Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Vanadium 03-15-07, 02:00 PM	Hello all. Due to some threads I've seen recently here and there, along with some ideas I've had for a second character, I got the idea to ask this of the forum: is it right to optimize in a Living Campaign, especially when you can't be sure who you are going to be partied with in advance? My thoughts on the subject. Hid them just to make the first post smaller, seeing as I want to hear your opinions. -Living Greyhawk is intended to be hard. If you can meet the challenge, shouldn't it be more fun? -There is a time issue to Living Campaigns. If you are playing something that's so weak that they routinely take dirt naps, I'd imagine that it'd get boring. -You don't always know who or what you are going to be playing alongside. If you can handle your role in the party by yourself (or several roles at once), then your party is needing less people (or less specific people). -Not everyone does it, though. If I showed up with some mutted meleer that could reliably deal more damage per round than maybe two other tanks combined, how much fun are those other two guys having? -Optimization tends to take time. What's the point if I'm building towards something that only gets really good at level 9 if I need to spend a year going from 1 to 8? Sure, 1 through 8 might not be bad, but its a foregone option for something that's far off. -Also, some people enjoy less powerful or suboptimal characters. That is fine, in my mind. However, I'd hate to think that my character could be dead forever because the guy to my left just had to play a finessing fighter, or the wizard to my right casts nothing but summoning spells. That's just a personal thing, though. Luck plays a bigger role than any build. -In a similar vein, an underpowered character in an average party seems better off than that same underpowered character in an optimized party. Personally, I think its okay, but at the same time I see people rolling their eyes when I'm planning out characters. That's okay, but I don't want to be seen as some lackwit because I'm making something that's too powerful.
Timlagor 03-15-07, 02:24 PM	An underpowered character in an average party is liable to get themselves or someone else killed; in an optimised party it probably doesn't matter. People playing non-optimised characters by choice shouldn't mind that they prove to be less effective. People doing so by accident shoudl admire and learn from the achievements of others. I do think there is an obligation to be able to contribute usefully to the party: otherwise why would people agree to adventure with your character? (ic or ooc) There is certainly no obligation to 'optimise' however.
Jay_Ibero_911 03-15-07, 02:27 PM	An underpowered character in an average party is liable to get themselves or someone else killed; in an optimised party it probably doesn't matter. People playing non-optimised characters by choice shouldn't mind that they prove to be less effective. People doing so by accident shoudl admire and learn from the achievements of others. I do think there is an obligation to be able to contribute usefully to the party: otherwise why would people agree to adventure with your character? (ic or ooc) There is certainly no obligation to 'optimise' however. I second that. There's nothing wrong with not optimizing, but please make sure your PC is more than an extra meat bag following the party.
solbergb 03-15-07, 03:45 PM	You should be as effective in combat as a PHB iconic character in your role of your level, with ordinary core feat selection and DMG equipment expected for their wealth, or better. If you are subiconic for your role, it causes problems in random mustering. If you fill more than one role, but not at "iconic" levels, let people know. They can adjust expectations a bit. Emphasize the role(s) you can fill that nobody else in the party can do. An example would be a mystic theurge of any level - they're underpowered as either divine or arcane caster, but they are a whole lot better than having neither at the table. Even so, they will be doing mostly support casting and not "primary caster" casting, except when they're playing down. Parties need to adjust their expectations accordingly (ie, if your arcane is a theurge at APL6, you won't be getting haste, but glitterdust or enlarge might be in the cards) Most people should not have much difficulty achieving this level of a build, no matter what their character concept is. It isn't that hard to have the armor class and damage output of a fullplate+shield dwarf+waraxe (tank role, Tordek) for example. If you try to be GOOD at being Tordek, you can do a lot better, either in AC or damage department (but both is more challenging)) If you are tactically inept as a player, know your limitations and make the character mechanically strong for whatever tactics you want to use. If you understand blasting and don't have any interest in learning how to do the other kinds of arcane magic, pick a warmage and nobody will expect you to, or announce yourself as artillery, not "the wizard" and people won't expect fly, haste, arcane sight or a battlefield control spell from you. If your character turns out to be unusually effective, note the APL you're playing at (some chars rock when playing down but struggle playing up, some are nearly as effective playing up as playing down - it has a lot to do with party role and approach) and pay attention to spotlight stealing. If the party isn't in trouble, maybe do a fight without raging, or save the "big boom" for a fight when the party is struggling. If something honestly scares you, by all means pull out all the stops. But going easy on the big guns when the fight doesn't demand it give other chars less suited for the situation a chance to contribute, and they're happy enough to have the big guns available when the situation changes. Very optomized support characters don't tend to steal spotlight (and this is somewhat true of setup artists like tactical fighters/monks too). This is also true of characters primarily optomized for defense. (be careful with this - you can't count on your party being competent enough to kill things without your help...have an offensive mode for when defense isn't needed so you can contribute like an iconic when necessary) Very optomized damage dealers (including sky-high save/die stuff in low-mid levels and diplomonster builds) can steal spotlight, so such characters should be more cautious and/or play up more where their damage is more "normal". What I try for is to have my character mechanically able to do what my image of him says he should be good at. I then see what roles I can fill, and how well I can fill them. Usually there's stuff in all these categories: 1. Can't do divine casting or healing at all. 2. Marginally better than nothing (eg, cleric1 level on a L8 character, or can activate cure wands, UMD decent but few or no cleric scrolls) 3. Subiconic (eg, 2 or more caster levels below primary caster, or capable of covering with UMD and consumables AND have a lot of cleric scrolls) 4. Iconic (does "divine caster" role about as well as Jozan would) 5. Above average (save/die DC's a bit higher than Jozans would be, enough to tweak spell selection into more of them than usual) 6. Optomized (sacred exorcist focused on banishing outsiders routinely is as good at this as a normal divine caster several levels higher) My wife's cleric is Iconic in most divine caster functions, above average at save Dc's (but only a little), above average in turning undead (a level or two plus sun domain) and optomized at banishing outsiders (routinely better than expected for a cleric at her level. She's marginal at melee ability and tanking (doesn't prep the right spells, 12 strength, low AC, 10 starting constitution but has cleric healing, divine vigor, etc, so isn't totally incapable) and is incapable of doing arcane casting. Optomization always comes with a price. But you have to look at the whole package to see it sometimes. It isn't always a matter of sucking at level X to be better at level Y. It is more often taking away from some normal ability of the class/role to be better at something else. My wife's cleric has attribute, feat, spell choices and PRC boosts to her outsider banishing, and as a side effect she's better at other caster related stuff too. But those allocations hurt her BAB, physical attributes, durability and spell slot availability to be the backup tank (offensively or defensively), and left no room to be better than expected at healing/buffing.
solbergb 03-15-07, 03:51 PM	Hm...the other thing is, the build optomization is significantly less important than player skill at playing that kind of character. In my playtests with both kinds of characters, "optomized" types were maybe 20% more effective than "iconics" if played by the same person. A good player can take a "Subiconic" concept and bring it up to "iconic" with build, but he might even outperform "iconic" or even "optomized" builds just through better decisions. I adventured with my archer teamed with another archer who was optomized for very high attack rolls, significantly higher than mine. In actual play though, I hit more things with arrows. Some of this was situational (I had stuff for ignoring cover, he did not, so our net attack rolls were often similar, and I had quickdraw so sometimes got full attack when he only got one) but some was choices (he chose to spend actions maneuvering or fighting an entangle, I tried to full attack every round, even if I was at some kind of attack roll disadvantage). He wasn't a bad player, but I think he was still getting used to the shift with archers that happens in the level 6-10 timeframe, where it is more and more important to full attack whenever possible. I also think he underestimated just how high his attack rolls were and worked a little too hard to avoid penalties rather than just shooting.
ithardin 03-15-07, 05:16 PM	It is wonderful to have a PC that is optimal in its roll. It is also nice to have some secondary ability (just in case). I have the good fortune of playing with a group who is very good at creating complimentary characters...and it has come in VERY handy. Nothing like having more then half the party dropped by a lightning bolt and being able to do this (and in INITIATIVE order!) Garen (paladin4) lays on hands and heals Telgrim (fighter3/cleric1). Telgrim then heals Eohi (cleric4). Eohi then heals Thargan (wizard5). Thargan then casts (and kills) the bad guy.
Paul H 03-16-07, 07:51 AM	Hi To use Solbergb's example I play a subiconic character, a Dwarf Clr/Warmage/Mystic Theurge. (3/4/1) St 10 De 12 Co 14 In 12 Wi 15 Ch 14 Don't normally have problem getting him a game. He's got plenty of 'tricks' to make him useful - Tan bag of 'em helps, plus Invis (Trickery Domain), Magic Domain (Wand Emlarge Person), 3 Pearls Pwr 1, etc. Practiced Spellcaster on Warmage, going CWI next level. (394xp). His stats are pretty weak, but he's a good all rounder, as long as he's not the Primary Caster. (Even played position of front line fighter once, playing down)! Probably going to retrain his Combat Casting feat (1st lvl) for something more useful. (Practiced Spellcaster Clr)? Cheers Paul H
Mithrus 03-16-07, 10:18 PM	I adventured with my archer teamed with another archer who was optomized for very high attack rolls, significantly higher than mine. In actual play though, I hit more things with arrows. Some of this was situational (I had stuff for ignoring cover, he did not, so our net attack rolls were often similar, and I had quickdraw so sometimes got full attack when he only got one) but some was choices (he chose to spend actions maneuvering or fighting an entangle, I tried to full attack every round, even if I was at some kind of attack roll disadvantage). He wasn't a bad player, but I think he was still getting used to the shift with archers that happens in the level 6-10 timeframe, where it is more and more important to full attack whenever possible. I also think he underestimated just how high his attack rolls were and worked a little too hard to avoid penalties rather than just shooting. If that was an online game, that very well might have been me ;) I learned a lot of tactical considerations during that mod from you. Call it humbling, as I had assumed having a higher modifier meant that I surely *must* hit more often...bad assumption. As it stands, my archer just reached 11, and has been thru some very cool experiences. Taking 2 levels of monk as an archer is nice...Watching the dervish cry when I grapple him to break his dance...priceless. Something I'm appreciating a TON more now is the tactical feats/abilities. Raw numbers is nice, but "tricks" > numbers more often then not.
solbergb 03-16-07, 11:41 PM	both are nice. You were in the part of your build where you were feat-starved but attribute-high. I knew in the long run that would correct itself....once you stopped using all your feats/skills for PRC qualifications the tricks would come and you'd have a very solid base to build upon. The monk levels cost you a BAB, but gain you several useful bonus feats and of course really nice save boosts. You'd shoot the pants off my archer now, since I've only gained 1 level to your 3-4. But I'll have some cool stuff by level 11 too :) I'm already jumping up and down in anticipation of combining ranged weapon mastery with my arcane archer arrow enhancements and an aquatic longbow. So what if I don't get my str mod? It beats poking things with a spear by quite a lot, and I'll still do d8+5-6 per shot (more as I level)
CdrcJsn 03-17-07, 12:52 AM	I'll have to agree with Solberg's second point that the player is what really determines how effective you are in a fight rather than the actual build. I've seen at least two uber Radiant Servant builds with all the right feats played by mediocre players and it might as well have been an NPC adept at our table. I've seen some weird, questionable builds and mutts played by tactically minded players and they are always welcome at my tables because they know how to contribute and compensate for their weaknesses. My first character in LG was a cleric of Zagyg back when the madness domain granted insane DCs to all his spells. Due to that legacy, people I've gamed with think that all my characters reek of powergaming cheese (which I admit to for some of them, though not as much as some people think) but for the most part, I've tended to play oddball characters more often than not. This reputation tends to stick with people though, so even when I'm playing my 10th level melee guy (who is a single classed Bard which can be argued to be extremely suboptimal), people still think my characters are uber optimized. I actually heard this conversation at the last local convention I attended: Gamer A (after watching me play my Bard as the party's tank and taking out several guys by myself) "Dude. Bards are broken." Gamer B "No. Bards are decent. Cedric's broken." Everyone min-maxes to a certain degree. Some are good at it. Some just don't give a lot of thought to it. Some are extremely bad at it. Most fall somewhere in the middle. However, there's a difference between having an uber build and completely dominating a table. One is a question of having the time and inclination to put together a powerful build, and the other is a question of playstyle (mainly being an inconsiderate jerk to others at the table). It's okay to be the former, but try to avoid the latter. Cedric
TheBlackFlail 03-17-07, 01:49 AM	He's got plenty of 'tricks' to make him useful - Tan bag of 'em helps... Every time anybody mentions a bag of tricks, visions of Roy Greenleaf throwing a skunk on Belkar's head pop up for some reason...
ShinAkuma2 03-17-07, 02:28 AM	I second that. There's nothing wrong with not optimizing, but please make sure your PC is more than an extra meat bag following the party. Hey, my PCs resent being called "meat bags". :P
paigeoliver 03-17-07, 03:53 PM	I think one very important thing is to make sure your character is good a SOMETHING, and doesn't have basic giant gaping holes in their capabilities. Even the most horrible spring attacking halfling rogue/swashbuckler mutt can at least keep up his search and disable device. Most diplomonster characters honestly would bring a lot more to the table if they had a 16 charisma instead of an 18 and used those extra points to have a 14 STR instead of an 8, bought a magic weapon and upgraded it from time to time. Then they could do SOMETHING once diplomacy failed and they already popped off their bard song. Every arcane caster should have a spell that does damage, preferably at range. I have been at tables plenty of times where arcane casters had to do nothing round after round because they had no damage spells and the enemies were immune to whatever their high DC save specialty spell is. Melee fighting characters should always have a ranged weapon too, and at higher levels it should be magic, even if they have no archery feats. At the same time, archers should also have a melee weapon (later magic), I suggest a lance because it has reach and outdoors they can charge with it to break through DR on things that their arrows are not effecting.
cetiken 03-17-07, 06:14 PM	I have to disagree with most of what pageoliver has to say. His dismisal of magic that doesn't do 1d6/level is grating and annoying. I agree that a 'diplomonster' must be able to do something in combat, but I hardly think that getting into hand-to-hand is often (ever) their best option. A well placed Suggestion or Charm Monster can turn the tide of battle much quicker than any sword. People who want to tell others how to play their characters should go back to playing Baulder's Gate or whatever single player game they prefer (personally I'm itching for another go at Planescape: Torment). The truth is that a strong player can take the most ridiculous concepts and make them a winner.
zigspatty 03-17-07, 08:43 PM	I find basic underlying premise of the question "Is it right to optimize in a Living Campaign?" to be a bit insulting to many players. Yes, there are players whose characters are not as "optimal" as they could be; there are also well-built characters that aren't really played as well as they could be either. But if those players have fun playing their character, then it's pretty rude of folks to be critical or derisive of their choices. D&D 3.5 is a complicated game that seems to grow more complex with every new book that is released. Not every player enjoys wading through the books to learn all rules and possibilities offered, and some players have a really good time playing their own version of Legolas, Gandalf or some more original character concept. They should be allowed to do so. Evin if they're not a tactical genius. Many players appreciate advice about character building and tactics, so please continue to offer it when asked. Just be sensitive to how others feel about comments which are critical of their character build or play style. Opinions vary about what builds and tactics are "effective." (The rogue that struggles in the undead-filled tomb may rock in a trap-filled dungeon.) While "not dying" is usually high on the list of attributes that make the game fun, spending a lot of gold on a magic weapon for a diplomonster bard because "X" said they need to doesn't necessarily make the game more fun for anyone. Patty
CdrcJsn 03-17-07, 09:31 PM	I find basic underlying premise of the question "Is it right to optimize in a Living Campaign?" to be a bit insulting to many players. Yes, there are players whose characters are not as "optimal" as they could be; there are also well-built characters that aren't really played as well as they could be either. But if those players have fun playing their character, then it's pretty rude of folks to be critical or derisive of their choices. D&D 3.5 is a complicated game that seems to grow more complex with every new book that is released. Not every player enjoys wading through the books to learn all rules and possibilities offered, and some players have a really good time playing their own version of Legolas, Gandalf or some more original character concept. They should be allowed to do so. Evin if they're not a tactical genius. I for one don't expect everyone to have an optimized build or have perfect tactics. But I do expect people to be at least average in their chosen roles. Combat is an important part of the game (it seems 90% of the rules in the PHB is about combat), so people should take at least equal effort in thinking about what to do during a fight as they do in constructing their backstory and character personality. I also disagree that with your assumption that you have to venture out of the PHB to create a viable character. The new books expand a character's options, true...but the PHB contains more than enough cheese. Cedric
solbergb 03-17-07, 11:22 PM	I also disagree that with your assumption that you have to venture out of the PHB to create a viable character. The new books expand a character's options, true...but the PHB contains more than enough cheese. Cedric Yeah. Most of the really, really broken stuff is straight PHB. Bard fascinate Divine Power spell hero feast spell animal growth spell+augment summoning+giant crocodiles... all of the SR=no, save=no battlefield control spells (wall of force, solid fog, forcecage, etc) scorching ray+metamagic (still exceeds just about anything else for damage) dimension door, teleport time stop Luck domain, Travel domain Druids and clerics (Still the most powerful base classes in the game) Wizards and sorcs (the next two most powerful) all of the best divination spells that actually reveal enemies/find stuff out (as opposed to swift action combat divinaations like guided shot) telekenesis+greater magic weapon+flame arrow The entire "Polymorph" tree of spells, capstoning with Shapechange+Choker antimagic shell Mordenkeinen's Disjunction, Destruction and other spells rightly banned DMG stuff too - Bead of Karma, Handy Haversack, metamagic rods, pearls of power, orange ioun stone There's more, these are just stuff that's off the top of my head.
paigeoliver 03-18-07, 01:03 AM	Magic that doesn't do 1d6 per level is fine, but spell casters without a single damage spell often end up standing idle. Usually casters should not be trying to do damage, but their are some situations in which that is all they can do. A caster at least having a magic missile or something is just like making sure your spiked chain fighter also has a longbow, because situations will come up where that is exactly what he needs. Most diplomonsters I have encountered have 4-6 different classes all at first level and don't really have much spellcasting capability other than spells that boost their diplomacy. All my experience is APL 2-8, perhaps things are different at the levels you are playing at? My advice is just that, advice. No one needs to take it. Look at my characters. A small sized archer. A halfling rogue swashbuckler. A melee character (non-bard) who has an 8 Con and uses a whip. Markessa the Orange (the name says it all, at least if you are in the VTF region). A 10 con, 18 charisma melee character. A Dwarven cleric with a higher INT than wisdom. A druid who has never spent a single gold piece and is scared of the forest and wild animals. Hardly the font of optimization. I do make sure they are good at one or two things though. I have to disagree with most of what pageoliver has to say. His dismisal of magic that doesn't do 1d6/level is grating and annoying. I agree that a 'diplomonster' must be able to do something in combat, but I hardly think that getting into hand-to-hand is often (ever) their best option. A well placed Suggestion or Charm Monster can turn the tide of battle much quicker than any sword. People who want to tell others how to play their characters should go back to playing Baulder's Gate or whatever single player game they prefer (personally I'm itching for another go at Planescape: Torment). The truth is that a strong player can take the most ridiculous concepts and make them a winner.
Mommy was an Orc 03-18-07, 01:24 PM	Optimization is just about giving you a range of tools. There's three real problems as I see it: The player who sacrifices flexibility or worse, roles in the name of optimization. The Spirited Charge Mounted build that does nothing other than Charge as an example. Won't tank, can't do anything out of combat, and if for some reason, he can't charge or can't bring his mount along, won't do any real damage in combat. The player who doesn't understand a complicated build, then messes with it. Or doesn't have the tactical expertise to play it correctly. The archer who puts off Rapid Shot until 6th level. Or the sneak attack build who doesn't ask helpful questions of the people he needs to help him get sneak attacks - if you're a Rogue, you want your party providing flanks and denying others dex. The build that not only needs the rest of the party to operate effectively, but demands they act in a particular way based on how the player plays it - the 20 Str Half-Orc Barbarian 1/Fighter X that charges ahead of the party in every combat that he can, regardless of party composition or tactical situation - then has to be rescued after he gets full power attacked into oblivion.
bhale187 03-18-07, 02:29 PM	the 20 Str Half-Orc Barbarian 1/Fighter X that charges ahead of the party in every combat that he can, regardless of party composition or tactical situation - then has to be rescued after he gets full power attacked into oblivion. Those sure are fun to watch though ;)
CdrcJsn 03-18-07, 04:35 PM	Those sure are fun to watch though ;) Yeah, as the DM :D
MatteBlack 03-18-07, 06:28 PM	While I might get frustrated at playing with a "weak" character it's player has as much right to play it as an optimized one. Alot of optemized builds can be just as frustrating to deal with. Optimizing is fine to do but, putting any expectations on how our characters are built isn't. My only expectation when i sit down at the table is that all players try to make the adventure a successful and, more importantly, fun exercise. I'll be the first to admit to having an optemized character (fully out of the PHB by the way). I also have a sort of underpowered marshal. They both have equal right to be on the table but, many LG players seem to have a penchant for demanding optimization which i feel is inappropriate for them to expect. In short, play what ever character you want to play and do your best to pull your weight and try to see that everyone has a good time. Lee
Genghis Cohen 03-18-07, 06:59 PM	Optimization is just about giving you a range of tools. There's three real problems as I see it: The player who sacrifices flexibility or worse, roles in the name of optimization. The Spirited Charge Mounted build that does nothing other than Charge as an example. Won't tank, can't do anything out of combat, and if for some reason, he can't charge or can't bring his mount along, won't do any real damage in combat. The player who doesn't understand a complicated build, then messes with it. Or doesn't have the tactical expertise to play it correctly. The archer who puts off Rapid Shot until 6th level. Or the sneak attack build who doesn't ask helpful questions of the people he needs to help him get sneak attacks - if you're a Rogue, you want your party providing flanks and denying others dex. The build that not only needs the rest of the party to operate effectively, but demands they act in a particular way based on how the player plays it - the 20 Str Half-Orc Barbarian 1/Fighter X that charges ahead of the party in every combat that he can, regardless of party composition or tactical situation - then has to be rescued after he gets full power attacked into oblivion.I agree with your assessment about medium sized mounted combatants (Halfing Outriders are a different story.) I was at a Gran March con last year, and a number of players complained about how they rarely get to play their mounted PCs on mounts. I thought that Gran March was Knight of the Watch country, where everybody gets to ride into battle. I was wrong. As far as players messing with complicated builds and not understanding them, that can be a big problem. I played in the recent core special with a 9th level Mystic Theurge, and the player never knew what to do. Mystic Theurge isn't really that tough of a build to play. You just have to know what spells that you have available and what they can do. I personally don't see min/maxed half-orcs as a problematic build. If the player wants to pretend that he always has a hasted and flying Radiant Servant of Whatever behind him, there will be a lot of PC deaths. The problem there is with the player. The reason why I haven't built such a character for LG is that they are too one dimensional with a 28 point build. I think that all PC builds are obligated to accomplish two things: 1) Be able to contibute to combat in an APL appropriate way. 2) Do at least one thing well outside of combat. The biggest problem that I've observed is what I call APL 2 Syndrome. People come up with phenominal builds for APL 2 that are almost completely worthless at APL 8. Warmage 1/ Sorceror 1/ Bard 1 is completely amazing at APL 2. Its not bad at APL4, and terrible at APL 6. This is the type of player that will spend the first three rounds of combat buffing himself and then brag about how survivable his build is. There should also be a list of things that newbies should never do in a first build. This is important because your first LG character will get a lot of play time and a new player will want that PC at a high level for greater play opportunities. Here are some don'ts for a first build: A cleric that spontaneously inflicts. A frontliner with a BAB more than one less than character level A caster without full spellcasting progression (I don't count bards here) A rogue without near-maxed out ranks in disable device, open lock and search. Just some thoughts from someone who feels obligated to carry his weight at the table.
cetiken 03-18-07, 08:10 PM	<clip> Here are some don'ts for a first build: A cleric that spontaneously inflicts. A frontliner with a BAB more than one less than character level A caster without full spellcasting progression (I don't count bards here) A rogue without near-maxed out ranks in disable device, open lock and search. I like a lot of what you have to say Genghis Cohen. And I generally agree with you that characters should have something to do outside of combat. On the other hand, I've been trying to find a good fighter/ tank build that wasn't terrible outside of combat, and its not easy. I'm a bit confused by your statement about bards above though. Are you saying that bards are recommended or not? I'm just a bit confused.
Genghis Cohen 03-18-07, 08:26 PM	I like a lot of what you have to say Genghis Cohen. And I generally agree with you that characters should have something to do outside of combat. On the other hand, I've been trying to find a good fighter/ tank build that wasn't terrible outside of combat, and its not easy. I'm a bit confused by your statement about bards above though. Are you saying that bards are recommended or not? I'm just a bit confused.Sorry if I wasn't clear. I meant that bard builds don't need straight caster progression to be effective. They do need, however, a focus of what type of bard its going to be.
Sieylianna 03-18-07, 09:35 PM	While I might get frustrated at playing with a "weak" character it's player has as much right to play it as an optimized one. The problem is that your weak character may get mine killed. As long as you are up front about it during mustering, that's fine. We can work around your quirks. But if you say that you're a cleric, then combat starts and it turns out that you have a six Charisma and refuse to heal anyone except yourself, that's a problem (a situation that I ran into at a table - we ended up with 3 or 4 deaths). Ed
GreatSiron 03-19-07, 01:53 AM	The problem is that your weak character may get mine killed. As long as you are up front about it during mustering, that's fine. We can work around your quirks. But if you say that you're a cleric, then combat starts and it turns out that you have a six Charisma and refuse to heal anyone except yourself, that's a problem (a situation that I ran into at a table - we ended up with 3 or 4 deaths). Ed No, that's no sub optimaiztion, that the cleric being a jerk (or an idiot). I have 2 main characters, one optimaized (a grey elf wizard with max Int), and one not. (a rogue mutt) The wizard is definatly the stronger in combat, as my rogue mutt doesn't do much damage. (Though I'm hoping a second lvl of ranger will fix that right up), but he can get into just about any position he wants (Tumble +15) for flanking, and can knock his AC into the low 30's. (Combat Expertise) From there he can throw Tanglefoot bags, or aid another, or stablize a character. (Thank you ranger lvl, letting me use happy stick). Not as useful as the wizard that can disable half the opposing force with a well placed glitterdust or grease, but hey, he ain't useless. P.S.: Outside combat he great in investgatives where he has to find clues (Tactile Trapsmith with maxed out search, and once he gets into examplar, he'll never miss a disable device again.)
copper_wyrmling 03-19-07, 02:22 AM	No, that's no sub optimaiztion, that the cleric being a jerk (or an idiot). *shrugs* I don't think someone who plays a barbarian 1 / cleric X who insists on his first two rounds in 90% of fights being "Round 1: cast Divine Power and move in, Round 2: reckless rage, full attack, full power attack, smite", is being any more of a jerk or an idiot than the guy who plays a pure-class barbarian whose first two rounds almost invariably go "Round 1: reckless rage, charge, attack once, Round 2: full attack with full power attack". I really don't like it when people call cleric players "selfish" for refusing to heal because they have other stuff they want to do... people who play wizards / sorcs / fighters aren't generally tagged as selfish because they're not playing healers, nor should people who are using the mechanics of the cleric class for their holy warrior or specialist spellcaster (admittedly, the latter worked rather better when divine metamagic and divine spellpower were legal). But... if the first guy told everyone he was a "divine caster" or "medic" at muster, and then played like that, then he's being just as deceptive as if the second guy did the same thing. Honesty at mustering is important, and so it's also important to be honest with yourself and recognize what roles your PC can fill. Parties can usually adjust their playstyle to suit the character mix, but it's hard to adjust if you don't find out where the gaping holes are until your first combat. My sorcerer can use wands of Cure Light Wounds, but if she advertised herself at muster as a "healer" or a "party buffer", that would be grossly misleading and would get the table into trouble. I normally describe her as a primary arcane caster, secondary party face and very secondary healer (she has a decent collection of cleric scrolls, and UMD through the roof) - but I do try to let people know that she can't do resist energy or dispel magic, since those are common arcane functions that she doesn't have. My cleric is a solid generalist, so I can just say "divine caster 15" with her and people will draw the right conclusions (i.e. can buff, heal, blast, or self-buff and melee, as necessary to the party; probably has good AC but mediocre HP due to periapt / amulet slot conflict; lousy skills).
MatteBlack 03-19-07, 10:07 AM	The problem is that your weak character may get mine killed. As long as you are up front about it during mustering, that's fine. We can work around your quirks. But if you say that you're a cleric, then combat starts and it turns out that you have a six Charisma and refuse to heal anyone except yourself, that's a problem (a situation that I ran into at a table - we ended up with 3 or 4 deaths). Ed There are two parts of this. First, the player should be honest about what his character is and how he plays it. Second, you need to realize that cleric can mean alot of things in the LG world. If I get as simple an answer as, "I have an X level cleric", I'd probably press for more detail. However, If I had a non-iconic cleric, I'd be clear about how it would be played. We may have an idea of what a cleric or other role should be but, those expectaions shouldn't hem in how we build or play our characters. The only thing a player owes the table is trying to make the experience fun and successful.
Asaris 03-19-07, 06:40 PM	And I think in general some specificity when mustering is good. I always called my character a "Two-Weapon Fighter", because that gives people a very good idea of what he can do.
Paul H 03-19-07, 06:53 PM	Hi Classes can often be misleading - assumptions that clerics are only healers is one example. Being upfront & letting people know the 'role' you play is often more important. Helps with muster & lets the spellcasters prepare more effectively. (With my Cleric/Warmage/Mystic Theurge I like to plan my spells with any other clerics in the group). Cheers Paul H
Timlagor 03-19-07, 11:00 PM	People rarely assume a Cleric is only a healer.. but they will assume that a cleric is a healer and willing to do so in combat if appropriate. *fails to resist the urge to comment on mutting warmage*
Rillion 03-22-07, 03:55 AM	And I generally agree with you that characters should have something to do outside of combat. On the other hand, I've been trying to find a good fighter/ tank build that wasn't terrible outside of combat, and its not easy. I've found working one level of Ranger into a fighting mutt build to be useful. Usually you can put a few points (even cross class) into survival so you end up being decent at tracking. Plus you can use a CLW wand once the fight is over. Keeps them from being completely useless outside of combat.
cetiken 03-22-07, 08:12 PM	I've found working one level of Ranger into a fighting mutt build to be useful. Mutt builds. Ick.
clannagh 03-22-07, 11:09 PM	I've found working one level of Ranger into a fighting mutt build to be useful. Usually you can put a few points (even cross class) into survival so you end up being decent at tracking. Plus you can use a CLW wand once the fight is over. Keeps them from being completely useless outside of combat. fine if your a wood elf can be problematic otherwise
MatteBlack 03-22-07, 11:42 PM	fine if your a wood elf can be problematic otherwise ...or that obscure race we call "humans".
clannagh 03-22-07, 11:51 PM	...or that obscure race we call "humans". oh yeah :) and them
Jay_Ibero_911 03-23-07, 12:09 AM	oh yeah :) and them Half-Elves too!