quote the entire statblock silly. Just state the part that's relevant and the quick version of what you people to do.

[eggynack]

A round is 6 seconds. How much can you reasonably explain in 6 seconds? Also, it is advised to convert talking into a non-free action after a bit as "In general, speaking is a free action that you can perform even when it isn’t your turn. Speaking more than few sentences is generally beyond the limit of a free action."(SRD)
I'm not sure how much you can't explain in a few sentences. Even without pushing the definition of sentence to its natural limit, you can still get across a reasonable battle plan in that time frame. I mean, what's so complicated about fighting golems for fighters? For the sake of argument, you could use something as simple as, "These guys have immunity to most magic, as well as damage resistance that is breached by whatever. With that in mind, let's go with a standard buff/BFC battle plan, relying on my direct action even less than usual. This fellow should go down in about 12-18 seconds, given your capacity for damage, though I'd advise limiting your power attack, as this one has high AC. God speed." The actual sentences change up depending on party makeup, and the specific golem, but fitting a battle plan into about three sentences should be a trivial task.

Edit: Incidentally, you probably would be able to fit the entire stat block into those word limits, if you really needed to. Really cramming information into small spaces isn't that difficult, if you know what you're doing. You could even work out a basic code, and skip all of the semantic stuff.

[Juntao112]

I think it could be as short as "Magic immunity, damage reduction, hit it hard while I support."

[torrasque666]

I'm not sure how much you can't explain in a few sentences. Even without pushing the definition of sentence to its natural limit, you can still get across a reasonable battle plan in that time frame. I mean, what's so complicated about fighting golems for fighters? For the sake of argument, you could use something as simple as, "These guys have immunity to most magic, as well as damage resistance that is breached by whatever. With that in mind, let's go with a standard buff/BFC battle plan, relying on my direct action even less than usual. This fellow should go down in about 12-18 seconds, given your capacity for damage, though I'd advise limiting your power attack, as this one has high AC. God speed." The actual sentences change up depending on party makeup, and the specific golem, but fitting a battle plan into about three sentences should be a trivial task.

That... was actually well built and would work well. Much better than ryu's explanation, considering his ignored DR, immunities to all things a fighter might try to inflict on it(mostly crits) And remember, this is for a flesh golem that we're talking about here(as its the only one that falls under reasonable CR for level 3's) against a iron or stone one its even worse.

[Oneris]

"I have known Thaddeus since we were children! We played and fought and slept under the same roof! I am confident that he has enough HP to take 5d6 of fire damage."
:smalleek:
Not everyone plays their character like Tarquin, you know.

[eggynack]

That... was actually well built and would work well. Much better than ryu's explanation, considering his ignored DR, immunities to all things a fighter might try to inflict on it(mostly crits) And remember, this is for a flesh golem that we're talking about here(as its the only one that falls under reasonable CR for level 3's) against a iron or stone one its even worse.
It's not that much worse. You just toss in something about the specific weapon that bypasses the DR, if the fighter has it, and make mention of the breath weapon. It might also be worth adding in something about slow movement speed in some of these cases, as a kiting plan could work. There are a lot of factors I can't really perfectly anticipate here, like terrain, particular equipment/overall build, and as mentioned, party composition, but that doesn't mean you can't fit that information in when it actually comes up.

[ryu]

That... was actually well built and would work well. Much better than ryu's explanation, considering his ignored DR, immunities to all things a fighter might try to inflict on it(mostly crits) And remember, this is for a flesh golem that we're talking about here(as its the only one that falls under reasonable CR for level 3's) against a iron or stone one its even worse.

Who cares about its DR? Repeated coup de grace from multiple party members should have the thing dead in short order. If the DR is a problem just announce it with another free action after tripping it.

[torrasque666]

You missed the bit about immune to crits, and thus to CDG right? And this is also assuming you're fighting it by itself which is something that should never happen, especially for a flesh golem. Its creator should be around somewhere assisting it.

[ryu]

You missed the bit about immune to crits, and thus to CDG right?

We aren't CDG for the crits silly. Just the automatic no dice required hits.

[eggynack]

Who cares about its DR? Repeated coup de grace from multiple party members should have the thing dead in short order. If the DR is a problem just announce it with another free action after tripping it.
That is true. Really, any flaws in initial approach can be fixed by another three sentences in the next round. "No, you fool! You were supposed to take the left flank for some reason. The left flank!"

[torrasque666]

We aren't CDG for the crits silly. Just the automatic no dice required hits.
A coup de grace is not possible against a creature immune to critical hits. Source: PHB

You don't even get the auto-hits.

[Coidzor]

I prefer to get my flavor from my character rather than by taking a specific class or feat that says it's going to deliver something that it never does. :smalltongue:

[ryu]

Also yet more complications on an encounter that was already four levels of CR above the party? Moving goalposts make invalid arguments.

Edit: Also fine. just standard attacks then. I rather doubt this thing's touch AC is that impressive.

[Thealtruistorc]

I work both to my advantage.

If I want to build an incredibly powerful character, I build a backstory and personality that fulfill the requirements but are still complex and multifaceted enough to warrant a lot of roleplaying.

For example, I created a rather optimized mystic theurge recently, so I created a long backstory that delves into numerous psychological issues and experiences that made him select many of the things that make him a rather powerful character.

I've yet to see a build I cannot make a story for.

[Raven777]

I've yet to see a build I cannot make a story for.

This. Given the infinite permutations of heroes in the multiverse, there's an infinite permutation of life stories that led them to what they became.

[Juntao112]

:smalleek:
Not everyone plays their character like Tarquin, you know.

I'm just saying, if I knew my brother had the constitution of an ox and was more fire-resistant than a brominated labcoat, I'd be less hesitant to singe his beard with a low-power fire spell.

[Coidzor]

This. Given the infinite permutations of heroes in the multiverse, there's an infinite permutation of life stories that led them to what they became.

An inability to is either a critical lack of imagination, hopefully passing, or actually just a refusal to do so, as far as I can tell.


Then what is the point of the rest of the books then? Useless pieces of paper? The parts that, for each race describe philosophy, daily life, religion, activities, interspecies relations, that's all worthless then? It might be a small part of any book, but a topic's worth isn't necessarily deemed by the amount of pages devoted to it. Because in that case most of the bestiaries would be the most important part of a book. Or spells. Certainly not class or race, which is kinda the defining aspect of a character.

It's a starting point. Why would one only ever passively play only in worlds someone else built when one has the ability and time to make something new? The backdrop against which your story is told is inherently mutable, hell, we've had Shakespearean plays adapted to have permanently shirtless Leonardo DiCaprios in them gallivanting around somewhere near the Equator.

The mechanics are also mutable, but by their nature there is more potential for unforeseen repercussions from changing them because of the math involved and the way that mechanics tend to rely upon other mechanics for exponential returns if a problem is fixed or a bug is introduced.

[Subaru Kujo]

I value them both. I tend to pick what I want my character to do, build it to do said action passably well, then come up with an interesting backstory for how they got those abilities.
This is what I usually do as well, though it's usually in a different order. Figure out the class, then figure out fluff, and then work in the normal equipment/combat tactics.

[MirddinEmris]

Another example. What if you had mentioned in your character backstory that your brother was in the City Watch, and your GM decided to reveal that he was the Captain of the Guard sent to arrest your party? Would you Fireball him in the face to scatter his company, or would you be unable to lift your hand in lethal combat against a member of your family and someone you love? There's definitely a compromise between the two, but it's not optimal either, going from a combat perspective.

I don't think that this has anything to do with optimization/flavor, which usually describe how you build your character (like choosing between Toughness and Persistent Spell for your cleric), while your situation is about decision making in game, and dihotomy you implying is not about flavor/optimization, but about goal-oriented and roleplaying-oriented decisions. Wherever either of this dihotimies is false or true (i'm inclined to go with former, since it is hard to completely separate mechanics and flavor in both and they aren't mutually exclusive), they are different.

[JellyPooga]

Because you like causing trouble and think that being irritating = good roleplaying.

Did I say that I solely act in that manner? No. Personally I find it irritating when players regularly act in a manner incongruous with what their character would likely do in under the circumstances, given their stated background, personality, etc.

The idea of the "infallible" character you talk about is a boring, even negative, one to me. Why might this be? Because I'm not playing chess or some other abstract boardgame, but rather a game in which the "human element" and the story is more important than the numbers. The player across the table who constantly badgers the others to "do the best thing" is usually the most irritating player at the table, not the guy who says he's giving all his Clerics loot to the orphanage instead of spending it on something that would aid the party.

The former player is prone to using metagame knowledge to his advantage; "I don't have to surrender to the guards because a crossbow can't possibly kill me before I could destroy the entire village militia". The latter player tends to play to the story; "I surrender to the pox-ridden peasant with a crossbow because there's lots of them and I've got a pointy thing aimed at my head". Which of these is "optimal"? The latter probably serves the plot that the GM has written much better than the former in this situation. You might argue that the optimal player will also surrender because he's a Good character, or whatever, but if that pox-ridden peasant was a Goblin, would he? The GM might be trying to throw the PCs a curve-ball plot by letting them surrender to a goblin village, but because of your "optimal" play, you slaughter the Goblins before they can reveal their plot element, whilst the "sub-optimal" player who surrenders gets to enjoy the story.

I'm not talking about characters that actively backstab one another. I'm talking about characters that don't always do the strictly best thing all the time, because it's what that character would probably do in that situation. You can argue about high level characters being able to ignore certain factors and that's fine, but at the end of the day, those characters are people; they don't like pain, they're scared of overwhelming odds and the unknown, they do things they think are best, but objectively aren't, because people tend to get a bit hot-wired under pressure and do stupid, but familiar, things.

I'm not saying that playing an idiotic character is good roleplaying, I'm saying that playing a statistically perfect or "optimal" character is usually bad roleplaying (unless you're playing a Modron, I suppose).

[Anlashok]

Flavor, if I had to pick between the two. It's a silly question to ask though because the two simply aren't mutually exclusive or even separate concepts. It's like asking someone if they'd rather have ice cream or a cone. Yes, you can pick one over the other, but why when they're designed to go together?


The idea of the "infallible" character you talk about is a boring, even negative, one to me.

Why do you keep saying this? No one you're arguing against ever once even suggested the idea of playing an "infallible" character. None of them. Just stop. Saying stuff like this doesn't make you look cool and there are other people who might be able to put all that straw to good use.

[torrasque666]

Why do you keep saying this? No one you're arguing against ever once even suggested the idea of playing an "infallible" character. None of them. Just stop. Saying stuff like this doesn't make you look cool and there are other people who might be able to put all that straw to good use.

Actually Yawgmoth kinda did.....

Because you like causing trouble and think that being irritating = good roleplaying. Do I always act in the most optimal manner? Yes. I certainly try to, in any case. I might not succeed, I may screw it all up in the execution for any number of reasons, but I at least put forth the good faith effort to not be a detriment to myself and others.

I loathe your kind. You actively steal enjoyment of the game away from others.

[MirthTheBard]

I definitely think flavor is more important than optimization. Without flavor it would no longer be Dungeons & Dragons but Numbers & Loopholes. Though there's nothing wrong with optimization mixed in with flavor.

[Anlashok]

Actually Yawgmoth kinda did.....
If the character he was describing in that sentence were "infallible" he wouldn't have added that part about not always succeeding. Because that's kinda what infallible means. Like. It literally means "never failing". Literally. Not a hyperbole or something. That's the literal, dictionary definition.

Besides, Yawgmoth explicitly describes his efforts as trying to "put forth a good faith effort to not be a detriment to myself and others". In response to a hypothetical construction about a player actively trying to derail a game and trying to pass it off as "good roleplaying". I'm not seeing how that really fits the aforementioned description unless we're taking the opinion that you can't be a nuanced, fallible and mortal character without trying to ruin the rest of your party, which I'm uncomfortable setting as our baseline.

[Svata]

A round is 6 seconds. How much can you reasonably explain in 6 seconds? Also, it is advised to convert talking into a non-free action after a bit as "In general, speaking is a free action that you can perform even when it isn’t your turn. Speaking more than few sentences is generally beyond the limit of a free action."(SRD)

How long does it take to say, "Iron Golem! Highly resistant to spells, don't use fire, use lighting," for example?

[PersonMan]

The former player is prone to using metagame knowledge to his advantage; "I don't have to surrender to the guards because a crossbow can't possibly kill me before I could destroy the entire village militia". The latter player tends to play to the story; "I surrender to the pox-ridden peasant with a crossbow because there's lots of them and I've got a pointy thing aimed at my head".

While I do agree that metagaming is an issue, I feel like this is a situation in which, for many characters, surrendering to peasants with crossbows would be bad roleplaying. Yes, the level 1 or 2 folks wouldn't want to try their luck, but a level 8 dragonslayer who has killed something they watched laugh at the crossbow (and even ballista!) bolts of the guard of a city they saved won't surrender because "there's lots of them and I've got a pointy thing aimed at my head".

To a certain extent, characters are aware of their stats. The 18 Strength, 18 Constitution, 50 HP fighter isn't going to run away from a goblin with a badly-made stone axe, because they know "I'm strong, I'm tough, even if he can get past my armor with that piece of junk before I cut him in half, I don't need to worry about it". The frontliner with a massive AC isn't going to be worried about shaky-handed peasants unless they're tied down to a chair, so surrendering to them makes no sense. Plus, they're peasants. If they watch their first volley do nothing, and see you cut the closest one in half with ease, they're not going to stand strong and wear you down or kite you, they're going to hurl their weapons into the muck and run.

A certain level of bravery is required for any kind of fighting adventurer - the one who surrenders to the peasants is most certainly not going to be the one running into a dragon's cave to find gold and glory.

[Coidzor]

The former player is prone to using metagame knowledge to his advantage; "I don't have to surrender to the guards because a crossbow can't possibly kill me before I could destroy the entire village militia". The latter player tends to play to the story; "I surrender to the pox-ridden peasant with a crossbow because there's lots of them and I've got a pointy thing aimed at my head". Which of these is "optimal"? The latter probably serves the plot that the GM has written much better than the former in this situation. You might argue that the optimal player will also surrender because he's a Good character, or whatever, but if that pox-ridden peasant was a Goblin, would he? The GM might be trying to throw the PCs a curve-ball plot by letting them surrender to a goblin village, but because of your "optimal" play, you slaughter the Goblins before they can reveal their plot element, whilst the "sub-optimal" player who surrenders gets to enjoy the story.

You're forgetting that DMs can make mistakes and have dumb decisions too. Like, in this case, using an unconvincing, unthreatening situation to (according to your telepathy) demand that the players surrender in a situation where it isn't clear that the players should do so nor that their characters would have any desire to do so. :smalltongue:


I'm not talking about characters that actively backstab one another. I'm talking about characters that don't always do the strictly best thing all the time, because it's what that character would probably do in that situation. You can argue about high level characters being able to ignore certain factors and that's fine, but at the end of the day, those characters are people; they don't like pain, they're scared of overwhelming odds and the unknown, they do things they think are best, but objectively aren't, because people tend to get a bit hot-wired under pressure and do stupid, but familiar, things.

The unknown and overwhelming odds are much, much different in D&D. Things from the Far Realm are unknown, along with certain classes of Outsider and Aberration. Less so ye olde trolls and dragons, though dragons are scary for their own reasons... up until one is actually capable of taking them down. A million regular people just aren't a threat to a serious hero or villain type, and the effortlessness with which they take out an army should give the people they haven't gotten to just yet pause if they're capable of thought and have their own will.


I'm not saying that playing an idiotic character is good roleplaying, I'm saying that playing a statistically perfect or "optimal" character is usually bad roleplaying (unless you're playing a Modron, I suppose).

Tempest Stormwind would like you to read something. :smalltongue: Having a badass character who is aware of their capabilities and uses them isn't bad roleplaying. It's more of a necessity when one is tangling with ancient dragons and demon lords or even just regularly engaged in life-or-death struggles against competent opponents.

[Killer Angel]

D&D was designed as a roleplaying game, not a rollplaying game.

D&D was designed to be a roleplaying game, with dicerolling to support your actions and to determine their success or failure. It's a medal with 2 sides.

[Synar]

The irony of this comment is staggering.

I believe you must have misunderstood my point. What I meant to say is, why not conserve the flavor with something actually viable? Like, you can play an old kobold with all characteristics below 6 with commoners levels, but unless the party is on the same level of actively hurting the character, you will probably feel like the seventh weel. And there is probably somewhere a class that without being all powerful, is viable while matching your flavor better than a fighter with random feats. Unless, of course, your flavor is less 'martial guy knowledgeable about magic and the mysteries of the arcane'(which is still quite broad) and more 'guy who pretends he can fight but actually suck since and has read some books about magic'. There is nothing, afterall, that make you unable to pick a class matching more your concept without revolving to strange building decisions.
You could also build a wizard who do not cast but fight unbuffed with full plate, sword and board, but come a point where you ask yourself why you did not choosed to playa fighter.


Also, please elaborate in your next answer if you actually answer.

[NichG]

Tempest Stormwind would like you to read something. :smalltongue: Having a badass character who is aware of their capabilities and uses them isn't bad roleplaying. It's more of a necessity when one is tangling with ancient dragons and demon lords or even just regularly engaged in life-or-death struggles against competent opponents.

This is a misapplication of Stormwind. If you only play badass characters who are aware of their capabilities and use them optimally, then you are letting your ability to optimize restrict your roleplaying. Stormwind Fallacy is that as far as player ability goes, being good at optimization does not preclude you from being good at roleplaying too - however, if you apply optimization as a mandate and as a result cannot bring yourself to play certain kinds of characters, then you are allowing yourself to be a worse (less versatile) roleplayer for sake of optimization.

The counter-example player would be someone who can cleanly separate the two in their mind, can be given a character, personality, philosophy, etc, and can play that well. But at the same time, they can make mechanical choices that are the best possible choices to enable that character concept. That may still mean surrendering to the peasant with a crossbow, but it may mean that they foresaw the situation and worked out a way to get action points whenever they let themselves be ruled by cowardice, or they took Craven and are just playing it to the hilt, or something like that.

To that hypothetical person, optimization is a tool to be used to achieve a result, not a divine mandate - it serves them, not the other way around.

[ryu]

This is a misapplication of Stormwind. If you only play badass characters who are aware of their capabilities and use them optimally, then you are letting your ability to optimize restrict your roleplaying. Stormwind Fallacy is that as far as player ability goes, being good at optimization does not preclude you from being good at roleplaying too - however, if you apply optimization as a mandate and as a result cannot bring yourself to play certain kinds of characters, then you are allowing yourself to be a worse (less versatile) roleplayer for sake of optimization.

The counter-example player would be someone who can cleanly separate the two in their mind, can be given a character, personality, philosophy, etc, and can play that well. But at the same time, they can make mechanical choices that are the best possible choices to enable that character concept. That may still mean surrendering to the peasant with a crossbow, but it may mean that they foresaw the situation and worked out a way to get action points whenever they let themselves be ruled by cowardice, or they took Craven and are just playing it to the hilt, or something like that.

To that hypothetical person, optimization is a tool to be used to achieve a result, not a divine mandate - it serves them, not the other way around.

Again situations like that are actively negative examples of roleplaying simply because they break suspension of disbelief for the few who are actually invested in the world. The logical response to that situation for pretty much anyone past level eight and most past level five is to start giggling a bit followed by either a warning of exactly how screwed the militia is if they continue to provoke or simple acts of uber-violence depending on alignment and mood at the time.

[warmachine]

As others have written, both. When I create a character, I start with three questions: What's he good at? How did he get to be that good? Why is he on these dangerous adventures? Flavour and optimization are interdependent. He can't be good at something without a backstory of how he got to be good. He would run away from adventures if he wasn't good at something needed for those adventures. He would not strive to be good at adventuring at the expense of more normal activities if he didn't plan to adventure as a career.

[NichG]

Again situations like that are actively negative examples of roleplaying simply because they break suspension of disbelief for the few who are actually invested in the world. The logical response to that situation for pretty much anyone past level eight and most past level five is to start giggling a bit followed by either a warning of exactly how screwed the militia is if they continue to provoke or simple acts of uber-violence depending on alignment and mood at the time.

It depends a lot on the character and even on their mechanics.

Sir Lawful: "I will submit myself to you, for even if I exceed you in might, I am not more important than the will of civilization."
Mr. Coward who constantly underestimates his own abilities: "Okay, okay, put the sharp things away, okay, I'll go with you, fine. If I go, you'll just put me in jail for a few days right? Jail is a safe place, safer than outside the city walls..."
Mr. Arrogant Wizard: "You want to capture me? Amusing. Lets see this 'jail' of yours. I'm in need of a good laugh."
Mr. My Friends keep Doing Horrible Things: "*whisper*Uh... oh crap. You're going to provoke another genocide if you do that... Nothing for it, then...*normal voice*We surrender! Even my other party members surrender! I have a plan guys, please just go with it! *whisper*I hope they fall for it I hope they fall for it..."
Mr. Diplomancer: "So if I surrender, you'll take me to your leader without me having to chat my way through scores of chaff? Okay, you've got yourself a deal!"

[ryu]

It depends a lot on the character and even on their mechanics.

Sir Lawful: "I will submit myself to you, for even if I exceed you in might, I am not more important than the will of civilization."
Mr. Coward who constantly underestimates his own abilities: "Okay, okay, put the sharp things away, okay, I'll go with you, fine. If I go, you'll just put me in jail for a few days right? Jail is a safe place, safer than outside the city walls..."
Mr. Arrogant Wizard: "You want to capture me? Amusing. Lets see this 'jail' of yours. I'm in need of a good laugh."
Mr. My Friends keep Doing Horrible Things: "*whisper*Uh... oh crap. You're going to provoke another genocide if you do that... Nothing for it, then...*normal voice*We surrender! Even my other party members surrender! I have a plan guys, please just go with it! *whisper*I hope they fall for it I hope they fall for it..."
Mr. Diplomancer: "So if I surrender, you'll take me to your leader without me having to chat my way through scores of chaff? Okay, you've got yourself a deal!"

My personal take is that if you're going to go to the trouble of faking surrender, it should be for the express purpose of doing something completely and utterly silly that also somehow makes a brutal lesson of the ones who tried to make it happen. Sorta like that time I faked surrender only to repeatedly stop time leaving behind a simalcrum coated completely with roughly 8743 castings of explosive runes, a command word activated area dispel, and with orders to find and forcibly hug the leader of the enemy group. Because why fight normally when you can do things like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ro6o_AQGFX8

[JellyPooga]

It literally means "never failing". Literally.

I too own a dictionary. I read it for fun. I know what words mean. Don't assume I'm an idiot because you disagree with me. You'll note that I mention the phrase "infallible character" all of once and that as an idea, not an actuality. The kind of characters suggested by those arguing against my standpoint are, from my reading of their statements about what they consider "optimal", would be infallible. In an ideal world, they would consider an infallible character the best possible character they could play. I do not. Character flaws are what make a roleplaying game interesting.

In Chess, the queen is the best piece in the game in almost all circumstances. Pawns are strictly worse. If roleplaying were Chess, we'd all play as queens. It's straight up a better option, yes? Roleplaying is not Chess. In roleplaying, being a pawn is just as fun as, or could be more fun than, being a queen. This can mean the difference between playing high and low level or between playing in a high or low optimisation style of game. It can also mean the difference between (and let's clarify this for those too literally minded) trying to play an infallible character and playing a character that is flawed or otherwise subject to prejudice, whim, addiction, morals or any other number of traits that make people do things that are not necessarily "best" for them and those they associate with.

I'm not saying you're doing it wrong. You want to play a perfect character? Great. Have a blast. All I'm saying is that by limiting yourself to always doing what you perceive to be "best", you are missing out on some potentially good roleplaying. At the same time, I am trying to defend my position, which came under direct attack (and insult, I might add), from those telling me that my playing a "flawed" character (as it could be perceived) is actively bad roleplaying.

Is Achilles a bad character because he had a tantrum and refused to fight halfway through the Trojan War? Is Frodo a bad character because he actively decided to use The Ring, even though he knew it to be a weapon of The Enemy? No. The most interesting characters are those that are flawed; it makes them human and allows us, as people, to relate to those characters. "Perfect" characters are typically uninteresting in literature. It is no different, in my mind, when playing a roleplaying game.

[Anlashok]

I'm not saying you're doing it wrong. You want to play a perfect character? Great. Have a blast. All I'm saying is that by limiting yourself to always doing what you perceive to be "best", you are missing out on some potentially good roleplaying. At the same time, I am trying to defend my position, which came under direct attack (and insult, I might add), from those telling me that my playing a "flawed" character (as it could be perceived) is actively bad roleplaying.
That would be a good point.

If the concept of playing a "perfect character" was the subject of the discussion. Or if anyone said playing a "flawed character" was bad.

Again there's an incredible amount of goalpost shifting to go from "intentionally screwing the other players in the group isn't nice" to "only play perfect flawless cardboard cutout munchkins". There's miles of design space between those two yet you keep setting up this false premise that those are the only two options. No one once said a character can't have personality quirks or failings. What people said was "I'm going to TPK our party because it's good roleplaying!" is a ****ty card to play and it seems ludicrous to defend the idea so hard.

[Killer Angel]

In Chess, the queen is the best piece in the game in almost all circumstances. Pawns are strictly worse. If roleplaying were Chess, we'd all play as queens. It's straight up a better option, yes? Roleplaying is not Chess. In roleplaying, being a pawn is just as fun as, or could be more fun than, being a queen. This can mean the difference between playing high and low level or between playing in a high or low optimisation style of game. It can also mean the difference between (and let's clarify this for those too literally minded) trying to play an infallible character and playing a character that is flawed or otherwise subject to prejudice, whim, addiction, morals or any other number of traits that make people do things that are not necessarily "best" for them and those they associate with.

Well, optimization is not to play the queen. It may easily be to play the pawn at the best of its possibilities.

[PersonMan]

JellyPooga: So...about the example you posted. Do you have anything to say about the replies to it?

[JellyPooga]

What people said was "I'm going to TPK our party because it's good roleplaying!" is a ****ty card to play and it seems ludicrous to defend the idea so hard.

The following, precisely, is the comment and reply that began my argument:


"But it's what my character would do!" is what bad players say.


I loathe this kind of comment. I regularly do things, in character, that as an out of character player, I know to be detrimental to either the group or my own character.

Others may have posited notions about TPK or even killing other players, but that's not what I'm defending at all. I'm defending the notion that the statement "But that's what my character would do" is valid and that it is not, in fact, bad roleplaying to play a character that does things that aren't always positive for the group.

Extreme cases of 'bad form', such as PvP in a team-game or instigating TPK because "it's what your character would do" can be acceptable, under certain circumstances. Those circumstances are quite rare, though and should always be discussed and agreed upon by all involved. I hope that's something we can agree on.

On the other hand, simply acting in a way that is not the best way possible because your character has a self (player)-imposed "flaw", for want of a better word, does not make you a bad roleplayer, which is what Anlashok (and others) have outright stated to be the case. I disagree with them.

edit: @Person_Man - I agree with what you and Coidzor (and any others I may have omitted), say, for the most part. Characters should be confident in the face of encounters they know they can overcome. My example was merely one to demonstrate metagame knowledge badly used; the level 3 character, for example, that blithely ignores a peasant with a crossbow because he has 20HP.

A higher level (either actual character level or higher level of optimisation) example, then, might be a Dragon offering a chance to surrender before he incinerates you. An "optimal" response might be to teleport away, prepare for the encounter and slay the dragon. A less "optimal" response might be to surrender, giving both the players and the GM opportunity to explore the possibilities of a party of adventurers who, whilst they potentially have the capability of slaying the dragon, are at his mercy. Why the players have chosen to let their characters be at his mercy could be any number of reasons; maybe the Wizard is Dracophobic, maybe the Rogue is just interested in what the Dragon has to say. Is either right with the other being wrong? No. Is either bad roleplaying? Again, no. I'm at odds with those that say otherwise.

edit2: @ Killer Angel - Re-read the paragraph of mine that you quote; about halfway through where I mention different styles of play :smallwink: You're right that optimisation is not necessarily to play the Queen, though it can mean that. It means playing the best character you can; which includes playing that characters "flaws".

[NichG]

My personal take is that if you're going to go to the trouble of faking surrender, it should be for the express purpose of doing something completely and utterly silly that also somehow makes a brutal lesson of the ones who tried to make it happen.

That's one single personality. Roleplaying in general is a lot broader than a single personality. Being good at roleplaying means having the breadth to play all sorts of different people, even people who don't think the same way as you personally do.

Its like the difference between being only able to optimize a wizard, versus being able to optimize a wizard, a fighter, a bard, a cleric, a druid, a swordsage, a commoner, a character who refuses to make attacks, a character who refuses to take feats, an E6 character, an E1 character, etc, etc.

[ryu]

That's one single personality. Roleplaying in general is a lot broader than a single personality. Being good at roleplaying means having the breadth to play all sorts of different people, even people who don't think the same way as you personally do.

Its like the difference between being only able to optimize a wizard, versus being able to optimize a wizard, a fighter, a bard, a cleric, a druid, a swordsage, a commoner, a character who refuses to make attacks, a character who refuses to take feats, an E6 character, an E1 character, etc, etc.

What on earth is the point of roleplaying if not to act as a demonstration of how you'd act in the games world and made to follow its rules? Now I could speculate on what the roles of the other players at the table might be, but I'm certainly not interested in pretending I'm anything like most of them on a personality level.

[JellyPooga]

What on earth is the point of roleplaying if not to act as a demonstration of how you'd act in the games world and made to follow its rules?

I appreciate that you likely prefer a very rules-driven style of game, but can you not, yourself, appreciate that other players might prefer a style of game that focuses less on the rules and more on the story and/or character elements?

[NichG]

What on earth is the point of roleplaying if not to act as a demonstration of how you'd act in the games world and made to follow its rules? Now I could speculate on what the roles of the other players at the table might be, but I'm certainly not interested in pretending I'm anything like most of them on a personality level.

Exploring different kinds of personalities, characters, walks of life, etc and portraying them in a deep and interesting fashion.

If I were to just play myself in the game's world under its rules, I wouldn't be an adventurer at all because personally, the idea of going through four battles to the death each day as my day job is not only insane but disgusting and dehumanizing. I could go and play that in every single D&D campaign I'm ever in, but it'd be awful - no fun for anyone, really.

But instead I take bits of my personality, flip some of them 180 degrees in the opposite direction, combine with a set of deep beliefs that are fundamentally different than my own, and end up playing someone different than myself. Maybe its a little girl who is insecure and clings to the people around her because they're the only constancy her life has known; or maybe a mad scientist type who thinks that its worth risking everyone's life just to get at the truth; or maybe a guy who is only comfortable when he's wearing someone else's face, because he's nurtured a deep-down belief that trust is impossible; or maybe a guy who believes so strongly in the perfect clarity of complete honesty that he refuses to mislead or tell even the smallest lie - and has the force of will to make it work anyhow; or someone who believes that since entropic collapse is inevitable, postponing it through excessive measures is self-defeating and takes one away from the peace of being one with the true nature of the universe; or someone who just likes fireworks and seeing things blow up; or someone who believes that life and death are just two sides of a coin, and he's happy to take coin to move people from one side to the other.

[ryu]

I appreciate that you likely prefer a very rules-driven style of game, but can you not, yourself, appreciate that other players might prefer a style of game that focuses less on the rules and more on the story and/or character elements?

You'd be surprised the sorts of things you'll only ever learn about yourself by going into the hypothetical of a world where the laws of phsyics are actually less constant and scientifically regular than the workings of how to break those systems.

[Vhaidara]

What on earth is the point of roleplaying if not to act as a demonstration of how you'd act in the games world and made to follow its rules? Now I could speculate on what the roles of the other players at the table might be, but I'm certainly not interested in pretending I'm anything like most of them on a personality level.

I think this is the disconnect: you play yourself with superpowers (whatever form they take, be it magic or fighting skill). People like NichG and I play fundamentally different personalities from ourselves, leading to characters who act differently than we would, and thus "It's what my character would do" becomes more valid. For example, my group includes a sorcerer with the Love of Nature flaw. We also have a shifter barbarian who has made literally every single non-humanoid enemy we have caught into jerky. The sorcerer is on the verge of attacking the shifter out of anger at the disrespect of nature when my warforged, a terrible diplomat, steps in and points out that since the creatures are dead anyways, we might as well eat them.

IRL, the sorcerer hunts as a hobby. He understands my character's point better than I do, but that isn't how his character sees things, so his character continues being belligerent until we agree to stop making jerky out of everything.

Is this bad roleplaying? I certainly don't feel it is.

[JellyPooga]

You'd be surprised the sorts of things you'll only ever learn about yourself by going into the hypothetical of a world where the laws of phsyics are actually less constant and scientifically regular than the workings of how to break those systems.

Oh, I'm all in agreement. I enjoy a very rules heavy game myself, as well as more character or story driven ones. I play a great many different games, but one area in which Roleplaying exceeds other games is the opportunity to engage in something that utilises the imagination in preference to the hard rules. By ignoring that potential in the game, I believe you're missing out on learning the very surprising things about yourself that you mention. By exploring different aspects of your own psyche through the medium of roleplaying characters that explicitly do not act in any way like yourself, you get a much greater understanding of yourself, than limiting yourself to transposing your own self into world governed by a largely arbitrary set of rules.[/arm-chair-psychology] :smallwink:

[ryu]

I think this is the disconnect: you play yourself with superpowers (whatever form they take, be it magic or fighting skill). People like NichG and I play fundamentally different personalities from ourselves, leading to characters who act differently than we would, and thus "It's what my character would do" becomes more valid. For example, my group includes a sorcerer with the Love of Nature flaw. We also have a shifter barbarian who has made literally every single non-humanoid enemy we have caught into jerky. The sorcerer is on the verge of attacking the shifter out of anger at the disrespect of nature when my warforged, a terrible diplomat, steps in and points out that since the creatures are dead anyways, we might as well eat them.

IRL, the sorcerer hunts as a hobby. He understands my character's point better than I do, but that isn't how his character sees things, so his character continues being belligerent until we agree to stop making jerky out of everything.

Is this bad roleplaying? I certainly don't feel it is.

The simple response would be something along the lines of: And it's somehow less disrespectful to waste perfectly good meat? What was I supposed to do with that dragon corpse? Leave it to fester in some cave where it wouldn't nourish any plants and would likely become inedible within a matter of minutes without preserving in this lukewarm dampness?

[PersonMan]

@Person_Man -

PersonMan. Person_Man is another poster.


Not Person_Man

:smalltongue:


I agree with what you and Coidzor (and any others I may have omitted), say, for the most part. Characters should be confident in the face of encounters they know they can overcome. My example was merely one to demonstrate metagame knowledge badly used; the level 3 character, for example, that blithely ignores a peasant with a crossbow because he has 20HP.

It would obviously depend on the level 3 character. I can see a confident, high-Charisma level 3 type to do an over-the-top 'I am so far above you and your pathetic weapons it's sad. Drop it and I'll let you live, otherwise your only choice will be whether I leave you in four or five pieces' thing to intimidate the peasant into surrendering themselves.


A higher level (either actual character level or higher level of optimisation) example, then, might be a Dragon offering a chance to surrender before he incinerates you. An "optimal" response might be to teleport away, prepare for the encounter and slay the dragon. A less "optimal" response might be to surrender, giving both the players and the GM opportunity to explore the possibilities of a party of adventurers who, whilst they potentially have the capability of slaying the dragon, are at his mercy. Why the players have chosen to let their characters be at his mercy could be any number of reasons; maybe the Wizard is Dracophobic, maybe the Rogue is just interested in what the Dragon has to say. Is either right with the other being wrong? No. Is either bad roleplaying? Again, no. I'm at odds with those that say otherwise.

Of course, if one can instantly GTFO from an obviously hostile dragon, it's the best decision unless...I dunno, you want to die. I assume you're running with 'Dracophobic wizard = frozen in terror' and not 'Dracophobic wizard = gone before anyone has time to speak to it'. "Surrender or die" doesn't imply very good conditions for those who do surrender, most of the time.

I do agree on your main point, though.

[JellyPooga]

PersonMan. Person_Man is another poster.

Ah, my apologies. :smallsmile:


It would obviously depend on the level 3 character.

Indeed it would. A level 3 character with 8HP (a rarity, to be sure, but not out of the realms of possibility), would almost certainly be more cautious of our crossbow-peasant than a level 1 character with 17 (also a rarity, but again a possibility)! This is, of course where metagame knowledge and in-character knowledge becomes a little blurred, but I think the distinction is easy enough to discern most of the time. Especially when it comes to abuse.


f course, if one can instantly GTFO from an obviously hostile dragon, it's the best decision unless...I dunno, you want to die.

I can think of a few circumstances aside from suicide;
- "It's all part of the plan" : The PC's need the dragon alive for some reason. Given the choice between killing it or surrendering, then the former is clearly not an option. Arguably that would be the "optimal" choice, making my argument somewhat invalid under such a circumstance!
- "I want to see his hand" : If the stipulation is surrender or die, then the implication is that by surrendering, you will not die. Curiosity as to what will happen upon surrendering could motivate this.
- "That's a mighty fine looking hoard you have there..." : A typically roguish response, but if the choice is a tough battle or surrender followed by escape and a little looting on the way out, then a stealth focused (or inclined) character might wish to avoid a straight up fight.
- "He's a thousand years old. Think of what he might know about our own history!" : Again predicated on surrender not ending in something terribly lethal or unpleasant, a scholar might simply want to learn from such a being.
- "These aren't the droids you're looking for" : With surrender comes the potential for conversation. A canny diplomat might be able to persuade their captor to release them in exchange for services far easier than taking the dragon head on.

That's just off the top of my head. Some could be entirely self-serving; the roguish desire to avoid a fight and stealth it out, for example, could leave the PCs who aren't particularly stealthy in the dust. If he's got a good rapport with his comrades he could persuade them to go with the surrender and make a go of the escape alone (admittedly a totally douche move unless he's going for reinforcements of some kind). Similarly, I doubt the Barbarian is going to be much swayed by a scholars desire to learn the secrets of the universe from a dragon, but might be forced to go along with the group decision or risk having to fight the dragon solo.

[Coidzor]

This is a misapplication of Stormwind. If you only play badass characters who are aware of their capabilities and use them optimally, then you are letting your ability to optimize restrict your roleplaying. Stormwind Fallacy is that as far as player ability goes, being good at optimization does not preclude you from being good at roleplaying too - however, if you apply optimization as a mandate and as a result cannot bring yourself to play certain kinds of characters, then you are allowing yourself to be a worse (less versatile) roleplayer for sake of optimization.

The counter-example player would be someone who can cleanly separate the two in their mind, can be given a character, personality, philosophy, etc, and can play that well. But at the same time, they can make mechanical choices that are the best possible choices to enable that character concept. That may still mean surrendering to the peasant with a crossbow, but it may mean that they foresaw the situation and worked out a way to get action points whenever they let themselves be ruled by cowardice, or they took Craven and are just playing it to the hilt, or something like that.

To that hypothetical person, optimization is a tool to be used to achieve a result, not a divine mandate - it serves them, not the other way around.

Hey, if avoiding playing characters like I was out to create a death reel for a Sierra Adventure game is bad roleplaying because it cuts down on the number of characters I would play, then hey, I'll cop to that. :smalltongue:

[NichG]

Hey, if avoiding playing characters like I was out to create a death reel for a Sierra Adventure game is bad roleplaying because it cuts down on the number of characters I would play, then hey, I'll cop to that. :smalltongue:

Fair enough! Its good to be clear on priorities and how far you're willing to go for this or that. For me, its a reason to avoid playing with overly harsh/killer DMs (or to play in systems/rulesets with death is either fairly rare or easily dealt with). More leeway to do risky, experimental, and/or strange stuff.

[Vhaidara]

The simple response would be something along the lines of: And it's somehow less disrespectful to waste perfectly good meat? What was I supposed to do with that dragon corpse? Leave it to fester in some cave where it wouldn't nourish any plants and would likely become inedible within a matter of minutes without preserving in this lukewarm dampness?

Did you read my post? That is what my character said. But his character wasn't being logical, because, unlike mine, he wasn't a robot. So his character had a different opinion (bury, not food) on what should be done than the rest of the group, including what the player would have done in that situation.

[ryu]

Fair enough! Its good to be clear on priorities and how far you're willing to go for this or that. For me, its a reason to avoid playing with overly harsh/killer DMs (or to play in systems/rulesets with death is either fairly rare or easily dealt with). More leeway to do risky, experimental, and/or strange stuff.

On the opposite I don't feel satisfied unless I'm actively sure the DM has no compunctions about killing off people in-game if the dice fall that way or especially if someone lets their guard down. A successful quest/encounter/adventure simply doesn't feel right if it's holding my hand gently the whole way through.

[NichG]

On the opposite I don't feel satisfied unless I'm actively sure the DM has no compunctions about killing off people in-game if the dice fall that way or especially if someone lets their guard down. A successful quest/encounter/adventure simply doesn't feel right if it's holding my hand gently the whole way through.

There's lots of ways to have a non-killer game other than directly using Deus Ex Machina to save the PCs all the time. Good awareness of what the PCs can handle is a big factor - basically don't run the game to the redline. Another factor is availability of things like resurrection; unless you have someone doing Transmute Rock to Mud permadeath shenanigans, soul-trapping, or Barghest's Feast then basically no one can die forever in high level D&D. Systems where its easy to get knocked out but hard to be killed outright can help as well.

Basically, I don't really have much interest in games where there's a super-thin margin between optimal and dead, but there's a lot of space between that and the DM fudging every encounter in the party's favor, saving them with DEMs all the time, etc.

[ryu]

There's lots of ways to have a non-killer game other than directly using Deus Ex Machina to save the PCs all the time. Good awareness of what the PCs can handle is a big factor - basically don't run the game to the redline. Another factor is availability of things like resurrection; unless you have someone doing Transmute Rock to Mud permadeath shenanigans, soul-trapping, or Barghest's Feast then basically no one can die forever in high level D&D. Systems where its easy to get knocked out but hard to be killed outright can help as well.

Basically, I don't really have much interest in games where there's a super-thin margin between optimal and dead, but there's a lot of space between that and the DM fudging every encounter in the party's favor, saving them with DEMs all the time, etc.

Someone surviving from level 1 to level 20 should feel like an accomplishment. Bonus points if they never needed to be rezzed.

[NichG]

Someone surviving from level 1 to level 20 should feel like an accomplishment. Bonus points if they never needed to be rezzed.

Not really interested in that, personally. Its just game mechanics, and those are so easy to break that there's nothing really impressive about just being powerful or surviving well or whatever.

Accomplishment lives in a difference place in games (at least for me) - pulling off things that seem like they should be impossible or unthinkable. I'd be far more impressed with someone who takes over the Lower Planes without ever spilling a drop of blood or someone who manages to convince the DM that actually they were the villain all along and the BBEG is just their puppet, or someone who simply manages to surprise the DM than someone who says 'I have a Lv20 wizard in a hardcore game'.

I had a player figure out nonlinear quantum mechanics and use it to resolve the plot of an entire campaign. Now that's impressive.