[QUOTE=Chronische;44561227]Or playing any character in AD&D with the minimum stat for their class[/QUOTE]
[URL]http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheetview.php?sheetid=570469[/URL]
[QUOTE=M.Ciaster;44559594]Who cares - as long as you're having fun? Just, like, ask your friends not to play as wizards, and if they really want to, at least to try to rein in their powers a little. RPGs are supposed to be cooperative! most of the time at least[/QUOTE]
DnD has one of the highest potentials for shitty players and shitty GMs. So when you are playing a rule heavy game with a bunch of min-maxers and stubborn GMs, then you aren't exactly having fun.
I have played DnD only a few times but most of them were quite horrible. The only good game I played wasn't even that great because I was too anxious and busy with life stuff to get involved.
I'd say there's a big difference between optimizing and doing so to the point that you just steal the spotlight all the time
like, sure, putting yourself together well enough that you get your cool moments and you have the few things you will wreck unconditionally, yea that's fine, and fun. Everyone should have those moments where they kick ass and everyone watches
The problem is when you get to the point of min-maxing where you decide that just kicking ass in a few scenarios isn't enough, and you must kick ass in all scenarios. That's when you get into boring, min-maxer territory, where it's just a contest to see who can get the highest initiative to screw things over unconditionally
Also, the whole deal being bad depends on the group not working together in the slightest. Yes, a cleric can self-buff themselves to be better than the fighter at fighting. They can also decide to buff the fighter instead, and he will proceed to wreck immense amounts of face. Yea, if you're playing an optimizer who plays solo, it's going to be boring and unfun for the rest of the party. But when you're playing as a group, how optimized everyone is is less of an issue, so long as everyone gets their fun moments and you're not actively killjoying each other
I tend to at least casually min-max because I'm an idiot and get into tough situations because of it. Or I'm just making things up again, I don't even know anymore.
[QUOTE=DiscoInferno;44561779]I tend to at least casually min-max because I'm an idiot and get into tough situations because of it. Or I'm just making things up again, I don't even know anymore.[/QUOTE]
"casually min-max" doesn't make much sense because a lot of the time of course it makes sense to play a smart wizard. or a charismatic bard. players and npcs alike go into classes and professions because of what they're good at. it only really makes sense :v
There's a difference between min-maxing and making your build viable.
I mean I tend to try to keep myself useful in all situations because I don't want to spend a session playing grab-arse somewhere while, like, the rogue rogues, or the bard charms, or the paladin grinds the game to a halt, or whatever.
This is just me but I think the term min-max has negative connotations. "Optimizing" is the term I use for what a lot of you are describing: characters that optimize their strengths and minimize their weaknesses, without being cripplingly bad in any one area (lol charisma of 5 my dude am antisocial!!!!)
As a side note, I tell players whose characters have an intelligence of 8 are NOT so stupid they have to talk in "retarded" accents and make drooling sounds. Christ all mighty
actually as far as i know min maxing means sacrificing one or more stats to overload another, in order to become game breaking. most people tend to dump cha or con to boost the rest. hence 1 hp wizards.
And that's why you, as a GM, required to drop small pebbles on them, to knock that 1HP down.
[QUOTE=lintz;44561943]actually as far as i know min maxing means sacrificing one or more stats to overload another, in order to become game breaking. most people tend to dump cha or con to boost the rest. hence 1 hp wizards.[/QUOTE]
since when has constitution ever been useless? in 3.5 hp actually matters, if you've got no healer any fight thats at the same cr as the groups is gonna be a short fight if not played properly.
[QUOTE=lintz;44561943]actually as far as i know min maxing means sacrificing one or more stats to overload another, in order to become game breaking. most people tend to dump cha or con to boost the rest. hence 1 hp wizards.[/QUOTE]
having 1HP is a massive weakness
in fact it's pretty much the biggest weakness possible
i didn't say they were useless stats did i? i said they were sacrificed.
[QUOTE=lintz;44562152]i didn't say they were useless stats did i? i said they were sacrificed.[/QUOTE]
that's really not min maxing though.
min maxing is minimizing your bad parts while maximizing your good parts
So a fighter who has super low intelligence, wisdom and charisma, all things which he doesn't need for fighting, and instead has has good dexterity and ridiculous strength and constitution, could be considered min maxing.
But, that's an incredibly small part of it. If you really want to min max in DnD, what you need is to find all the unbalanced as fuck magical items, feats, spells, variant classes, alternate base classes and prestige classes. That's how you do the really stupid stuff, not by having 18 in a stat or two.
[QUOTE=elowin;44562215]that's really not min maxing though.
min maxing is minimizing your bad parts while maximizing your good parts
So a fighter who has super low intelligence, wisdom and charisma, all things which he doesn't need for fighting, and instead has has good dexterity and ridiculous strength and constitution, could be considered min maxing.
But, that's an incredibly small part of it. If you really want to min max in DnD, what you need is to find all the unbalanced as fuck magical items, feats, spells, variant classes, alternate base classes and prestige classes. That's how you do the really stupid stuff, not by having 18 in a stat or two.[/QUOTE]
Optimizing = making a character with reasonable stats focused on the task he's supposed to be doing
Min-Maxing = using every available opportunity to make a character overpowered at a few specific things while being completely useless elsewhere
Making a half-orc character a fighter is optimizing. Making a fighter with 18 STR and 3 INT is min-maxing.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;44562390]Optimizing = making a character with reasonable stats focused on the task he's supposed to be doing
Min-Maxing = using every available opportunity to make a character overpowered at a few specific things while being completely useless elsewhere
Making a half-orc character a fighter is optimizing. Making a fighter with 18 STR and 3 INT is min-maxing.[/QUOTE]
i kind of agree with you but not quite
your example is not really min maxing at all
18 strength is not exactly overpowered, it's pretty fucking good but not remotely overpowered
meanwhile, 3 intelligence is ridiculously shit on so many levels, and it's just begging for someone to do just a little bit of intelligence damage to instantly incapacitate you with minimal effort.
[QUOTE=Funktastic Dog;44559066]I'm not, go look up a guide to optimizing clerics in pathfinder and you'll quickly see how they can basically do anything better than any type of warrior/fighter class. Theyre good in most any situation and do it very well. Same goes for wizards.
Of course, this is totally min/max-y, but it's not hard to pull off at all. Like, you're going to put thought into how you make your character, and you want your character to be viable to play and not just a third wheel.
My Monkey Monk was fun to play as a character, but he was notso good in combat (which was the only thing he was good at), you know who was the best in combat?
The Cleric.[/QUOTE]
Actually, you're the problem in this instance. The game is not perfectly balanced; Few are. It's a close enough approximation where you can play almost anything you want and still have a blast and contribute.
[editline]16th April 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=lintz;44561943]actually as far as i know min maxing means sacrificing one or more stats to overload another, in order to become game breaking. most people tend to dump cha or con to boost the rest. hence 1 hp wizards.[/QUOTE]
I don't know of ANYONE who dumps con, much less wizards.
[QUOTE=Oliolio;44562678]Actually, you're the problem in this instance. The game is not perfectly balanced; Few are. It's a close enough approximation where you can play almost anything you want and still have a blast and contribute.[/QUOTE]
I'm saying if you want to have a somewhat balanced game, you sort of need to just outright ban wizards and clerics. They're just too good and way too easy to become earthshattering powerful.
Like, if you play a cleric, every single opportunity afforded to you gives you a chance to become fucking hella powerful, same goes for wizards. At that point it wouldn't be you not min/maxing, it would be actively working to make yourself less powerful.
I'd say if you wanna play a wizard, be a sorcerer or summoner, if you wanna play a cleric, be a fighter who worships a god non-stop and is devout to said god. It's pretty much the same thing in terms of roleplaying.
Otherwise, I fucking love pathfinder, I just hate those "Tier 1" classes, and the like.
They are strong classes. They are not so strong that there isn't a reason to play anything else. The T1 list assumes that your GM is a massive pushover and lets you get away with anything.
[QUOTE=Funktastic Dog;44562770]I'm saying if you want to have a somewhat balanced game, you sort of need to just outright ban wizards and clerics. They're just too good and way too easy to become earthshattering powerful.
Like, if you play a cleric, every single opportunity afforded to you gives you a chance to become fucking hella powerful, same goes for wizards. At that point it wouldn't be you not min/maxing, it would be actively working to make yourself less powerful.
I'd say if you wanna play a wizard, be a sorcerer or summoner, if you wanna play a cleric, be a fighter who worships a god non-stop and is devout to said god. It's pretty much the same thing in terms of roleplaying.
Otherwise, I fucking love pathfinder, I just hate those "Tier 1" classes, and the like.[/QUOTE]
literally every class becomes powerful as fuck around level 20
none of them really get earthshattering though, no not even wizards and clerics.
[QUOTE=Oliolio;44562839]They are strong classes. They are not so strong that there isn't a reason to play anything else. The T1 list assumes that your GM is a massive pushover and lets you get away with anything.[/QUOTE]
That's what I'm saying, if played by the rules, and strictly by the rules, you can very easily make yourself super powerful, without even looking up guides or any book other than the PHB.
That's why a GM should just straight not allow people to play them, they can get any experience they would otherwise get by playing different classes and roleplaying them out like wizards or clerics.
Most groups youll find do this automatically anyway.
[QUOTE=elowin;44562901]literally every class becomes powerful as fuck around level 20
none of them really get earthshattering though, no not even wizards and clerics.[/QUOTE]
Okay, I guess gameshattering is a better word, in the sense that they break the game by being so much better than everyone.
[editline]16th April 2014[/editline]
Honestly, I'm not one to give a shit about min-maxing, but I like to feel useful as a party member, as everyone should be.
I disagree with you completely, but whatever.
[QUOTE=elowin;44560752]no offense, but i would not want to play with you then
properly min-maxing will make the game significantly less fun for everyone else, and that's not cool
unless they are also all min-maxing just as much and the GM is okay with it in which case it's fine[/QUOTE]
All the offense taken.
Ask anyone I play with, believe me, I'm RP first, "zomg the powers of dooooooooom" second.
[QUOTE=Funktastic Dog;44562957]That's what I'm saying, if played by the rules, and strictly by the rules, you can very easily make yourself super powerful, without even looking up guides or any book other than the PHB.
That's why a GM should just straight not allow people to play them, they can get any experience they would otherwise get by playing different classes and roleplaying them out like wizards or clerics.
Most groups youll find do this automatically anyway.
Okay, I guess gameshattering is a better word, in the sense that they break the game by being so much better than everyone.
[editline]16th April 2014[/editline]
Honestly, I'm not one to give a shit about min-maxing, but I like to feel useful as a party member, as everyone should be.[/QUOTE]
They only break the game if you build them to break the game, and your GM lets you break the game
They are not unconditional 'I-win' buttons
You have to be trying to do that. Completely banning two core classes, which are really not that broken unless you, as the GM, let them get run-away overpowered without any kind of checks on that power, is completely unwarranted. And what's more, they are definitely classes that can be completely crippled in pretty easy, GM-fiatable ways (Clerics MUST act in accordance with their deity, or you can kiss your spells goodbye, and wizards have this big, noticeable, highly-flammable tome they need or they're not getting any more spells either).
They're good classes, yes. If you're really good at picking spells, and your GM never wears down your resources through multiple encounters and never strikes you in a place you don't expect, yea, they can dominate the game. But the fact is, not every single game ends up like that, and it's pretty silly to be that paranoid about it just on the mere possibility that at high levels they can be plot-derailing. Everyone is plot derailing at that point. There's a reason most high-end 3.5 and PF games end up fighting gods or becoming gods or taking over the planes, and that's because everyone is ludicrously OP at that stage
Can we go back to Shadowrun and how the game was made to make broken chars in the first place?
Shadowrun's CC is hilarious because if you don't spend your points in the right way you can have a character who's worse at everything than another character who spent their points in a super-weirdly optimized way.
It's weird.
[QUOTE=gufu;44563381]Can we go back to Shadowrun and how the game was made to make broken chars in the first place?[/QUOTE]
On this topic, I found a way to make my knife throwing gimmick able to hit anyone in line of sight as if they were at close range at a -2 penalty.
[QUOTE=Funktastic Dog;44562770]I'm saying if you want to have a somewhat balanced game, you sort of need to just outright ban wizards and clerics. They're just too good and way too easy to become earthshattering powerful.
Like, if you play a cleric, every single opportunity afforded to you gives you a chance to become fucking hella powerful, same goes for wizards. At that point it wouldn't be you not min/maxing, it would be actively working to make yourself less powerful.
I'd say if you wanna play a wizard, be a sorcerer or summoner, if you wanna play a cleric, be a fighter who worships a god non-stop and is devout to said god. It's pretty much the same thing in terms of roleplaying.
Otherwise, I fucking love pathfinder, I just hate those "Tier 1" classes, and the like.[/QUOTE]
or you know
just fucking talk to your buddies
'hey guys mind not going so overboard with your kickass wizard dudes/ladies? i'd like to do some cool stuff as well'
'hey sure'
alternatively just do some homebrewin', freedom of choice and adjustability's what I always thought RPGs were about - nerf wizards, buff everything else, whatever
this is what I don't like about Pathfinder actually, despite all its claims of balance and shit the wizards still remain the superior choice to everything else
look at me drunkposting about rpgs
I'm literally saying the same thing as you.
[QUOTE=Funktastic Dog;44565914]I'm literally saying the same thing as you.[/QUOTE]
you're saying 'ban', I'm saying 'adjust' :v:
but it's nice to hear we're heading in the same direction, more or less
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
