Technical or Flavor?

[Masakan]

I already know how this is gonna end, there is little point in trying to sugar coat this or trying to explain my stance.
So I am just gonna come out and ask this as simply and concisely as I can.
What is more important to you? By which I mean which direction do you lean when making characters and what do you value more?
Do you focus on making them as interesting as possible while making them feasibly useful(Meaning watching them work is fun for not only you but for other players)
Or do you Just focus on making them as powerful as possible...and just fluff up the rest.
Keep in mind I'm taking in the mind set that you would most likely be multiclassing, Playing a straight anything is drab, dull and boring anyway.
Sigh...why do i keep posting? It's just gonna turn into another mocking thread anyway.

[MyrPsychologist]

I enjoy playing things that I enjoy. I like to play a character that can perform the job they are supposed to do with a reasonable degree of competence and is not so specialized that they can ONLY do that job. Some flexibility and out of combat problem solving capabilities are lovely.

Typically, I play around tier 3-2 depending on the party composition and expectations. I don't care about "fluff" or "flavor" because these can all be changed and tweaked to fit a mechanically sound character.

[ComaVision]

Both, since the two elements aren't related at all.

[Necroticplague]

Mu. Void. The question is wrong. one does not come at the expense of the other.
in b4 stormwind
That being said, a character has to be, above all else, fun to play. if I, as the player, get bored with a character, I have failed.

[Curmudgeon]

I already know how this is gonna end, there is little point in trying to sugar coat this or trying to explain my stance.
...
Sigh...why do i keep posting? It's just gonna turn into another mocking thread anyway.
You've posted a question where you've established that there are only two possible answers that you've decided are mutually exclusive. As ComaVision pointed out, that's not the case.

So you know how this is going to end because you've rigged the questions. As to why you keep posting like this: I have no training in psychiatry; I can't help you. :smallsigh:

[Masakan]

Mu. Void. The question is wrong. one does not come at the expense of the other.
in b4 stormwind

Translation:"Since this question doesn't correlate with what I think is right and correct, Rather than give due respect and actually answer your question, I'm going to brush you off and treat you as insignificant. Learn to think like me and I will start to treat you like you actually have a brain"

Anything else I should add or did i pretty much hit your intentions on the head?


You've posted a question where you've established that there are only two possible answers that you've decided are mutually exclusive. As ComaVision pointed out, that's not the case.

So you know how this is going to turn out because you've rigged the questions. As to why you keep posting like this: I have no training in psychiatry; I can't help you. :smallsigh:

Maybe because I actually want personal opinions rather than trying to find out whats right?....forget it. I knew I was wasting my time doing this. Phychologist was the only one who actually answered my question, maybe you could learn from him.

[Greenish]

Single class character doesn't have to be drab, dull, or boring, even mechanically (if you pick the right class), and certainly not from flavour perspective.

[EisenKreutzer]

I was waiting for this thread.
This is the thread where you try to get your preconceptions about the members of this site validated by attempting to get people to admit that they are all powergamers who don't care about roleplaying or building interesting characters.

Really, the people on this forum are nice guys. We all love these games, and put our hearts and souls into our hobbies.
People just have different preferences. It's all good.

Anyway, to answer your questiom: It depends. I'm not much of an optimizer, and I have never been any kind of powergamer. Thats not my style.

However, D&D and Pathfinder are games centred around their combat mechanics, hailing as they do from miniature wargaming waybackwhen.

I usually start with an interesting concept. Maybe I've read about a build I think looks cool, or had a kickass mental image of a certain kind of character that I want to try to put together.

Once I have an idea, and this idea can be about mechanics I would like to try or a personality I want to play, I try and make it work. Often I will look at guides from the Playground community tonget a feel for what makes a certain class or classes tick, which options are worth comsidering and which are best left alone. Then I try and map these out into a build that I feel reinforces the idea I was going for.

Of course, I will always adhere to restrictions placed on the campaign by the GM, or if I am the GM (which I not infrequently am) then I will try and build NPCs to match the setting and the player characters.

I come from a background of indie games and story games, and many of those experiences and attitudes have worked their way into how I GM and play roleplaying games.
One of the biggest things I have learned is working with the mechanics of a game rather than against them. In D&D/Pathfinder terms, this means aknowledging that combat and encounters will be an important part of the experince, and building a character who uses the combat system to be as effective as possible within the confines of the parameters set by the GM, campaign and character concept is the best way play.

When I say "best way to play," I am being entirely subjective. It's the best way I have found to enjoy the game. Not the only acceptable way for anyone to play, but simply what works for me personally.

So I guess my answer to your question is: Both. I try and do both, because that is how I have the most fun.

[Masakan]

I was waiting for this thread.
This is the thread where you try to get your preconceptions about the members of this site validated by attempting to get people to admit that they are all powergamers who don't care about roleplaying or building interesting characters.

Really, the people on this forum are nice guys. We all love these games, and put our hearts and souls into our hobbies.
People just have different preferences. It's all good.

Anyway, to answer your questiom: It depends. I'm not much of an optimizer, and I have never been any kind of powergamer. Thats not my style.

However, D&D and Pathfinder are games centred around their combat mechanics, hailing as they do from miniature wargaming waybackwhen.

I usually start with an interesting concept. Maybe I've read about a build I think looks cool, or had a kickass mental image of a certain kind of character that I want to try to put together.

Once I have an idea, and this idea can be about mechanics I would like to try or a personality I want to play, I try and make it work. Often I will look at guides from the Playground community tonget a feel for what makes a certain class or classes tick, which options are worth comsidering and which are best left alone. Then I try and map these out into a build that I feel reinforces the idea I was going for.

Of course, I will always adhere to restrictions placed on the campaign by the GM, or if I am the GM (which I not infrequently am) then I will try and build NPCs to match the setting and the player characters.

I come from a background of indie games and story games, and many of those experiences and attitudes have worked their way into how I GM and play roleplaying games.
One of the biggest things I have learned is working with the mechanics of a game rather than against them. In D&D/Pathfinder terms, this means aknowledging that combat and encounters will be an important part of the experince, and building a character who uses the combat system to be as effective as possible within the confines of the parameters set by the GM, campaign and character concept is the best way play.

When I say "best way to play," I am being entirely subjective. It's the best way I have found to enjoy the game. Not the only acceptable way for anyone to play, but simply what works for me personally.

So I guess my answer to your question is: Both. I try and do both, because that is how I have the most fun.

and you get a cookie for actually being straightforward and honest.

[Necroticplague]

Translation:"Since this question doesn't correlate with what I think is right and correct, Rather than give due respect and actually answer your question, I'm going to brush you off and treat you as insignificant. Learn to think like me and I will start to treat you like you actually have a brain"

Anything else I should add or did i pretty much hit your intentions on the head?

Don't. Put. Words. In. My. F******. Mouth.
At no point to I ever have any intent to insult you like your translation states. I was merely giving my thoughts on the topic before leaving my two cents in the edit. To be insulted is to read what is not there.

For a more extensive answer before you go off the join Visagani and Jedipotter:

Generally, creating characters is split into three phases for me. First, try to come up with an interesting concept. Concepts are very broad, with a lot of the details up in the air. Then, I fish around for mechanics to try and build that concept. Fluff is how I link the concept to my mechanics, filling in any gaps that still might be there, clarifying things that weren't originally part of the concept, and coming up with interesting explanations. So I guess you could say my characters are sandwiches, with a meaty center layer surrounded on both sides by fluff.

[torrasque666]

I try to go for as flavorful character as I can, while keeping his as mechanically sound as I can. But I have my limits. For example, if I want to play a holy warrior I'm more likely to play a Paladin than a Cleric as to me there's a massive difference between relying on buffs that I cast to become a competent martial (STR focus, near full BAB) and playing a class that allows me to forgo buffs and take on that role myself, relying on innate abilities rather than spells to get said abilities.Then again, I also despise full caster types

I don't find enjoyment in shapeshifting, reality warping, or other T1 craziness. But I'm also not going to play a class that doesn't even have an inherent flavor to my character concept (read: the flavor as described by WotC. I don't fully separate out the mechanics from the fluff.) This kind of happened in an earlier thread of mine, where I asked about the quality of taking Peerless Archer 3 for power attack with bows. I was told that it wasn't inherently bad, but that it would be easier to just use an Energy Bow. Personally, I find the Energy Bow to be cheesy and refuse to use it (along with a ton of other things that are generally sourced through web articles) as the Energy Bow doesn't agree with my character concept. Ancestral Relic might, but not an entirely different item.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Translation:"Since this question doesn't correlate with what I think is right and correct, Rather than give due respect and actually answer your question, I'm going to brush you off and treat you as insignificant. Learn to think like me and I will start to treat you like you actually have a brain"

Anything else I should add or did i pretty much hit your intentions on the head?

This isn't a multiple-choice test in school. One asks questions to expand one's viewpoint. If the questioner happened to have the right answer already, that's a bonus.

[Masakan]

Don't. Put. Words. In. My. F******. Mouth.
At no point to I ever have any intent to insult you like your translation states. I was merely giving my thoughts on the topic before leaving my two cents in the edit. To be insulted is to read what is not there.

For a more extensive answer before you go off the join Visagani and Jedipotter:

Generally, creating characters is split into three phases for me. First, try to come up with an interesting concept. Concepts are very broad, with a lot of the details up in the air. Then, I fish around for mechanics to try and build that concept. Fluff is how I link the concept to my mechanics, filling in any gaps that still might be there, clarifying things that weren't originally part of the concept, and coming up with interesting explanations. So I guess you could say my characters are sandwiches, with a meaty center layer surrounded on both sides by fluff.

If you had just said that instead of going holier than thou on me, we could have avoided that little speed bump, I could have gotten the info i wanted and YOU wouldn't have gotten angry. Guess we all learned something today huh? But thank you for answering.

[Necroticplague]

If you had just said that instead of going holier than thou on me, we could have avoided that little speed bump, I could have gotten the info i wanted and YOU wouldn't have gotten angry. Guess we all learned something today huh? But thank you for answering.

I haven't gotten angry. If I was angry, you wouldn't have seen any reply.

That said, when did I "go holier than thou" on you? That expression is merely simple a simple statement I believed the question to be a false dichotomy. It asks X or Y, and the answer is "neither".

[Masakan]

I haven't gotten angry. If I was angry, you wouldn't have seen any reply.

That said, when did I "go holier than thou" on you? That expression is merely simple a simple statement I believed the question to be a false dichotomy. It asks X or Y, and the answer is "neither".

Dichotomy or not, It doesn't matter....I really don't care whether a question is factually correct. I think my point was fairly clear, what matters to you more? That's it.

[Uncle Pine]

I think the question would've been more constructive if it was rephrased along these lines: "When you build a character, do you take the idea of a character, let's call it a concept, (i.e. I want to be The Great and Powerful Korg, a barbarian that thinks he's a wizard) and optimize from there or do you set an optimization bar or choose a group of mechanical stunts you want to be able to pull off and then build a character out of the resulting stat block (i.e. I want to be able to throw Dire Tigers in combat and be very resilient)?". This would also avoid falling into the common Stormwind Fallacy.

For me, what I thinks are cool concepts will spring to my mind from time to time and then I'll try to translate them into D&D characters or creatures. However, before starting, I'll also decide whether I'll build this character to use it as an inhabitant of my campaign, as a boss or a similarly tough creature in my campaign, as a possible PC should I ever manage to play instead of being the DM or just for the hell of it. Then, I'll lower the optimization bar to match my needs.
Obviously when dealing with TO challenges I do the opposite: I already have a "goal", so I try to find a cool concept that can reach said goal.

[Masakan]

I think the question would've been more constructive if it was rephrased along these lines: "When you build a character, do you take the idea of a character, let's call it a concept, (i.e. I want to be The Great and Powerful Korg, a barbarian that thinks he's a wizard) and optimize from there or do you set an optimization bar or choose a group of mechanical stunts you want to be able to pull off and then build a character out of the resulting stat block (i.e. I want to be able to throw Dire Tigers in combat and be very resilient)?". This would also avoid falling into the common Stormwind Fallacy.

For me, what I thinks are cool concepts will spring to my mind from time to time and then I'll try to translate them into D&D characters or creatures. However, before starting, I'll also decide whether I'll build this character to use it as an inhabitant of my campaign, as a boss or a similarly tough creature in my campaign, as a possible PC should I ever manage to play instead of being the DM or just for the hell of it. Then, I'll lower the optimization bar to match my needs.
Obviously when dealing with TO challenges I do the opposite: I already have a "goal", so I try to find a cool concept that can reach said goal.

I suck when it comes to finding the right words OK?

[EisenKreutzer]

I already know how this is gonna end, there is little point in trying to sugar coat this or trying to explain my stance.
[...]
Sigh...why do i keep posting? It's just gonna turn into another mocking thread anyway.

I feel like adressing this.

I mean it when I said upthread that I have been waiting for you to post this thread. Your antagonistic tone in your previous threads, and especially how the last thread ended, made me feel pretty confident that a thread like this was next.

I'm not trying to play psychoanalyst or anything, but this reminds me of something that happened to me once.

This was a few years ago, before I discovered indie games and story games, an experience which radically altered how I viewed and played games (this is a tangent, and not important to the story).

Anyway, this was before that. I had just discovered an online rpg community in my own country, a little forum populated by a small community of fellow Norwegians who were very interested in game design.
This was in the middle of the ****storm surrounding Ron Edwards and The Forge, if that tells you anything. There was a great deal of discussion of rpg theory, and many big words were being thrown around by people who seemed to know a lot about what they were talking about.

And this provoked me. I didn't understand it at the time, but it aggravated me that these people thought they knew so much about something I knew I had a lot of knowledge about. Something I had years of experience with.

And I started making aggressive posts, trying to call out the other members of this forum for being elitist pricks and snobs who couldn't shut up about the "correct way to play rpgs." And I made a final thread, much like this one, where I tried to take a stand, to make them realise that I had valid experiences and knowledge about this topic, and that they weren't the experts they thought they were.

And then I saw myself. And I realised why I was so angry at them.

They made me feel stupid.
They had discovered a whole new way of looking at roleplaying games, and it changed a lot of their preconceptions. It gave them tools with which to discuss and analyze games and gaming.
And I had all these years of experience, and I had always thought I knew pretty much everything about playing roleplaying games. And I was wrong. There was still much to learn, and I didn't understand half f it yet.
And that made me angry, because I felt stupid.
I also felt something else, which is called cognitive dissonance. I was so sure that I knew pretty much everything there was to know about RPGs, and finding out that I in fact knew very little freaked me out because it rocked a boat I thought was so safe I had build a pretty substantial structure on it.

And this is what I recognise in this thread.

Feel free to call me out if I a way off base. I won't mind. I'm just sharing.

[Masakan]

I feel like adressing this.

I mean it when I said upthread that I have been waiting for you to post this thread. Your antagonistic tone in your previous threads, and especially how the last thread ended, made me feel pretty confident that a thread like this was next.

I'm not trying to play psychoanalyst or anything, but this reminds me of something that happened to me once.

This was a few years ago, before I discovered indie games and story games, an experience which radically altered how I viewed and played games (this is a tangent, and not important to the story).

Anyway, this was before that. I had just discovered an online rpg community in my own country, a little forum populated by a small community of fellow Norwegians who were very interested in game design.
This was in the middle of the ****storm surrounding Ron Edwards and The Forge, if that tells you anything. There was a great deal of discussion of rpg theory, and many big words were being thrown around by people who seemed to know a lot about what they were talking about.

And this provoked me. I didn't understand it at the time, but it aggravated me that these people thought they knew so much about something I knew I had a lot of knowledge about. Something I had years of experience with.

And I started making aggressive posts, trying to call out the other members of this forum for being elitist pricks and snobs who couldn't shut up about the "correct way to play rpgs." And I made a final thread, much like this one, where I tried to take a stand, to make them realise that I had valid experiences and knowledge about this topic, and that they weren't the experts they thought they were.

And then I saw myself. And I realised why I was so angry at them.

They made me feel stupid.
They had discovered a whole new way of looking at roleplaying games, and it changed a lot of their preconceptions. It gave them tools with which to discuss and analyze games and gaming.
And I had all these years of experience, and I had always thought I knew pretty much everything about playing roleplaying games. And I was wrong. There was still much to learn, and I didn't understand half f it yet.
And that made me angry, because I felt stupid.
I also felt something else, which is called cognitive dissonance. I was so sure that I knew pretty much everything there was to know about RPGs, and finding out that I in fact knew very little freaked me out because it rocked a boat I thought was so safe I had build a pretty substantial structure on it.

And this is what I recognise in this thread.

Feel free to call me out if I a way off base. I won't mind. I'm just sharing.

Not bad my Norwegian friend...your only half wrong.
I know I don't know everything, nobody does. Which is why I like to keep and open mind about new things and new possibilities...and honestly that's something I'm just not seeing here. I'm seeing people perfectly set in their ways, completely adverse to any sort of new ideas, maybe I'm misreading the intentions, but that's what I'm seeing.
As for the stupid part.....well there's a reason I consider myself a Sorcerer in a Forum full of wizards.

[eggynack]

To go back to the base question, I tend to be a technically oriented player, but the end goal of technical construction isn't necessarily the most powerful thing possible. I often start with a mechanical object that interests me, and then I build a basic concept outward from there. Then, I see what other things make mechanical sense in that construct, and build more concept from that piece of mechanics, and then put more mechanics on the newly expanded concept, and then you eventually have a character. It sounds muddled because it is, because character creation is often muddled, and my pattern of stuff creation may be even more difficult to grasp than that, for the brain is a strange place. But, the underlying truth remains the same, that I tend to think in terms of mechanics first. I like math, and logical constructs, and seeing how rules interact, and so on.

And, no matter what I do, the character always, always, always comes later. It's unavoidable. I create a character with all this interesting backstory, and details, and a set personality, and that stuff means nothing when I actually start to play. Because, up until that point, I'd been only describing a character, telling instead of showing, and that just doesn't feel like how characters are developed. My character picks up their own unique voice from circumstance, spontaneously generating a personality from the situation around them, dragging in random aspects that I'd never even considered when I was generating a build. Doing it otherwise, entering into a game with a static personality design, just seems like a disservice to the power of organic construction.

Edit:
Not bad my Norwegian friend...your only half wrong.
I know I don't know everything, nobody does. Which is why I like to keep and open mind about new things and new possibilities...and honestly that's something I'm just not seeing here. I'm seeing people perfectly set in their ways, completely adverse to any sort of new ideas, maybe I'm misreading the intentions, but that's what I'm seeing.
As for the stupid part.....well there's a reason I consider myself a Sorcerer in a Forum full of wizards.
But you keep posting these things. Y'know? These weird things against powerful play that are often insulting to varying degrees. And then you're presented with a bunch of posts that give reasons for actions that are totally different than the ones you presented. Like, you say that people only play wizards for power purposes, and then a bunch of people tell you a bunch of other reasons that wizards are cool beans. And then you just kinda ignore the response for the most part, and then make the same kinda post again later. I just don't see the point.

[EisenKreutzer]

Not bad my Norwegian friend...your only half wrong.
I know I don't know everything, nobody does. Which is why I like to keep and open mind about new things and new possibilities...and honestly that's something I'm just not seeing here. I'm seeing people perfectly set in their ways, completely adverse to any sort of new ideas, maybe I'm misreading the intentions, but that's what I'm seeing.
As for the stupid part.....well there's a reason I consider myself a Sorcerer in a Forum full of wizards.

The thing is that the members of this community who post here most often, the regulars, have a very high degree of system mastery. They love the moving bits, love to tinker with them and come up with crazy new builds and making weird ideas work. Some of these guys are real, honest to Pelor mad scientists with the d20 systems. It's a fascinating place, if you learn to appreciate it.

They aren't set in their ways. They just have so much experience with and passion for these games that they have explored every nook and cranny, every tiny corner of the rules to squeeze the most awesome possible out of it. And that means they know the system inside-out. They legitimately know what works, why it works and how to make it work better. And, by the same token, they know what doesn't work. Not because they are judgemental, or narrow minded, but because they have tried to make it work in every way imaginable.

I highly respect the members of this community for their ingenuity and creativity.

They aren't resistant to new ideas. They are where the new ideas come from.

[Nibbens]

There's quite a lot of people saying that the two are not connected so one character can be both. While this sentiment is one that I would share, unfortunately, I've seen evidence of both - in my group... at the same time.

I have a Paladin who loves the RP and personality out the whazoo, and at the same time is an ubercharger who can dish out stupid amounts of damage that makes it hard for me to balance fights.

In the same game group, I have a siege mage wizard who is a golem maker, and flies around on a suped up multi-enchanted-enlarged-gravity-bow'd-oversized-cannon mount. He has the personality of a golem - and it's not intentional - all his characters have the personality of a golem. He plays d&d to see his well made creations blow stuff up by rolling 40 some-odd d8s for damage. If a little roleplay sneaks in, then he'll go for it too. But the priority for him is obvious.

I, however, stick to personality and intentionally build underpower characters - Just because I as a PC think that X feat would work well with my character, that may not be what my character wants to take this level. In other words everything fits a theme for me, and if it's not in that theme I don't take it - dice gods be damned.

Just because I do things one way and my friends do something different doesn't make one wrong or right - we can all play the game and enjoy it in our own way. The only way to lose, is to not have fun.

[Uncle Pine]

I suck when it comes to finding the right words OK?
It isn't always necessary to say something in the best of all possible ways, it's just useful and more constructive. And the more convoluted and heavy the argument is, the more useful approaching the argument from the right angle is.

The Stormwind fallacy (= the idea that fluff and crunch are mutually exclusive during and after character creation) is a well-known argument on the boards and it's been so for quite some time, so naturally if someone starts a thread and he seems to be pro Stormwind fallacy people will just take out their "Why the Stormwind fallacy is called a fallacy (aka you're wrong)" answer and call it a night. If the OP isn't pro Stormwind fallacy, he can just explain himself better and there you have a constructive thread.

I read and replied to some of your recent threads and most of them seems to deal with "heavy" arguments like fluff Vs crunch, tier 1s and so on. If you feel like you're prone to being misunderstood, you can either try to deal with "lesser" arguments or learn to reformulate your arguments. Possibly in a less antagonizing or self-deprecating way (which by the way is an entirely different thing from "sugar coating").

[Nibbens]

The thing is that the members of this community who post here most often, the regulars, have a very high degree of system mastery. They love the moving bits, love to tinker with them and come up with crazy new builds and making weird ideas work. Some of these guys are real, honest to Pelor mad scientists with the d20 systems. It's a fascinating place, if you learn to appreciate it.

They aren't set in their ways. They just have so much experience with and passion for these games that they have explored every nook and cranny, every tiny corner of the rules to squeeze the most awesome possible out of it. And that means they know the system inside-out. They legitimately know what works, why it works and how to make it work better. And, by the same token, they know what doesn't work. Not because they are judgemental, or narrow minded, but because they have tried to make it work in every way imaginable.

I highly respect the members of this community for their ingenuity and creativity.

They aren't resistant to new ideas. They are where the new ideas come from.

This deserves a +1... if there was such a thing here. LOL.

[Masakan]

It isn't always necessary to say something in the best of all possible ways, it's just useful and more constructive. And the more convoluted and heavy the argument is, the more useful approaching the argument from the right angle is.

The Stormwind fallacy (= the idea that fluff and crunch are mutually exclusive during and after character creation) is a well-known argument on the boards and it's been so for quite some time, so naturally if someone starts a thread and he seems to be pro Stormwind fallacy people will just take out their "Why the Stormwind fallacy is called a fallacy (aka you're wrong)" answer and call it a night. If the OP isn't pro Stormwind fallacy, he can just explain himself better and there you have a constructive thread.

I read and replied to some of your recent threads and most of them seems to deal with "heavy" arguments like fluff Vs crunch, tier 1s and so on. If you feel like you're prone to being misunderstood, you can either try to deal with "lesser" arguments or learn to reformulate your arguments. Possibly in a less antagonizing or self-deprecating way (which by the way is an entirely different thing from "sugar coating").

That seems to be the case, Most of the replies I tend to get either Completely missed the point, or have nothing to do with what I had originally intended, eventually everything gets lost in translation and before you know it everyone is walking away upset.

[eggynack]

Regarding new ideas, I actually tend to prefer them to old ideas, all else being equal, because I already know the old ideas. They are more valuable, rather than less. However, more often than not, I feel it necessary to argue against these new ideas, because it is by passing through these fires of inquiry that the bad new ideas, for there are many new ideas that are bad, are stripped away, leaving only the good new ideas behind. If an idea can't stand up to this sort of scrutiny, then in a sense they deserved to fall, and if they do stand up, then the idea will be held up as a new standard by the people in the argument in question, and the idea could spread and outstrip the old one.

In point of fact, I can name several examples of situations were I've held a point of view, argued it vigorously, been partially or wholly proved wrong, and then adopted either that new position or a position closer to it in future discussions. To point to one, I once held the opinion that paladins were just blanket tier five, but after much discussion I decided that the class features a lot of upward tier mobility from their base position, though I tend to dislike the sort of construction that leads to such a higher tier. So, in any future case where it comes up, my answer will likely include the idea that paladins may reach tier four, or higher, if you really optimize their casting.

So then, you should know that while I do put forth the strongest defense I can against an idea that I don't think makes sense, it is only so that I can know that the new idea is right, rather than because I will hold onto the old at any cost. You just haven't been all that persuasive, and neither do your ideas on these points seem that great on their own merits. All I've seen so far from you is a closed mind, unwilling to accept that people may want to play a wizard or a druid because they have an interesting character that those classes fit, or because they enjoy the underlying mechanics without necessarily liking them for power reasons. You may be able to convince me otherwise at some point, at least with some less extreme perspective, but what you have right now isn't convincing in the least.

[Hecuba]

There are a couple of things I think you might be asking and I'm not sure which, so I'll answer both.

When building a character, do I start with a mechanical build-- what the character does-- or with a general idea of their story and how they fit in the setting-- who the character is?

For me this depends on the depth of the setting: I prefer the who, but it is pointless for something like a dungeon crawl.

Alternately, do I approve of refluffing an existing class to use it's mechanical elements fit a character with tone that does not match?

I'm fine with it unless there has been an attempt to make certain classes reflect certain things in the setting. This is something I consider a wonderful element of world building, but some tables don't do significant world building at all (and it's not much of a concern in those cases).

[Masakan]

Regarding new ideas, I actually tend to prefer them to old ideas, all else being equal, because I already know the old ideas. They are more valuable, rather than less. However, more often than not, I feel it necessary to argue against these new ideas, because it is by passing through these fires of inquiry that the bad new ideas, for there are many new ideas that are bad, are stripped away, leaving only the good new ideas behind. If an idea can't stand up to this sort of scrutiny, then in a sense they deserved to fall, and if they do stand up, then the idea will be held up as a new standard by the people in the argument in question, and the idea could spread and outstrip the old one.

In point of fact, I can name several examples of situations were I've held a point of view, argued it vigorously, been partially or wholly proved wrong, and then adopted either that new position or a position closer to it in future discussions. To point to one, I once held the opinion that paladins were just blanket tier five, but after much discussion I decided that the class features a lot of upward tier mobility from their base position, though I tend to dislike the sort of construction that leads to such a higher tier. So, in any future case where it comes up, my answer will likely include the idea that paladins may reach tier four, or higher, if you really optimize their casting.

So then, you should know that while I do put forth the strongest defense I can against an idea that I don't think makes sense, it is only so that I can know that the new idea is right, rather than because I will hold onto the old at any cost. You just haven't been all that persuasive, and neither do your ideas on these points seem that great on their own merits. All I've seen so far from you is a closed mind, unwilling to accept that people may want to play a wizard or a druid because they have an interesting character that those classes fit, or because they enjoy the underlying mechanics without necessarily liking them for power reasons. You may be able to convince me otherwise at some point, at least with some less extreme perspective, but what you have right now isn't convincing in the least.

And why shouldn't I? Any time a wizard or a druid comes up in a topic, all you guys talk about is how powerful they are or how much better they are then other classes or how easily either one of them can completely obliterate campaigns.
And this is not just in my topics, in any guide or any sort of magic based thread. Anytime they come up it basically boils down to "Wisurds n Driuds r da bust hur hur hur"
If I heard you guys talk about them in a manner that didn't involve how hopelessly broken and overpowered they are, maybe I would reconsider.
Maybe give me a mechanical reason to think that they wouldn't just waltz in and solo whole armies while I'm just sitting on my hands watching.
A reason to think all that unbridled power wouldn't go to their heads.
A reason to think they wouldn't just ruin it for everyone else just because they can.
But as long as I keep seeing people praising wizards like they really ARE gods and borderline kissing the ground they walk on., I honestly don't see my thoughts changing anytime soon.

[squiggit]

Sigh...why do i keep posting? It's just gonna turn into another mocking thread anyway.

Translation:"Since this question doesn't correlate with what I think is right and correct, Rather than give due respect and actually answer your question, I'm going to brush you off and treat you as insignificant. Learn to think like me and I will start to treat you like you actually have a brain"

Anything else I should add or did i pretty much hit your intentions on the head?

Afraid of this turning into a "mocking thread."

Proceed to mock one of the first people who reply because they have the audacity to disagree with you.

Yeah that makes sense.

[Masakan]

Afraid of this turning into a "mocking thread."

Proceed to mock one of the first people who reply because they have the audacity to disagree with you.

Yeah that makes sense.

He didn't disagree with me, he didn't even answer the question at first.

[EisenKreutzer]

Maybe give me a mechanical reason to think that they wouldn't just waltz in and solo whole armies while I'm just sitting on my hands watching.
A reason to think all that unbridled power wouldn't go to their heads.
A reason to think they wouldn't just ruin it for everyone else just because they can.

I'm not sure if you realise this, but there is a pretty huge disconnect here.

You go from questioning the design of a class in terms of the relative power level it can achieve, which is a totally valid position to take regarding these classes, to negatvely characterizing the people who play them.

Do you get why one doesn't follow the other?

Also, do you see why the way you choose to argue your points can be seen as antagonistic, and will garner you hostile responses?

[Hiro Protagonest]

And why shouldn't I? Any time a wizard or a druid comes up in a topic, all you guys talk about is how powerful they are or how much better they are then other classes or how easily either one of them can completely obliterate campaigns.
And this is not just in my topics, in any guide or any sort of magic based thread. Anytime they come up it basically boils down to "Wisurds n Driuds r da bust hur hur hur"
If I heard you guys talk about them in a manner that didn't involve how hopelessly broken and overpowered they are, maybe I would reconsider.
Maybe give me a mechanical reason to think that they wouldn't just waltz in and solo whole armies while I'm just sitting on my hands watching.
A reason to think all that unbridled power wouldn't go to their heads.
A reason to think they wouldn't just ruin it for everyone else just because they can.
But as long as I keep seeing people praising wizards like they really ARE gods and borderline kissing the ground they walk on., I honestly don't see my thoughts changing anytime soon.

People here also praise Tome of Battle all over the place, and generally see T3 as the "best" balance point. They're not going to ignore that wizards have these powerful options, but when someone asks for help with a fighter, they're not going to say "play a wizard". They'll ask why they want a fighter and accommodate the concept given, be it through fighter, warblade, barbarian, crusader.

[Masakan]

I'm not sure if you realise this, but there is a pretty huge disconnect here.

You go from questioning the design of a class in terms of the relative power level it can achieve, which is a totally valid position to take regarding these classes, to negatvely characterizing the people who play them.

Do you get why one doesn't follow the other?


...You know what? I don't.


People here also praise Tome of Battle all over the place, and generally see T3 as the "best" balance point. They're not going to ignore that wizards have these powerful options, but when someone asks for help with a fighter, they're not going to say "play a wizard". They'll ask why they want a fighter and accommodate the concept given, be it through fighter, warblade, barbarian, crusader.

I Think the issue I'm having is people seem to mistake "Making the most of what is there" with "This can keep up or surpass casters" Which I don't think I've ever said once.

[squiggit]

He didn't disagree with me, he didn't even answer the question at first.

Because he felt the premise of the question was faulty. That is to say, he disagreed.


Anyways, to try to answer it myself:

Between the two, flavor, because making a character "as powerful as possible" is not something that you do for most games, because there isn't really any point. All that's going to do is get someone upset and the fact of the matter is that no character no matter how powerful can beat the DM.

But the two concepts aren't mutually exclusive. Optimization is, after all, using the available tools to best fill a specific goal... which actually makes it fundamentally opposed to power gaming rather than the two being the same as many people mistakenly assume. After all, no one would call a missile 'more optimized' than bug spray because it gets rid of more mosquitos and faster.

Your goal is to make something as effective as it can to fit whatever roleplaying concept and mechanical constraints of the game.

[eggynack]

And why shouldn't I? Any time a wizard or a druid comes up in a topic, all you guys talk about is how powerful they are or how much better they are then other classes or how easily either one of them can completely obliterate campaigns.
But you're ignoring the fact that such power doesn't strictly imply that campaigns will be obliterated. As I've pointed out, caster archetypes exist that emphasize improving the state of others rather than killing directly, and those archetypes are often very powerful. After that, all that's necessary is to calibrate the encounters to the power level of the party, which is self evidently possible given the trivial case of an encounter identical to the party. So, the party all winds up contributing, the caster isn't playing down to their level, and enemies aren't dispatched trivially. Everyone wins.

And this is not just in my topics, in any guide or any sort of magic based thread. Anytime they come up it basically boils down to "Wisurds n Driuds r da bust hur hur hur"
They are just about the best. They're not going to stop being the best just because they can be used. Imagine a game where everything above bards were eliminated, as though they never existed. In such a situation, people wold be saying, "Bards are the best," and they would not be mistaken, because such was the construction. That situation and this one are essentially the same, and yet bards aren't usually all that problematic.


If I heard you guys talk about them in a manner that didn't involve how hopelessly broken and overpowered they are, maybe I would reconsider.
Why would people talk about casters in a way that does not reflect the fact that they're very powerful? Few refute that notion, that casters are in the top tier. Arguments against your position assume that premise, that casters are powerful, and then move on from there, showing reasons why that power isn't necessarily a sign that the user of said power is some variety of bad person.

Maybe give me a mechanical reason to think that they wouldn't just waltz in and solo whole armies while I'm just sitting on my hands watching.

A reason to think all that unbridled power wouldn't go to their heads.

A reason to think they wouldn't just ruin it for everyone else just because they can.
I already have, in the past. Orient your caster around BFC and buffing effects, and you wind up with the whole party involved, that power going towards positive purposes, and nothing ruined for anyone. Besides that, I'd think the reason the power wouldn't go to their heads is that they aren't corrupted by something so simple as color spray, and that the reason they wouldn't ruin things for people is because they would inevitably be ruining things for themselves.


But as long as I keep seeing people praising wizards like they really ARE gods and borderline kissing the ground they walk on., I honestly don't see my thoughts changing anytime soon.
The issue here is that you seem to see rational claims of power as some crazed deity praise. I can accurately claim that a given class is capable of a given list of things without it being either a positive or negative claim. What wizards can do just is, existing as an objective fact. You're drawing a lot of strange conclusions from that objective fact for some reason.

[EisenKreutzer]

...You know what? I don't.

I love Wizards.

When I was a child, I would borrow book from my moms book case and pretend like they were my spell books. I would read their arcane writings out loud and imagine casting spells of terrifying power. I was maybe four or five, and couldn't really read properly, but I knew that books could hold power.
I fell in love with fictional characters like Gandalf, Raistlin, Pug and Rincewind as I grew older and learned to appreciate books. The idea of mastering knowledge to gain magical power fascinated me.

My first character in any roleplaying game was a Wizard. I was 14 or 15, and the game was AD&D 2nd Ed. I wanted to play a Necromancer, because I had this awesome mental image of a wizard summoning the dead to do his bidding, and cursing my enemies with sickness and spiritual decay.

Am I a bad person because I love the concept of Wizards in D&D and Pathfinder?

[Vhaidara]

As mentioned before, they are entirely and completely unrelated. I've had characters that started off being inspired by mechanics (Leah, one of my favorites). I've had characters who started from a personality(Markin, who is doomed to never actually see play past the bar). I've had characters who literally started with neither (Ranborg, the gnome bard I made in literally 5 minutes). And I enjoyed playing all of them, equally.


...You know what? I don't.

Okay, how about this: Wizards are overpowered. Therefore, people who play wizards are bad people.

Here's my viewpoint: Sorcerers are also overpowered. You have stated a liking of sorcerers. Does that make you a bad person? No.

That's honestly how you've been acting, even when you're dead wrong. Hell, you've insulted me on those grounds. Fun fact: I refuse to play any class above T3 on general principle that vancian casting as a whole is overpowered and written by blind monkeys after several shots of tequilla and multiple doses of LSD. So you, as someone who only plays gishes (which you've mentioned) are clearly more of a powergamer than I am, since I refuse to play the overpowered garbage that is 9th level vancian casters.

But I'm not going to insult you because of it. I'm not going to ignore your points because of it. I'll ignore your points when they are wrong, because they are wrong. But not because you are a sorcerer-playing powergamer.

I swear, it's like I'm a Harbinger in a sorcerer's world.

[Masakan]

I love Wizards.

When I was a child, I would borrow book from my moms book case and pretend like they were my spell books. I would read their arcane writings out loud and imagine casting spells of terrifying power. I was maybe four or five, and couldn't really read properly, but I knew that books could hold power.
I fell in love with fictional characters like Gandalf, Raistlin, Pug and Rincewind as I grew older and learned to appreciate books. The idea of mastering knowledge to gain magical power fascinated me.

My first character in any roleplaying game was a Wizard. I was 14 or 15, and the game was AD&D 2nd Ed. I wanted to play a Necromancer, because I had this awesome mental image of a wizard summoning the dead to do his bidding, and cursing my enemies with sickness and spiritual decay.

Am I a bad person because I love the concept of Wizards in D&D and Pathfinder?

Not really, but this does beg the question....could any of the wizards you seen in media growing up or otherwise...do half the stuff you could do with a 3.5 wizard? I just want an honest straight answer.


As mentioned before, they are entirely and completely unrelated. I've had characters that started off being inspired by mechanics (Leah, one of my favorites). I've had characters who started from a personality(Markin, who is doomed to never actually see play past the bar). I've had characters who literally started with neither (Ranborg, the gnome bard I made in literally 5 minutes). And I enjoyed playing all of them, equally.



Okay, how about this: Wizards are overpowered. Therefore, people who play wizards are bad people.

Here's my viewpoint: Sorcerers are also overpowered. You have stated a liking of sorcerers. Does that make you a bad person? No.

That's honestly how you've been acting, even when you're dead wrong. Hell, you've insulted me on those grounds. Fun fact: I refuse to play any class above T3 on general principle that vancian casting as a whole is overpowered and written by blind monkeys after several shots of tequilla and multiple doses of LSD. So you, as someone who only plays gishes (which you've mentioned) are clearly more of a powergamer than I am, since I refuse to play the overpowered garbage that is 9th level vancian casters.

But I'm not going to insult you because of it. I'm not going to ignore your points because of it. I'll ignore your points when they are wrong, because they are wrong. But not because you are a sorcerer-playing powergamer.

I swear, it's like I'm a Harbinger in a sorcerer's world.

....I believe I merely stated that sorcerers are more balanced than them, and people have gone on record saying that they prefer wizards over sorcerers because sorcerers are and I quote "Too weak"
Do i think people who play wizards are bad people? NO
Do i think wizards attract bad people? Yes. In the same way that Darius and Garen attract jerks in LoL. Not all of them are bad, but plenty of them can be.
Look I think you are misreading me. It's the power simple as that that makes me wary of anyone who plays wizards..You can play just about any other spell class and I would be find because I know you won't just break the game.
And usually you have about until level 7 to convince me otherwise because that's when they get polymorph.

[Vhaidara]

Not really, but this does beg the question....could any of the wizards you seen in media growing up or otherwise...do half the stuff you could do with a 3.5 wizard? I just want an honest straight answer.

This is where we get an important distinction: What you can do, and what you will do.

Every character can get infinite wishes at level 1 via pazuzu into candle of invocation into efreeti chains. Guess who doesn't do that? EVERYONE.

Just because your wizard mechanically could learn every spell in the game does not mean he has to. Guess who decides the limits of your character? You do. So if you can't stop yourself from breaking the game, it's your own fault, because you didn't have the self control to stick to what your character would be able to do, and instead just went on a power trip with what your class can do.

[EisenKreutzer]

Not really, but this does beg the question....could any of the wizards you seen in media growing up or otherwise...do half the stuff you could do with a 3.5 wizard? I just want an honest straight answer.

Gandalf? Not in the books, but he was a demigod. Rincewind? Heck no, he can't even do magic. Pug and Raistlin though? Yeah, honestly they could.

And more importantly, the wizard I was when I closed my eyes and imagined myself tome in hand against the forces of darkness? I could shatter worlds, break armies with a gesture and defeat dark gods with the force of my magic.

[LudicSavant]

Not really, but this does beg the question....could any of the wizards you seen in media growing up or otherwise...do half the stuff you could do with a 3.5 wizard? I just want an honest straight answer.

Yes. For instance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35yH1e0YdEc. I can make that guy in 3.5e. I even know what spells he's using.

How about some others?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2eJRoHG8CY I statted this guy out once as a Jade Phoenix Mage, able to mimic every feat in that video.

[Red Fel]

To answer the original post, or what I think you intended to ask in the OP: I concoct a concept first, then I try to find the mechanics that make the concept work, then I refine those mechanics to the point that they work well. For example, I once started a thread asking how I could create a specific concept - an unarmed combatant who used a technique I had decided would be named "Seven Hevens, Seven Palms (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?380611-Seven-Heavens-Seven-Palms-Building-an-Unarmed-Holy-Dude)." I had no idea what that technique would actually look like - nor, for that matter, what the character would look like. With the help of the forum, I managed to find some wonderful mechanical options, and eventually settled on PF Monk/Paladin/Cleric/Champion of Irori. Over the course of the thread, we also discussed (and ultimately dismissed) the possibility of investing more heavily in caster levels. It was about building crunch around fluff, not stacking fluff around crunch.

Now, onto the secondary subject of this thread.


...You know what? I don't.

Simply put, it's called civil disagreement. I happen to disagree with a lot of people on these forums, a lot of the time. Don't confuse civility for uniformity of opinion. The key thing is that, just because I disagree with a person's opinion, it doesn't mean (1) that the opinion is worthless or invalid, or (2) that the person is worthless or invalid. I won't disparage an opinion (although I will contradict an inaccurate factual statement), and I certainly wouldn't insult a person for espousing it.

What people seem to be expressing frustration with is how, when a person states an opinion or position with which you disagree, your reactions tend to be either dismissive or hostile, neither of which is necessary. If you disagree with someone, it's possible to say so.

Say it with me: "I respect your opinion, but I don't share it." It's that easy. Perhaps you feel that you've been saying that. I hope that you'll read this and realize that, even if you intended to communicate that sentiment, it hasn't been received in that spirit.

This forum is a wonderful place for discourse and a sharing of ideas about games. But that only works if we can all keep a civil tongue in our respective heads.

[eggynack]

This is where we get an important distinction: What you can do, and what you will do.

Every character can get infinite wishes at level 1 via pazuzu into candle of invocation into efreeti chains. Guess who doesn't do that? EVERYONE.

Just because your wizard mechanically could learn every spell in the game does not mean he has to. Guess who decides the limits of your character? You do. So if you can't stop yourself from breaking the game, it's your own fault, because you didn't have the self control to stick to what your character would be able to do, and instead just went on a power trip with what your class can do.
Or, alternatively, at any given level you can choose to have your monk transition into a wizard, and gain some measure of this grand casting power. And yet, you don't. Because you're playing this character over here, that is not a wizard. Claiming that restraint for a wizard is impossible ignores the restraint holding back the power on every character in every game, holding you back from breaking this oh so fragile game. It may be more obvious for wizards how they're failing to live up to their potential, but it's no less true for them than it is for any class.

[Vhaidara]

Look I think you are misreading me. It's the power simple as that that makes me wary of anyone who plays wizards..You can play just about any other spell class and I would be find because I know you won't just break the game.

Sorcerers can do everything wizards can. So can Clerics, and Druids, and Psions, and Archivists, and EVERY. SINGLE. T1 OR T2 CLASS.

[Masakan]

Gandalf? Not in the books, but he was a demigod. Rincewind? Heck no, he can't even do magic. Pug and Raistlin though? Yeah, honestly they could.

And more importantly, the wizard I was when I closed my eyes and imagined myself tome in hand against the forces of darkness? I could shatter worlds, break armies with a gesture and defeat dark gods with the force of my magic.

Then yet another question, Why bother with anything else? Just from your description alone it makes almost everyone else feel pointless.


Sorcerers can do everything wizards can. So can Clerics, and Druids, and Psions, and Archivists, and EVERY. SINGLE. T1 OR T2 CLASS.
.....aaaand yet none of them sans druid can do it as often.... I Think you fail to realize that what makes wizards a step above everyone else isn't the fact that they can use magic...It's the fact that they will effectively have an answer to any encounter you do. And I'm not talking about stunning the boss and leaving it up to the others to clean up oh no...I mean out the gate from turn one. All that matters is how often they can do it, which is why i consider sorcerers more balanced. Yes they can do everything wizards can but unlike wizards they have an actual limit, and they cant just replace spells whenever they don't like em anymore.
It's a limiter simple as that.

[LudicSavant]

Then yet another question, Why bother with anything else? Just from your description alone it makes almost everyone else feel pointless.

Because you can make the opposition just as capable. Just look at the scale of powers in something like One Piece (which happens to be the most popular manga in the world. The only franchises that have sold more comics, to my knowledge, are Spider Man, Batman, and Superman. And that's all of the Spider Man, Batman, and Superman comics together). If something with those kinds of power levels can move well over 300 million copies, obviously it's possible to make those kinds of power levels appealing.

[EisenKreutzer]

...You know what? I don't


Then yet another question, Why bother with anything else? Just from your description alone it makes almost everyone else feel pointless.


Let me try another way.

You see people on this board who know perfectly well that a Wizard can be made in such a way that their power can break a campaign.

You see these same people say they enjoy playing Wizards.

Your conclusion is that these people love to play characters powerful enough to break campaigns, and assume they must love breaking campaigns.

This leads to you assuming that these people are power-hungry, and have other negative traits because of this.

I am trying to tell you that your assumptions do not have to be true.

It is possible to build a Wizard who can shatter any game, bend the system over their knee and spank it into oblivion.

It is also possible to purposefully svoid these options, and build a Wizard who cannot do these things.

Why would anyone do this?
Because breaking campaigns isn't fun. Nobody likes it, not even the people who love playing Wizards.

What you are seeing is people aknowledging the power of the Wizard class. This does not mean that they neccessarily enjoy this power. There are many, many reasons for liking the Wizard class that have nothing to do with campaign breaking.

Does this make things clearer?

[Greenish]

Why bother with anything else?Why do you play roleplaying games? Is it for power? Do you feel you're doing something wrong if you're not squeezing every last drop of potential out of your character?

[Grod_The_Giant]

Personally? When playing 3.5, I go for mechanics first. Largely because the main attraction of the system to me, as opposed to, oh, Mutants and Masterminds or STaRS, is the sheer crunchiness and variety of the mechanics. And also their prominence- this is a rules-heavy game, and your character will sink or swim based on how he or she interacts with them. So yeah, I'll play around with optimization to get relevant numbers and a wealth of options. I'll build to what I feel is the expected power level... and yes, maybe a bit beyond, because I like characters who are very good at what they do, but I do try not to overshoot the rest of the party too much, and I'm usually the first to offer to change things if issues arise.

Usually, at some point in the process, a personality will start to emerge. "Hmm... Investigator looks like a fun class... mmm, this would work really well with natural weapons... What races... Lizardfolk look good at that, and it looks like they're actually playable in Pathfinder... I do like lizards... now feats... Wait, I'm a super-intelligent yet monstrous bruiser, I can totally have fun defying the obvious stereotype... " More comes out once I hit the table, because I improvise a lot when roleplaying, but that's a pretty accurate picture of my mind during character creation.

[Masakan]

Let me try another way.

You see people on this board who know perfectly well that a Wizard can be made in such a way that their power can break a campaign.

You see these same people say they enjoy playing Wizards.

Your conclusion is that these people love to play characters powerful enough to break campaigns, and assume they must love breaking campaigns.

This leads to you assuming that these people are power-hungry, and have other negative traits because of this.

I am trying to tell you that your assumptions do not have to be true.

It is possible to build a Wizard who can shatter any game, bend the system over their knee and spank it into oblivion.

It is also possible to purposefully svoid these options, and build a Wizard who cannot do these things.

Why would anyone do this?
Because breaking campaigns isn't fun. Nobody likes it, not even the people who love playing Wizards.

What you are seeing is people aknowledging the power of the Wizard class. This does not mean that they neccessarily enjoy this power. There are many, many reasons for liking the Wizard class that have nothing to do with campaign breaking.

Does this make things clearer?

Ok First off are you going to school for psychology? Because you are really good at this.
And Second you serious? That's not the case?

[EisenKreutzer]

Ok First off are you going to school for psychology? Because you are really good at this.
And Second you serious? That's not the case?

I don't study psychology, but I have a pretty good grasp of how people work. Call it high Charisma and Wisdom. ;)

And yes, I am serious. It is possible to love a something, good and bad, without embracing or abusing it's worst aspects.

I like Wizards because I have loved magic since I was a child, and the image of a magician with a spellbook and familiar intrigues me. If I tried I could quite possibly make a GMs nightmare of a Wizard who could singlehandedly solve every encounter and make every other player feel obsolete.

I don't do that, because I want to have fun, and I want my friends to have fun.

[Masakan]

I don't study psychology, but I have a pretty good grasp of how people work. Call it high Charisma and Wisdom. ;)

And yes, I am serious. It is possible to love a something, good and bad, without embracing or abusing it's worst aspects.

I like Wizards because I have loved magic since I was a child, and the image of a magician with a spellbook and familiar intrigues me. If I tried I could quite possibly make a GMs nightmare of a Wizard who could singlehandedly solve every encounter and make every other player feel obsolete.

I don't do that, because I want to have fun, and I want my friends to have fun.

Idk the fact that you have to choose to limit yourself kinda rubs me the wrong way.....maybe I'm approaching this from the wrong angle.

[EisenKreutzer]

Idk the fact that you have to choose to limit yourself kinda rubs me the wrong way.....maybe I'm approaching this from the wrong angle.

Don't view it as choosing to limit yourself.

Instead, try looking at it as trying not to be a ****.

The thing is, nobody is under any obligation to build the most powerful character they can.

Just because you have the option to ruin the game does not mean you should.

[eggynack]

Idk the fact that you have to choose to limit yourself kinda rubs me the wrong way.....maybe I'm approaching this from the wrong angle.
Again, you already do this all the time. Every time your barbarian chooses not to go out and buy candles of invocation or even dust of sneezing and choking, you are choosing to artificially limit yourself. If you play this game at all, without house rules, and the game world isn't crushed beneath the mighty heel of your character, then you are limiting yourself. Why, when you take this course of action so often, are you so skeptical of others doing so?

[Necroticplague]

As someone else pointed out, that option exists for every character. They could be a Wizard (or an Archivist, which is more powerful) instead of whatever class they are.

[Masakan]

Don't view it as choosing to limit yourself.

Instead, try looking at it as trying not to be a ****.

The thing is, nobody is under any obligation to build the most powerful character they can.

Just because you have the option to ruin the game does not mean you should.

This is what happens when you mix in-game with out of game. Out of game yeah that's obvious, but in character or in game why would you?
Idk that's probably just me, thinking that it's important to limit myself within the rules of the game that the writers intended.


Again, you already do this all the time. Every time your barbarian chooses not to go out and buy candles of invocation or even dust of sneezing and choking, you are choosing to artificially limit yourself. If you play this game at all, without house rules, and the game world isn't crushed beneath the mighty heel of your character, then you are limiting yourself. Why, when you take this course of action so often, are you so skeptical of others doing so?

Because I didn't think I was. and are candles of invocation and the like really that strong? I seldom even heard the name.

[EisenKreutzer]

This is what happens when you mix in-game with out of game. Out of game yeah that's obvious, but in character or in game why would you?
Idk that's probably just me, thinking that it's important to limit myself within the rules of the game that the writers intended

Well, your character is probably not aware of the levels of power you as a player can achieve through clever manipulation of the rules.

Remember that the mechanics are hidden from the characters. They don't know they have a Will save, an Armor Class or Skill ranks, and they definitely don't know about their class and the variety of dips, prestige classes and multiclassing they can utilize to gain campaign-shattering power.

They know only as much as you want them to know.

[Masakan]

Well, your character is probably not aware of the levels of power you as a player can achieve through clever manipulation of the rules.

Remember that the mechanics are hidden from the characters. They don't know they have a Will save, an Armor Class or Skill ranks, and they definitely don't know about their class and the variety of dips, prestige classes and multiclassing they can utilize to gain campaign-shattering power.

They know only as much as you want them to know.

ah.....well don't I just feel like a hypocrite.
All this time I was going into this with a metagaming mindset and I didn't even realize it.

[LudicSavant]

It is perhaps worth noting that for an advanced optimizer, the primary thing stopping you from breaking the game is the gentleman's agreement. I mean, I can break a campaign with a Commoner almost as easily as I can with a Wizard. Many of the things on the old CharOp Campaign Smasher list (a compendium of Pun-Pun-level tricks that I think got eaten by the WotC boards getting nuked) could be done by any class.

So when EisenKreutzer is talking about artificially limiting himself... that's something I feel I have to do for every character I play, regardless of my class choice. It's not a Wizard-specific issue.

It's like Keledrath said:


Every character can get infinite wishes at level 1 via pazuzu into candle of invocation into efreeti chains. Guess who doesn't do that? EVERYONE.

[EisenKreutzer]

ah.....well don't I just feel like a hypocrite.
All this time I was going into this with a metagaming mindset and I didn't even realize it.

It happens to the best of us, my friend.

On the bright side, you can now safely enjoy the Wizard class and it's particular flavour and options without feeling like you are playing the game wrong. :)

[eggynack]

Because I didn't think I was. and are candles of invocation and the like really that strong? I seldom even heard the name.
You were, and they are. Candles of invocation are cheap items that allow you to cast one of the most powerful spells in the game, and they're available to anyone that wants them. You could, in any spare moment, use them to break the game utterly as any class. And, of course, as I pointed out, these items don't even need to exist for your restraint to be necessary. After all, your arbitrary low tier class could transition into a high tier class at any point, and not doing so in a quest for power is about as irrational from an in-game perspective as a wizard in-game not using the power they already have. Granted, it becomes more rational every level, but there are definitely a lot of opportunities you pass up over the course of a game.

[Masakan]

It happens to the best of us, my friend.

On the bright side, you can now safely enjoy the Wizard class and it's particular flavour and options without feeling like you are playing the game wrong. :)

I'm still gonna be a little leery eyed but at least I won't jump to conclusions. Can't be too careful ya know?


You were, and they are. Candles of invocation are cheap items that allow you to cast one of the most powerful spells in the game, and they're available to anyone that wants them. You could, in any spare moment, use them to break the game utterly as any class. And, of course, as I pointed out, these items don't even need to exist for your restraint to be necessary. After all, your arbitrary low tier class could transition into a high tier class at any point, and not doing so in a quest for power is about as irrational from an in-game perspective as a wizard in-game not using the power they already have. Granted, it becomes more rational every level, but there are definitely a lot of opportunities you pass up over the course of a game.

...Cast Gate for only 8,400 Gold
And Stuns for 5d4 rounds if they succeed?! wait succeed?!
What the actual chicken nipples of will ferrel?!

[EisenKreutzer]

Wait a minute... Did I just use calm, rational discussion to convince someone of the validity of my arguments... On the internet..?

[Red Fel]

Wait a minute... Did I just use calm, rational discussion to convince someone of the validity of my arguments... On the internet..?

Are you some sort of Wizard? :smallamused:

[EisenKreutzer]

Are you some sort of Wizard? :smallamused:

I'm obviously overpowered.

[Masakan]

Wait a minute... Did I just use calm, rational discussion to convince someone of the validity of my arguments... On the internet..?

HEY! I'll admit when I'm wrong....you just gotta know how to get it to click with me. That's kinda how I am.

[Sacrieur]

As a DM I have to come up with a character before I build them. So far more often then not it's completely flavor with technical magic thrown in to support it.

But I mean, if the game doesn't have what I want, then I can create it. So *shrug*.

[eggynack]

...Cast Gate for only 8,400 Gold
And Stuns for 5d4 rounds if they succeed?! wait succeed?!
What the actual chicken nipples of will ferrel?!
D&D is a really weird game sometimes. To touch on the broader point, I think we all have our limits, and those limits are all different. For example, I clearly like druids, which are high power, but I tend away from stuff like greenbound summoning, venomfire, planar shepherds, and acorns of far travel. I would look upon a person using those things, and think them perhaps too powerful. In this sense, things are less about restraint, and more about comfort. It's not that I'm restraining myself from using assume supernatural ability. It's that I'd feel less comfortable, and wind up less happy with my character, if I used it. Anyways, I'm just glad that things seem relatively harmonious nowabouts.

[EisenKreutzer]

Are you some sort of Wizard? :smallamused:

Thats highly quotable, by the way. Mind if I do?

[DarkSonic1337]

Even beyond not knowing that certain options are available, there are also ways to have in character reasons to not use certain powers.

For example, in one game I'm playing a swiftblade (just went epic...yay), and she doesn't use dominate monster, mindrape, or any other form of mind control. This is not because of some ignorance of these options (in fact I have mind blank up to protect against some of these), but because the character feels it is morally against it. Likewise she doesn't shapechange into nonhumanoid forms, due partially to a rather tramatic experience she had with an unwilling polymorph effect, and partly because she wants to always be able to wield her weapon item familiar. The limits I place on my character are just as arbitrary as the limits people place on themselves in real life, but a characters limitations (both real and self imposed) are just as defining as their strengths.

This is the same campaign where my character "broke down" and used a very dangerous time travel spell in an emergency that concerned the state of a small section of the universe. And this game changing power didn't have a negative effect on the group's enjoyment of the game, it ENHANCED it. We got to have a time travel episode which "didn't happen" (so the absent player didn't technically miss anything), I got to kill a time travel copy of the DPMC with a week of in game prep time, we accidentally duplicated an artifact held by the original DMPC traveling with us, and the secret organization I work for probably now knows my character is capable of doing this. I've also used foresight to look into the past to help solve mysteries, routinely teleport the party around the universe, have used scrying to make finding a lot of NPCs trivially easy, have added cool effects to gear for my whole party, and throw around buffs like candy. I've got 17th level wizard casting, can cast a spell as a supernatural ability once per day (yay no components), have extra actions, and am frankly the strongest member of my party (even standing next to our incantatrix, but mostly he chose the NPC spellcaster class to base his casting). But I'm also aware of the metagame concern of overshadowing other players. I want to play WITH my friends, so I make sure to help my Warblade buddy shine when combat comes around, and don't try to force magic to brute force through things that my factotum buddy can solve. And my DM has tailored the campaign to allow each member to have some time to shine.


People restrain themselves from using the best of their character's capabilities all the time, and there are many reasons for doing so (some of which are not even intentional). Hell, THE DM is already restraining himself by not just killing everyone with rule 0 at the start of each session. D&D is a cooperative game, and cooperation very often requires concessions, and not breaking the game with phenomenal cosmic power is on of those concessions you make (spoken or not) when you agree to play the game.

[Red Fel]

Thats highly quotable, by the way. Mind if I do?

By all means. You'd be my third today. :smallamused:

[Kelb_Panthera]

Then yet another question, Why bother with anything else? Just from your description alone it makes almost everyone else feel pointless.

Why play anything at all? Absolute power is only a goal for some characters. For others there's martial prowess, political clout (bard, cleric, and beguiler all do it better than wizard), "fat stackz of lewt!!," and so on. Then, of course, there's the players' goal; fun. Some people find the complexity of running a wizard, nevermind running it well, mind-wrecking. There's nothing wrong with just wanting to put axes in heads.


.....aaaand yet none of them sans druid can do it as often.... I Think you fail to realize that what makes wizards a step above everyone else isn't the fact that they can use magic...It's the fact that they will effectively have an answer to any encounter you do. And I'm not talking about stunning the boss and leaving it up to the others to clean up oh no...I mean out the gate from turn one. All that matters is how often they can do it, which is why i consider sorcerers more balanced. Yes they can do everything wizards can but unlike wizards they have an actual limit, and they cant just replace spells whenever they don't like em anymore.
It's a limiter simple as that.

Wow, no. Wizards have the sharpest limits on their power precisely because they can have all the silver bullets. You have to expend resources on gaining new spells (outside of the basic 2/ level), protecting your spellbook, and on any special spell bits (foci and components). Other classes (save the archivist and the poor, poor wu-jen) just get their magic, no muss, no fuss, and only have to pay for spell bits. Wizards even have fewer spells per day than most other casters unless they're willing to give up whole schools of magic.

Where in the world did you get this notion?

Hell, except for the artificer (who can be shut down -hard- by even a half-baked DM) and StP erudite (who is just silly levels of unfair), most of the T1's and T2's are on more or less even footing where power is concerned. The T1's pull ahead because of versatility.


Idk the fact that you have to choose to limit yourself kinda rubs me the wrong way.....maybe I'm approaching this from the wrong angle.

You as a player have to limit yourself to not be a d-bag. Your character isn't necessarily limiting himself intentionally at all. Upper level magic is a realm of closely guarded secrets and research that may or may not pan out anything useful. The player may know what the wizard doesn't but the wizard doesn't know what he doesn't know unless he's seen another wizard or sorcerer do it before.

Edit:

Oh, and in answer to the thread topic, I go both ways. Sometimes I come up with the mechanics first and build a character around it. Other times I come up with a fun character then build around that. In either case I try to make the character as fun and powerful as I can within the limits of the concept.

[Necroticplague]

Hell, except for the artificer (who can be shut down -hard- by even a half-baked DM) and StP erudite (who is just silly levels of unfair), most of the T1's and T2's are on more or less even footing where power is concerned. The T1's pull ahead because of versatility.

Eh, I'd argue that Archivist is better than wizard due to getting actual class features, and the fact it can get any divine spell (which, with some use of cooperative crafting or use of Southern Magician, can be literally every spell), and can get them at lower levels by fishing around various spell lists. Of course, when dealing with as much power as both of them have, the difference is kinda hard to notice (it's the difference between infinity and infinity+300).

[Masakan]

You as a player have to limit yourself to not be a d-bag. Your character isn't necessarily limiting himself intentionally at all. Upper level magic is a realm of closely guarded secrets and research that may or may not pan out anything useful. The player may know what the wizard doesn't but the wizard doesn't know what he doesn't know unless he's seen another wizard or sorcerer do it before.

Edit:

Oh, and in answer to the thread topic, I go both ways. Sometimes I come up with the mechanics first and build a character around it. Other times I come up with a fun character then build around that. In either case I try to make the character as fun and powerful as I can within the limits of the concept.

Yeah I was effectively thinking with a metagaming mindset without even realizing it.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Eh, I'd argue that Archivist is better than wizard due to getting actual class features, and the fact it can get any divine spell (which, with some use of cooperative crafting or use of Southern Magician, can be literally every spell), and can get them at lower levels by fishing around various spell lists. Of course, when dealing with as much power as both of them have, the difference is kinda hard to notice (it's the difference between infinity and infinity+300).

This doesn't seem to be a disagreement?

Or did you misread artificer as archivist?

[EugeneVoid]

Hooray, yet another bait thread.

See Stormwind fallacy?

Personally, I prefer both.

You can't be a "legendary warrior" with endurance and diehard as a level 8 rogue.

[Necroticplague]

This doesn't seem to be a disagreement?

Or did you misread artificer as archivist?

You were saying that all the t1 were on more or less equal footing, except for artificer and erudite. Your only mention of Archivist was mentioning they have to jump through the same annoying hoops as wizards. I was questioning that Wizards and Archivists be on equal footing, due to Archivist being able to do literally everything wizards can do, and then some.

[Solaris]

For me, I generally start with a concept and try to make it work mechanically. I do a lot of theorycrafting that starts off with the basic idea of the character and plots out the build from there. I have a folder full of these characters, most of whom got no farther than the generally idea because... well, D&d 3.5E and my mastery thereof have their limitations, or because the idea really just looks like "generic class X" after I file the serial numbers off. By doing this, I can have my cake and eat it, too - I can play a fun and interesting concept, like my inspiring paladin or the polar barbearian, and have it work out reasonably well because I've thought it through without falling into the trap of a dead-end build that doesn't even execute its own gimmick well.
The internet's been a big help with that, as I can raid handbooks and ask questions on the forum to get advice from people who aren't me and thus have different (in some cases, outright superior) knowledge of the game... even though half the time you have to wade through a pile of "Play a crusader!" responses whenever you ask about a paladin build.


And Second you serious? That's not the case?

Very much not the case. In point of fact, knowing how to break the game through wizard abuse helps me avoid doing it on accident. I'm just good enough and have enough free time on my hands to flip through books and find all kinds of cool spells and the like, but not quite good enough to realize which ones will result in a character effectively terminating a campaign until the cat's out of the bag.
To hearken back to your pistol comparison, knowing the ins and outs of the weapon also lets me know where the safety is and not accidentally shoot my (soon to be ex-) buddy in the buttocks, and the familiarity with it helps me realize that maybe wandering around popping off shots just because I can is a really bad idea.


See Stormwind fallacy?

Dude, that's not the Stormwind Fallacy. He asked whether you start from mechanics or fluff and which you prefer more. In no way was he asserting that they're on a zero-sum sliding scale.

[Denver]

For myself, character creation definitely starts with flavor. I get the idea of being some kind of hulking wild savage, or a slick urban trickster, or code-bound recluse. From there, creation often goes in the direction of finding what classes or races can do those things and complement each other.

Certainly, though, the choices I make aren't entirely based on flavor - if I want a campaign where I can be a cat, as an example, then while the Catfolk race is certainly more "cat-like," the tibbit race offers a very useful ability that actually turns the player character into a cat. However, since both satisfy the "cat" part of my goal, I would probably choose which one would be most useful to what the cat will be doing. As a rogue, the Tibbit would probably be better. As a ranger, the Catfolk would probably be better. So, while what I wanted for flavor led me to a certain set of choices, it comes to the technical mechanics that ultimately helps me refine my choice.

If you want to play as a "giant" (but not a "Giant") then there are a wide bevy of options, some of which are not even in the Large category. Making a choice purely based on flavor might lead you to picking "Giant" or "Awakened Cat," which are fine choices and should not be diminished for their flavorful additions.

However, as a player, you might find that the rules which mechanically and technically govern the choices you made without regarding those mechanics can effect severely impact growth with respect to a character with a high Level Adjustment, or that the rules governing what animals can and can't do don't change just because the cat is smart now. He still can't open doors or manipulate locks or even write notes, or otherwise do a vast number of the minor things that handed characters can accomplish.

[Troacctid]

Yeah, you can either start with mechanics and figure out flavor to go with it, or start with flavor and find mechanics to match it. Top-down or bottom-up. Ideally, they both end up in the same place.

You can see where the game's designers did this, too. Classes like Mystic Theurge and Duskblade clearly weren't made to match a resonant fantasy archetype the writers had in their heads, they were made to explore mechanical design space. Same with pretty much the entire Incarnum subsystem. On the other hand, I could easily believe something like Knight was designed top-down.

Personally, in my experience, building a character from the top down is extremely difficult to do in this system. You need to have a really strong grasp of the game's mechanics in order to get them to properly reflect the character's story, and on top of that, you need to be able to make an educated guess about where the campaign and party dynamics will take you as well. It's all too easy to build a character as an expert sniper with an aloof, detached personality, only to find that when game time rolls around, you end up charging into fights head-on instead of setting up ambushes, biting every quest hook instead of playing it cool and staying unattached, and being generally ineffective as a damage-dealer instead of efficiently assassinating your targets with well-placed arrows. Seriously, I'm pretty sure it's, like, a law that that happens to at least one player in every group.

The best ways I've come up with for avoiding it are to either start with the mechanics and leave their flavor details flexible at first so I can play the character for a while to get a feel for what they want to be; or to recycle an older character whose personality I already understand.

[Solaris]

You say that as if all players didn't charge into fights head-on and bite everything that even kinda looks like a quest hook.
Sometimes they bite it metaphorically... but only sometimes.

[Vhaidara]

Duskblade clearly weren't made to match a resonant fantasy archetype the writers had in their heads

I'm sorry, I agree with the rest of your point, but spellsword is a classic. Admittedly, most of them work more like the PF Magus, but Duskblade was the first real gish-in-a can class.

[Troacctid]

You say that as if all players didn't charge into fights head-on and bite everything that even kinda looks like a quest hook.
Sometimes they bite it metaphorically... but only sometimes.
And yet they still try to write their characters' backstories as if the opposite were true. Ah, players. They never learn, do they?


I'm sorry, I agree with the rest of your point, but spellsword is a classic. Admittedly, most of them work more like the PF Magus, but Duskblade was the first real gish-in-a can class.

You made Eldritch Knight cry. Are you proud of yourself?

[Vhaidara]

You made Eldritch Knight cry. Are you proud of yourself?

Yes. Characters should be able to accomplish their fantasy archetype before level 7 (most builds will require Wiz 5/MWP granting class 1/EK X). Seriously, the back half of the game sees next to no play.

Oh, and you still can't be armored with EK.

[Masakan]

And yet they still try to write their characters' backstories as if the opposite were true. Ah, players. They never learn, do they?



You made Eldritch Knight cry. Are you proud of yourself?
Eldritch knight is a good class to polish off a build...but holy hell is it boring.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Yes. Characters should be able to accomplish their fantasy archetype before level 7 (most builds will require Wiz 5/MWP granting class 1/EK X). Seriously, the back half of the game sees next to no play.

Oh, and you still can't be armored with EK.
Duskblade still isn't the first proper gish in a can. I think that dubious honor belongs to the Hexblade, back in 2003 (assuming we're discounting the divine classes like Cleric). After that, the Battle Sorcerer and Psychic Warrior were both from 2004. The Duskblade didn't come around until 2006.

[Necroticplague]

Why discount divine classes? Druids wearing Wild armor and Wild Spell already got pretty much all the melee and magic that could ever define a gish.

[Vhaidara]

Duskblade still isn't the first proper gish in a can. I think that dubious honor belongs to the Hexblade, back in 2003 (assuming we're discounting the divine classes like Cleric). After that, the Battle Sorcerer and Psychic Warrior were both from 2004. The Duskblade didn't come around until 2006.

Okay, let me rephrase: Non-sucky (discounting Hexblade) gish in a can of a non-controversial system. Because some people,for no readily apparent reason, hate psionics and everything connected to them. Including poor Soulknives, who aren't even bloody psionic!

[Solaris]

... Because some people,for no readily apparent reason, hate psionics and everything connected to them. Including poor Soulknives, who aren't even bloody psionic!

It's all the polysyllabic pseudoscientific terminology. It just feels too much like science fiction for me to really like it in a fantasy setting as much as I should.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Okay, let me rephrase: Non-sucky (discounting Hexblade) gish in a can of a non-controversial system. Because some people,for no readily apparent reason, hate psionics and everything connected to them. Including poor Soulknives, who aren't even bloody psionic!
Meh, Battle Sorcerer isn't unusable. At higher levels it's probably better, given that it casts from a better list. Sure, spells known aren't great, but it's not hard to expand your repertoire with runestaffs and Arcane Disciple and the like. Generally inferior to a standard gish build, but as far as in-a-can goes...

[oxybe]

I start with a single thought "what would be fun to play?". This could be fluff or mechanics, but "what would be fun to play?" is the key question I ask myself.

It could be mechanics or fluff based, but either way "what would be fun to play?" is the key question I ask. If I can't answer it, I won't make a character.

Once I have my answer I go from there: can I build a personality around the mechanics, or interesting mechanics that fit the personality.

If I can't, it'll be put on the backburner until I can.

RPGs consist of both Roleplaying and Game. If I can't have a character that's fun on both ends, I likely won't play it.

[TheBrassDuke]

As for the stupid part.....well there's a reason I consider myself a Sorcerer in a Forum full of wizards.

Please don't insult the Sorcerers out here watching this mockery take place. -_-

[Anlashok]

It's all the polysyllabic pseudoscientific terminology. It just feels too much like science fiction for me to really like it in a fantasy setting as much as I should.

Why is using latin perfectly fantastical but using greek too sci fi? Are there aliens in the Parthenon or something that I'm not aware of?

[Masakan]

Please don't insult the Sorcerers out here watching this mockery take place. -_-

The argument is over, your late.

[squiggit]

It always bugged me how hard it was to make a proper mage-knight work in D&D. Lots of prestige class hunting and splat diving and even then the duskblade is light armor and even Pathfinder's magus doesn't get heavy armor until endgame (in one of the stupidest design choices ever for a class). It's not a particularly uncommon archetype at all, so I don't understand why it's so poorly supported.

Dark Knights/Death Knights too are weirdly hard to finagle.

[Masakan]

It always bugged me how hard it was to make a proper mage-knight work in D&D. Lots of prestige class hunting and splat diving and even then the duskblade is light armor and even Pathfinder's magus doesn't get heavy armor until endgame (in one of the stupidest design choices ever for a class). It's not a particularly uncommon archetype at all, so I don't understand why it's so poorly supported.

Dark Knights/Death Knights too are weirdly hard to finagle.

Have you heard of the red mage from Final Fantasy? You effectively have to build with that mindset.
Light armor at best, Quick and nimble, Various Buffs, Blast and support spells to modify their abilities.
A heavy armor Mageblade is WAY more trouble than it's worth.
And if you wanna go that route a divine caster is better.

[squiggit]

Have you heard of the red mage from Final Fantasy? You effectively have to build with that mindset.
Light armor at best, Quick and nimble, Various Buffs, Blast and support spells to modify their abilities.

I'm aware of red mages. Incidentally, that's another archetype that's pretty hard to build. Bard pulls it off pretty well though if you don't mind the bardic flavor.


A heavy armor Mageblade is WAY more trouble than it's worth.
And if you wanna go that route a divine caster is better.


Completely disagree. Heavy armor Magii in Pathfinder aren't really problematic at all when they come online. SotAO paladins are nice, but again, hardly broken. If a cleric with 9th level casting and heavy armor isn't a big deal then why in the world would a duskblade in heavy armor wreck the game?

[Troacctid]

Why is using latin perfectly fantastical but using greek too sci fi? Are there aliens in the Parthenon or something that I'm not aware of?

Latin vs. Greek? Last I checked most of the PHB uses standard well-known English fantasy races and classes, like Orc Barbarians and Elf Wizards, where psionics gives us made-up gibberish like Elan Wilders and Xeph Lurks. Nobody knows what those things mean. And what the heck is a "dorje" or a "psionatrix"? Are those even real words? I mean come on.

[AtlasSniperman]

Latin vs. Greek? Last I checked most of the PHB uses standard well-known English fantasy races and classes, like Orc Barbarians and Elf Wizards, where psionics gives us made-up gibberish like Elan Wilders and Xeph Lurks. Nobody knows what those things mean. And what the heck is a "dorje" or a "psionatrix"? Are those even real words? I mean come on.

Dorje (http://translation.babylon.com/english/dorje/): Sanscrit for both Lightning and Diamond; symbolizing both Indestructibility and Unresistability.
Psionatrix: Psion + Dominatrix
Xeph is as arbitrary as kenku
Wilder is a "minder of the wild"
Elan means "energy, style, and enthusiasm."
Lurks: the plural of the term "Lurk": a profitable stratagem; a dodge or scheme.

All seem apt for what they describe in D&D

Only one I couldn't find a source for is Xeph, but then you have Githyanki, Kenku, Rakshasa, Nycter, Grell and Illithids

[TheBrassDuke]

The argument is over, your late.

Just asking--I read the above already, and this particular statement bugged me.

[Afgncaap5]

I prefer flavor. I ask my GMs for special permission sometimes to take things that are less powerful sometimes. And other times I ask for permission to do perfectly legal things that fit character concept if I feel like it's too powerful (the term 'Cripplingly Overspecialized' was thrown around once or twice when I tried playing a Healer.)

I admit that there's a fun intellectual exercise to trying to stack up bigger and bigger number for ever more deliciously intricate situations, but I generally prefer to do that away from the game table than at it.

[LudicSavant]

Are those even real words? I mean come on.

The way to learn is to take the few seconds required to check for a definition when you encounter a word you don't know, instead of simply assuming it's "gibberish."

For instance, a dorje is:
1) a scepter of spiritual or temporal power
2) thunderbolt/diamond
3) a mudra used in meditation
4) a symbol of possession of supernormal powers spiritual, intellectual, and astral.

And it shows up in a variety of fantasy stories just like, say, Monks do. It also shows up in various religions (such as dorjes being shown in the hands of Tibetan gods).


Nobody knows what those things mean.

No, you don't know what those things mean, and have the arrogance to project your own ignorance on others (or in this case, everybody). Speak for yourself, not everybody.

[Crake]

I'm aware of red mages. Incidentally, that's another archetype that's pretty hard to build. Bard pulls it off pretty well though if you don't mind the bardic flavor.

Isn't the red mage archetype pretty much duskblades exactly?

Also building a set of 0% ASF fullplate isn't that hard. It's what, 35% base, -10% mithril, -10% twilight enchantment, -5% thistledown padding and then -10% for a dip in spellblade. That's with no deviation from any standard gish build, just some money. I'll admit, mithril fullplate costs an arm and a leg, but it's a decent investment. Personally thoguh, I'd just go with abjurant champion and greater luminous armor for an effective +5 fullplate AC, with a mithril chain shirt as backup

[Solaris]

Why is using latin perfectly fantastical but using greek too sci fi? Are there aliens in the Parthenon or something that I'm not aware of?

Things like inertial armor, telekinesis, telepathy, ectoplasm, and the emphasis on crystals and other such give it a vibe somewhere between New Age pseudoscience and science fiction, while D&D magic only rarely dips into such polysyllabic terms when there's a perfectly good English word that'll do. I mean, just look at the names of the psionic prestige classes versus the names of the DMG prestige classes.

I've never forbidden it, mind, and I even like the system better than standard D&D's magic system (the power augmentation thing is cool). It just took me a while to get over the sci-fi feel of it, and I still think it fits in better with a modern/futuristic setting than it does your standard-issue fantasy setting.

Re: Xeph,
I do believe they're from the word "zephyr".

[LudicSavant]

Things like inertial armor, telekinesis, telepathy, ectoplasm, and the emphasis on crystals and other such give it a vibe somewhere between New Age pseudoscience and science fiction, while D&D magic only rarely dips into such polysyllabic terms when there's a perfectly good English word that'll do. I mean, just look at the names of the psionic prestige classes versus the names of the DMG prestige classes.

Magic has telekinesis, telepathy, crystals, etc. It totally uses those words. For example:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/telekinesis.htm
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/telepathicBond.htm

It also uses words like "amanuensis" and "antipathy" and "astral projection."

Also, it's ironic, because D&D's vancian magic actually draws an awful lot from science fiction. For example, Ioun Stones are based on Jack Vance's ioun stones, which were harvested from the cores of neutron stars.

[Solaris]

Magic has telekinesis, telepathy, crystals, etc. It totally uses those words. For example:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/telekinesis.htm
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/telepathicBond.htm

Yes, but look at the relative prevalence of those words versus their prevalence in the Expanded Psionic Handbook in conjunction with the rest of the book's preferred terminology that I pointed out earlier.
I'd have been happier if they'd used fewer terms like "metafaculty" and more terms like "leech field". The extensive use of scientific and pseudoscientific terms really implies the existence of those sciences, which... doesn't fit well with a setting that hasn't really developed the scientific method.


Also, it's ironic, because D&D's vancian magic actually draws an awful lot from science fiction. For example, Ioun Stones are based on Jack Vance's ioun stones, which were harvested from the cores of neutron stars.

Isn't it, though?

[LudicSavant]

I'd have been happier if they'd used fewer terms like "metafaculty" and more terms like "leech field". The extensive use of scientific and pseudoscientific terms really implies the existence of those sciences, which... doesn't fit well with a setting that hasn't really developed the scientific method.

For one thing, the middle ages totally had natural philosophy and scientific methods. The Arabic scientific golden age was around 800-1200, for instance. Ibn al-Haytham himself lived in the 10th century!

The idea that science wasn't invented until recent European history is a Eurocentric myth, similar to Columbus supposedly discovering America and that the world wasn't flat.

Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#History

[Solaris]

For one thing, the middle ages totally had natural philosophy and scientific methods. The Arabic scientific golden age was around 800-1200, for instance. Ibn al-Haytham himself lived in the 10th century!

The idea that science wasn't invented until recent European history is a Eurocentric myth, similar to Columbus supposedly discovering America and that the world wasn't flat.

Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#History

Let's also not forget the Greeks in Antiquity.
Unfortunately, most D&D settings don't have a Middle East or Greece.

[LudicSavant]

Let's also not forget the Greeks in Antiquity.
Unfortunately, most D&D settings don't have a Middle East or Greece.

Medieval Europe was not exempt. Roger Bacon was in the 1200s!

What about Anthemius of Tralles? Arzachel? Albert the Great? Richard of Wallingford? Ibn al-Baitar (he was in Spain)? John Philoponus? What about all the other scientists throughout the Middle Ages?

[oxybe]

We could just point to D&D's traditional vancian magic system which itself is proof of the scientific method being applied as each spell entry is a list of repeatable steps to get repeatable and reproducible results.

All you're doing is throwing bat poop at kobolds instead of dropping potassium into beakers.

Which makes sense as magic is part of D&D's natural world.

[LudicSavant]

We could just point to D&D's traditional vancian magic system which itself is proof of the scientific method being applied as each spell entry is a list of repeatable steps to get repeatable and reproducible results.

All you're doing is throwing bat poop at kobolds instead of dropping potassium into beakers.

Which makes sense as magic is part of D&D's natural world.

Also a very good point. Wizards in D&D are totally scientists.

[Nifft]

If the mechanics and flavor don't support each other, then the game is flawed.

(Of course, most games are flawed to some degree or another.)

PCs are powerful badasses, and that's great.

They are supposed to be strong.

[Kelb_Panthera]

You were saying that all the t1 were on more or less equal footing, except for artificer and erudite. Your only mention of Archivist was mentioning they have to jump through the same annoying hoops as wizards. I was questioning that Wizards and Archivists be on equal footing, due to Archivist being able to do literally everything wizards can do, and then some.

They are roughly equal. An archivist is a little ahead of a wizard but not substantially. Only the erudite and artificer are significant outliers and for the other 10 or so classes between the bottom of T2 and the top of T1, their power is just about in the same ball park.

Artificer and StP erudite have access to all, as opposed to any, of the top effects in the game at opposite extremes of readiness; the former needs days for his homonculus to craft an item for him while the latter can produce them at a thought. This puts the StP erudite at the absolute and unquestionable top of the stack while the artificer is somewhere in the middle of T1 but can be shutdown hard by making sure he never gets a portable hole and limiting down time; about the same as a wizard but even more so.

[Solaris]

Medieval Europe was not exempt. Roger Bacon was in the 1200s!

What about Anthemius of Tralles? Arzachel? Albert the Great? Richard of Wallingford? Ibn al-Baitar (he was in Spain)? John Philoponus? What about all the other scientists throughout the Middle Ages?

That's missing the point.


We could just point to D&D's traditional vancian magic system which itself is proof of the scientific method being applied as each spell entry is a list of repeatable steps to get repeatable and reproducible results.

All you're doing is throwing bat poop at kobolds instead of dropping potassium into beakers.

Which makes sense as magic is part of D&D's natural world.

That's phrasing my point better.

[Windrammer]

I already know how this is gonna end, there is little point in trying to sugar coat this or trying to explain my stance.
So I am just gonna come out and ask this as simply and concisely as I can.
What is more important to you? By which I mean which direction do you lean when making characters and what do you value more?
Do you focus on making them as interesting as possible while making them feasibly useful(Meaning watching them work is fun for not only you but for other players)
Or do you Just focus on making them as powerful as possible...and just fluff up the rest.
Keep in mind I'm taking in the mind set that you would most likely be multiclassing, Playing a straight anything is drab, dull and boring anyway.
Sigh...why do i keep posting? It's just gonna turn into another mocking thread anyway.

I like to make characters as strong as I can within the parameters of credibility and flavor. Rather - if I can't envision it going down and looking cool in a movie, then I won't do it. I won't use the lightning throw maneuver, I won't polymorph into a troll for the bonuses, I won't graft wings to my back, and I won't use a spiked chain.

[Masakan]

I like to make characters as strong as I can within the parameters of credibility and flavor. Rather - if I can't envision it going down and looking cool in a movie, then I won't do it. I won't use the lightning throw maneuver, I won't polymorph into a troll for the bonuses, I won't graft wings to my back, and I won't use a spiked chain.

Uh Lightning Throw is basically strike raid from kingdom hearts.

[Anlashok]

Uh Lightning Throw is basically strike raid from kingdom hearts.

Careful. Lightning Throw gets a couple people on this forum really twitchy and frothing at the mouth. Probably because they hate (Captain) America. And Ghost Rider too apparently.

[Masakan]

Careful. Lightning Throw gets a couple people on this forum really twitchy and frothing at the mouth. Probably because they hate (Captain) America. And Ghost Rider too apparently.

Uh..why? NO seriously why?

[Necroticplague]

Uh..why? NO seriously why?

Because it's labelled (EX), while being completely and utterly unrealistic. It's completely over-the-top for any mundane to be able to do. This bothers some people. I'm not one of them, but some people don't think over the top abilities should be (ex).

[LudicSavant]

That's phrasing my point better.

That wasn't a phrasing of your point. Your point was:


doesn't fit well with a setting that hasn't really developed the scientific method.

Which is pretty much the opposite position of the text you just quoted.


We could just point to D&D's traditional vancian magic system which itself is proof of the scientific method being applied as each spell entry is a list of repeatable steps to get repeatable and reproducible results.

That is a refutation of your point, Solaris, not a phrasing of your point.

[Solaris]

That wasn't a phrasing of your point. Your point was:



Which is pretty much the opposite position of the text you just quoted.



That is a refutation of your point, Solaris, not a phrasing of your point.

I'm so glad I have you to tell my what point I'm trying to make, LudicSavant. What ever would I do without you?

But seriously, my point was that D&D-world doesn't (usually) do Earthly science, and the philosophers weren't delving into mundane science - they were delving into magic 'science'. Psionic usage of scientific-sounding terms goes against that, because it relies on a vocabulary that exists nowhere else in the setting.

[cfalcon]

As a player, I come up with a character and class concept first, and then I see if I'll be able to make him acceptably powerful in the game world. I'm in my thirties, but with the low amount of player time that I get, I simply won't tolerate a character that doesn't work at all, or is absolutely experimental. I get to play seriously maybe two or three characters a decade, and who knows how long my buddies will be running, so I just won't waste my time with something with no functional mechanics behind it- I have way more character concepts in my head than I'll ever get to run as a player.

As a DM, I start that process the same, but the power concern is not relevant. If the character is a popular NPC and is useless, I can fix that, but mostly I never need to. Most of my playtime is as a DM.

[LudicSavant]

I'm so glad I have you to tell my what point I'm trying to make, LudicSavant. What ever would I do without you?

I didn't rephrase a single word you said. I quoted your text directly, and told you the point Oxybe was making opposes, rather than supports, what you said.

If what you said isn't what you meant, perhaps you could clarify that instead of just being sarcastic.


Psionic usage of scientific-sounding terms goes against that, because it relies on a vocabulary that exists nowhere else in the setting. Except that we've already shown that that vocabulary (at least, all of the examples of vocabulary you gave) does exist elsewhere in the setting. You yourself conceded that it did, just that it was "less frequent." Which is irrelevant to whether or not the vocabulary exists.

Inertia? They talk about manipulating the cosmic forces of inertia in divine magic, such as with Tharizdun's Force domain.

Telekinesis? There's an actual spell called that. And things that use that language, like Otiluke's Telekinetic Sphere.

Telepathy? A standard term in D&D, used for a variety of monsters and abilities. For example, a pseudodragon has Telepathy (Su): Pseudodragons can communicate telepathically with creatures that speak Common or Sylvan, provided they are within 60 feet. And then there are spells like "Telepathic Bond."

Ectoplasm? Aren't there 46 spells with the "Ectomancy" descriptor? Quite a few with ectoplasm in the name?

Also, I don't even know why you think words like "metafaculty" are "scientific" and "imply the existence of certain sciences." Faculty just means "an inherent mental power." Meta is just a greek prefix meaning things like "after," "along with," "beyond," "among," or "behind."

As Anshalok put it:

Why is using latin perfectly fantastical but using greek too sci fi? Are there aliens in the Parthenon or something that I'm not aware of?

[Nifft]

Also, I don't even know why you think words like "metafaculty" are "scientific" and "imply the existence of certain sciences." Faculty just means "an inherent mental power." Meta is just a greek prefix meaning things like "after," "along with," "beyond," "among," or "behind."

Metamagic is also a thing.

[Hecuba]

Why is using latin perfectly fantastical but using greek too sci fi? Are there aliens in the Parthenon or something that I'm not aware of?

Largely because Latin had regular, public religious usage in the Western European tradition and thus became associated with the supernatural. In contrast, Greek came to the public attention through philosophy and science.

Among the people who actually used it, of course, there was less of a distinction: science had plenty of Latin terms and theologists read many Greek texts. But, ultimately, Mass was in Latin for a long time and Greek reached the common man only when exposed to learned discourse.

In short: its a long-standing cultural bias.

[Honest Tiefling]

I lean to the method of picking my class, my feats, my race and all of those bits first and then writing the story. Oddly, I am not an optimizer and quite frankly, suck at it. I think this habit developed from two factors, first being that many groups I have been in don't have a session 0 so I often ask the DM to rewrite aspects of the backstory to fit in better with the group. Group of murderhobos? I guess my storm druid now worships a god of raiding.

Secondly, given that I like spell casters, its often a lot easier to build first and work with the DM on how magic works and what are setting appropriate options to take. Swords typically work the same in spite of setting, magic doesn't. Magic also tends to get hit with the most house rules, which can cause a headache if you have an idea and it is both setting inappropriate and illegal at the table. So I find it easier to make a legit build and ask myself how this character got to this point rather then vice versa.

But that's just me, and what works for me.

[ZamielVanWeber]

Since the OP, once taken with some salt, is an interesting question I would like to answer it:
Most of the time I go for mechanics and get the flavor after. I don't do dark/edgy/evil because that just isn't my style so I often avoid classes that are steeped in that.
Occasionally though, almost exclusively with monsters, I get an idea that just tickles me pink and I have to run it. For example I am sitting on a CG trumpet archon (he kinda fell... sideways... and got kicked to the material to learn why LG was the superior alignment) and a White Khen-zai who dominated a parrot and uses it to talk.

[The Insanity]

Both.nghjrgjsrhj

[Ruethgar]

Flavor, then build to taste.

[nyjastul69]

I typically go from crunch to flavor. I generate my attributes. I pick my class after everyone else, if possible. I like being 'forced' into a party role. I then build the character mechanically and use fluff to 'explain' it all.

I don't usually create much of a back story. Barely enough usually. I can't really get a true grasp of my character until play starts and the rubber hits the road.

[Necroticplague]

I don't usually create much of a back story. Barely enough usually. I can't really get a true grasp of my character until play starts and the rubber hits the road.

Same here. Way I see it, writing a back story is, you know, writing. Which is a very different process from actually playing the game. The latter I want to do, the former is work.