Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Tawa]

Same-tier classes, maybe? Like, comparison of Monk and Fighter, or Sorcerer and Psion?

[Neonivek]

In fifteen years of running 3rd ed, I have never had a 'boring' session, as a player or a DM, and I have absolutely NEVER run nor allowed an optimized character of any class.  If the combat is boring then the DM does not have a clear idea of what they are doing, and if the roleplay is boring then the DM just plain sucks.

There are so many reasons I absolutely do not believe you.

Mostly because what you stated here is pretty much neigh impossible.

As well saying you never "allow" optimized builds is especially the biggest flat out lie I ever heard. So what? People walked around with 10 attributes all around? Wizards who couldn't cast their spells were typical? Did you even allow wizards?

Don't feed me this drivel and be honest. I've spent far too much time being fed this swill to be drawn in by this talk. "Ohh no, you don't need to optimize at all, see there was this one player who had dreadful stats but he had a wonderful time!" ahuh, yeah...

What they don't tell you is that lightning doesn't strike twice. Don't got the stuff don't expect the scenes. If you suck stat wise then you suck as a character because you are playing a loser. Yet these games do not support losers. There isn't going to be a moment where you do something neat, there are no characters who will side with you, no NPCs you can win it off with, because you made a less than decent bunch of stats to fit your character...

And when everyone is Xena and you are Joxter except without the comedic elements... you BETTER not wonder why the DM doesn't give you the light of day no matter how much he feeds you those lines. What was that? You got a fully developed character? Great! Now watch as everyone else resolves your own plotline.

Yeah my Don character one of my favorite roleplays I ever had who had an VERY weak build until I made him a super diplomat and had fun that way? His entire plotline was resolved by another character. Through no strength of his own did he get to lift a finger to fix his own problems.

[Criptfeind]

all the classes basically being refluffed versions of each other...

This really isn't true in my experience. Although there are certain archetypes within the classes, which yes, are very similar to one another. But between archetypes there are quite a lot of differences in how they play and what they do. Like you said, the strategic depth is more, and in that strategic depth people can actually find roles for them selves that are, in my opinion, more interesting and satisfying to play then in 3.5. An example might be a lock down tripping build, although it's just personally opinion, but I find that sorta thing very dull to play in 3.5, but a lockdown meleeish class in 4E is both possible without a lot of abuse, and a lot more interesting. At least, in my personal opinion.

As for what is balanced in 3.5? Well, possibly anything. You don't need all these crazy houserules to balance the game (that inevitably fail from lack of understanding anyway) All you need to do is have a understanding of the game and a willingness to work with the players and GM to make sure your characters come out to the same level of power. I mean, that can be quite rare on the little random games that pop up in FG&RP it sometimes seems, but like, in actual groups, I find that sort of understanding is the rule, rather then the exception.

Edit: Trying to balance in broad strokes (like saying everyone has to play the same tier) rarely works in my experience. It's easier to have and make work a optimized barbarian hanging out with an unoptimized wizard then it is to force them into the same tier and hope that nether one plays under or over expectations.

[NullForceOmega]

Wow, Neo, I've seen you spew some serious shit over a post before, but that may just take the cake.

I can kill a 40th level wizard with a first level kobold with base book stats.  All it takes is planning and intelligence.  I'll grant, a spellcaster without the attributes to use their spells is untenable, but a full optimized one is damn easy to spot by feats and skill distribution, as well as starting spells known.  If you think numbers are the deciding factor in every battle then you really have no effing clue how this game is actually intended to be played.

Furthermore, I give no fucks whatsoever if you, a faceless internet clown just like myself and everyone else here believes me, I'll just go and have an enjoyable session with my players and you can continue trying to be a hardass.

[Cthulhu]

Let's all retain our chill composure.  3e doesn't require optimization until you realize your character can't actually survive against threats at his level.

There are other things I can do in combat but most of them will just bog the fight down and are probably inferior to just swinging my axe.  There's a difference between munchkin optimization and not doing things that are worse than doing nothing.  It seems like you hate optimization so much you have a problem with people doing what they should be doing which doesn't make much sense.  Maybe a different RPG would be more your speed than D&D cuase make no mistake, from the beginning D&D has been combat-centric and a degree of optimization is expected.  Even 3e.  especially 3e.  Past the first few levels most monsters will turn you to paste if you don't have the tools to beat them.

[Neonivek]

I can kill a 40th level wizard with a first level kobold with base book stats.

Sure all you need is the DM on your side in order to give you the opportunity to pull off this stunt all the while ensuring that the level 40 wizard didn't cast any of the many spells he could have in order to ensure his safety.

But tell me... How is the Kobold going to disable the magic traps defending the wizard?

How is the Kobold going to convince the enemies surrounding the wizard to let him pass?

How is he going to win the card game against the gnome who has the key to the wizards tower?

full optimized

Optimized can mean just making sure your character is functional and has a sphere of expertise

But what I think you mean is that you don't let people with broken builds. Yet I still believe that even though you will never admit it or realise, you do influence having optimized builds in your game inadvertently either by giving people with optimized skills more opportunities to play or roleplay.

Let's all retain our chill composure.  3e doesn't require optimization until you realize your character can't actually survive against threats at his level.

There are other things I can do in combat but most of them will just bog the fight down and are probably inferior to just swinging my axe.  There's a difference between munchkin optimization and not doing things that are worse than doing nothing.  It seems like you hate optimization so much you have a problem with people doing what they should be doing which doesn't make much sense.  Maybe a different RPG would be more your speed than D&D cuase make no mistake, from the beginning D&D has been combat-centric and a degree of optimization is expected.  Even 3e.  especially 3e.  Past the first few levels most monsters will turn you to paste if you don't have the tools to beat them.

Ohh it really does and most people who disagree are optimized.

Sure, no one likes the power gamers who build stats with just completely blank characters who might as well be robots for all they contribute roleplaying wise.

Yet that doesn't excuse the fact that, yeah... You really can't expect the DM to go easy on you just because you decided that as a fighter you would pick all your favorite feats instead of a good build. You can't expect a DM to even let you speak if you don't got the skills.

As I said when everyone is Xena and your a unfunny Joxter... don't be surprised when you don't get to step up to the plate as much.

--

As for Wizards there are very few ways they can be "unoptimized" and that would be actively ensuring they have no combat spells or that they cannot cast their spells because of low attributes. So don't even mention them...

---

But if you SO believe I am wrong then

In the next game you play... Pick a Commoner and write the most epic story about him possible. Give him a fully fleshed out hero archtype and roleplay him as a hero.

Then tell me how much a hero he really is.

And if he comes off as the big damn hero.. I will admit I was wrong and say that with a good DM stats don't matter and that all my previous experiences are because of a bad string of both my own false expectations and bad DMs.

And just so you don't do the obvious midmax stuff. All Charisma skills must have 0 ranks. Which sure call it me moving goalposts but I seriously don't want to hear "Yeah I proved you wrong, I just had to max out one of these skills until I made all the enemies retreat" when my point was that you need to come off as a hero with none of the excessive power I say is required to be one. Giving yourself the excessive power anyway but in a different way is against the spirit of my dare.

[Orange Wizard]

Wow, Neo, I've seen you spew some serious shit over a post before, but that may just take the cake.

Which is funny, because this is one of the times where I think Neo is actually being reasonable. I don't agree with him on a lot of points, but he isn't actually spewing shit at this point.

That said...

I can kill a 40th level wizard with a first level kobold with base book stats.  All it takes is planning and intelligence.
...
If you think numbers are the deciding factor in every battle then you really have no effing clue how this game is actually intended to be played.

Hmm.

And numbers. The game's literally built around numbers. Hitpoints are a number. BAB is a number. AC is a number. Spell slots are a number. Saves are numbers. Skills are numbers.

You kill things by hitting them with numbers to reduce their numbers while keeping your own numbers as high as possible. To say the game isn't about numbers is basically trolling at this point.

...

This really isn't true in my experience.

Alright. I'll be honest, I haven't played much of 4E. I've seen enough to know that everything looks pretty much the same, but I'll defer to you for the time being if it doesn't actually play out like that once you get into it.

[Neonivek]

WOW!... I should do some editing after that response >_<

Ok I am going to nice up my older post.

[Orange Wizard]

Don't worry, I'm just a slow typist.

[Neonivek]

Ok I think I Nice'd up my earlier post so it is like accusatory and more "I don't believe you"

[Flying Dice]

ITT: Christ, what a fucking shitstorm haha.

My personal rule of thumb is that any sort of party is fine, so long as they attempt to keep their characters within the same general range of power. If you've got three primary casters who are built for fun and one superoptimized tripfighter, all good. If you've got a handful of fightan weeaboos and cut-rate casters, all good. If you've got a mix of Rogues, Fighters, Barbarians, &c. all at least built to do something, an optimized Monk or Knight is alright. If you've got a tier 3-4 spread of stuff and somebody brings a half-fey half-vampire venerable dragonwrought kobold sorcerer, they can go fuck themselves. If you've got a tier 2-3 spread of stuff and someone brings a thoroughly unoptimized Samurai paired with a stupid expression, they can fuck off.

tl;dr optimization is not inherently bad, and lack of optimization is not inherently bad. A good player optimizes to the degree required to make their character concept work and fit in with the party. A good DM tailors the difficulty of both combat and non-combat encounters to the party.

[Neonivek]

Oddly enough it is easier for me to stat out a character first (well in dnd) and write a story around that.

Then it is to write a story first.

But that is because as a writer I find that restrictions breed creativity rather than the other way around.

It is weird when a DM actually goes and tells me not to do it.

[Flying Dice]

Eh, to each their own. I typically follow a process like this:

"What sort of person do I want to be this campaign?"
|
"What sort of class and build would mesh with this person's personality?"
|
"What are the specific events which moved this person to the point that they occupy at the start of the campaign?"
|
"How do their habits and personality reflect those past experiences?"

It's chicken and egg simultaneously, so to speak.

[Neonivek]

I often look at what the classes can do and I go "Ohh that is interesting"

[Flying Dice]

Or, if you looked at Healer, "Eeeeeeeeeeh." 

Unless you're into literally being carried around and rubbed on people's injuries.