The other kind of min-maxing

[Prodan]

Yeah, caught onto your point and ninja edited it in.

That's cheating.

[Wings of Peace]

That's cheating.

It's a class feature of Forum Posters. It's not cheating, it's min/maxing

[Lhurgyof]

It's a class feature of Forum Posters. It's not cheating, it's min/maxing

Hahaha, can I use that in my sig? xD

[Wings of Peace]

Hahaha, can I use that in my sig? xD

It's yours.

[Devils_Advocate]

The less you're worried about the numbers, the easier it is to make a character that's fun to roleplay.

People can and do play games where the players give generally non-quantitative descriptions of their characters and their actions. Some players may indeed find that these free-form and/or rules-light systems are more fun to roleplay in (though others may not).

But if you show up to a session of D&D with a page-long description of a character but no stats, expect the rest of the group to be peeved at best. (That is, if you were expected to bring an already-finished character.) Don't expect them to be any happier if you just make up whatever numbers you think would be appropriate to the character that you have in mind, instead of following the rules for character creation.

Even if you followed the rules, the group may still complain if they feel that the character's abilities are inappropriate. This includes -- but is not limited to -- a perception that the character is "overpowered" or "underpowered".

So, D&D is indeed "not one of those games" in which numbers are disregarded. Worrying about the numbers is part of the appeal. Otherwise there would be no reason to have them.

[Wings of Peace]

People can and do play games where the players give generally non-quantitative descriptions of their characters and their actions. Some players may indeed find that these free-form and/or rules-light systems are more fun to roleplay in (though others may not).

But if you show up to a session of D&D with a page-long description of a character but no stats, expect the rest of the group to be peeved at best. (That is, if you were expected to bring an already-finished character.) Don't expect them to be any happier if you just make up whatever numbers you think would be appropriate to the character that you have in mind, instead of following the rules for character creation.

Even if you followed the rules, the group may still complain if they feel that the character's abilities are inappropriate. This includes -- but is not limited to -- a perception that the character is "overpowered" or "underpowered".

So, D&D is indeed "not one of those games" in which numbers are disregarded. Worrying about the numbers is part of the appeal. Otherwise there would be no reason to have them.

I think you're late to the party D_A as Lhurgyof has both retracted and apologized for the comment all while being very nice about it.

[penbed400]

My friends used to think that fighter, barbarian, rogue, base classes in general all just seemed to balance out to equal each other. Then I decided to play a Wizard(Focused Specialist: Illusion)5/ShadowAdept1/Incantatrix1/ShadowcraftMage3 in a friends level 10 campaign. Then they saw the light...well shadow.

[Runestar]

To me at least, better stats can help improve the satisfaction derived from roleplaying, because for all the trashtalking you do, it is ultimately your stats which determine whether you are successful at a particular task or not.

For example, say a red dragon breaths on your rogue. You can weave some fantastic tale about how he dances about dodging the flames, but unless he actually succeeds on his reflex save, he is still getting toasted.

So yeah, you can't roleplay if you are dead. That's really all there is to it, IMO.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

You know, a Cleric 3/Wizard 3/Mystic Theurge X might be weaker than a Cleric or Wizard of the same level, but it's still probably more powerful than the characters Umael's buddies are trotting out. I don't see much of a point being proven unless the MT is being played alongside a more powerful character; this is why it's always a great help to have a second knowledgeable player at the table.

So, Umael, if you just want to play a MT, don't let their groaning stop you. If you remain buff-oriented you shouldn't outshine anyone, even if you don't disprove any of their mistaken notions about D&D. If you're just trying to prove a point, I suggest against it unless you can invite someone who knows what they're doing to play a reasonably-optimized full caster next to your MT, and you're willing to be outshone every step of the way just to educate your fellow players. What a brave soul.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

If everyone else is playing some form of beat stick and you want to play a caster without dealing with Mystic Theurge, take a quick look at War Weaver. See that goodness there? Yeah, totally focused on buffing your minions friends. Using War Weaver, you can technically be the strongest member of the party without appearing as such: you just load up on a butt-ton of buffs, packing only a few debuffs or Save-or-Suck type spells so that it isn't apparent.

This way, your friends have fun whacking stuff while you're playing at about Tier 1-2 range, depending on how you slice it. They shouldn't notice this, though, as you're not the one doing the damage.

Read all of these.

[Umael]

Note to self: Read Harry Turtledove novel, then post idea in forum. Reverse order means won't check the thread for quite some time.


Okay, wow. Lots to go through.

My original purpose was a lot of things, a witch's brew of ingredients and thoughts. It was about correcting my friends' impression about which classes are broken and how badly, it was about getting to play a Mystic Theurge because I think the class is a neat idea even if the mechanics aren't the most supportive, it's about the value of playing a cool character even when the character is not optimized, it's about the ethics of optimization when you intentionally "gimp" your Tier 1 concept down to Tier 4 or 5.

It was probably more than that, now that I think about it. I think I detected a hint of nutmeg too.

To be fair, it's not just my friends. I mean, they drive me nuts sometimes, but I know I do the same for them. Part of these questions are for my benefit, and since I am not objective about myself, I wanted to (hopefully) phrase it in a manner which would allow for outside (and therefore, more objective) input.

I'll give a more detailed response when I have more time to read the replies thus far more carefully. Thank you all for what you have given so far.

[Psyx]

I mean, they drive me nuts sometimes

When that happens, sit back and reflect on how lucky you are. Your friends are enjoying the game for what it is, in the manner that it's supposed to be treated.

It would be far worse if you were sat around a table with a whole bunch of venerable dragonwrought kobolds, summoners, druids, RKVs and Naar Demonbinders.

[Greenish]

When that happens, sit back and reflect on how lucky you are. Your friends are enjoying the game for what it is, in the manner that it's supposed to be treated.

It would be far worse if you were sat around a table with a whole bunch of venerable dragonwrought kobolds, summoners, druids, RKVs and Naar Demonbinders.

Yeah, some people play the game totally wrong! How dare they!

[Hadrian_Emrys]

When that happens, sit back and reflect on how lucky you are. Your friends are enjoying the game for what it is, in the manner that it's supposed to be treated.

It would be far worse if you were sat around a table with a whole bunch of venerable dragonwrought kobolds, summoners, druids, RKVs and Naar Demonbinders.

Excellent straw man you have there.

For the record, disallowing a sub-optimally designed PrC on the unsupported grounds that it is over-powered is not how the game is "supposed" to be played either. It is a stance rooted in the technical ignorance typical of those who have a free form mindset and cannot be bothered to understand the rules/mechanics of the game they are playing.

[Psyx]

"cannot be bothered to understand the rules/mechanics of the game they are playing."

There's a difference between knowing the rules and knowing how to squeeze every last ounce of blag out of them. Most players manage to play D&D for years without knowing what 'Tier 1' means, or feeling the urge to play a venerable kobold based on their awesome stats.

[Hadrian_Emrys]

Knowing the rules means being able to grasp the concept that the Mystic Theurge PrC is not broken unto itself given the inherent -3 caster level up both sides as a prereq. Now, sure, one could use something like Ur-Priest and Sublime Chord to pull some late game silliness off, but that's a lot of work for so little effective gain as action economy caps off one's spell usage per round.

The earliest one typically gets into MT is level seven, putting the player at CL4 in both classes. So, instead of running around with level 3-4 goodies, the player gets a couple extra 0-1-2 spells. This isn't wringing out an ounce of anything from the rules, it's just looking at what actually is as opposed to how it appears at an inattentive glance.

tl;dr: The Mystic Theurge PrC makes Admiral Akbar's spidey sense tingle.

[ryzouken]

Eh, I had good mileage out of a theurge build a long while back, but it hinged on early entry shenanigans and making use of stuff a straight cleric would've abused just fine.

Hee... CL 19 Cleric, CL 11 (15) Wizard with Initiate of Mystra, Divine Metamagic: Persistent Spell, Craft Contingencies, and late levels in Dweomerkeeper. Free Miracles, Contingent effects that only activated if someone got through my 24 hr Anti Magic Field, a 24 hr AMF combined with a 24 hr Stormrage... fun stuff. Later version replaced Stormrage with Ghostform, so if you didn't have Ghostblight or the ability to be incorporeal as an ex ability... I was immune.

And I had Ray Deflection vs. those pesky orbs.

But yeah, usually not a good choice, the Theurge.

[Runestar]

It would be far worse if you were sat around a table with a whole bunch of venerable dragonwrought kobolds, summoners, druids, RKVs and Naar Demonbinders.

I don't see anything inherently wrong with a game that includes planar shepherds, dweomerkeepers and dragonspawn loredrake dragonwrought kobolds so long as the DM is able to accommodate and challenge them adequately.

So long as everyone is of roughly equivalent power, then it should all work out, regardless of what that power level is, as it means you don't have to worry about any players finding the encounters too easy or challenging.

If anything, this could make for a fun campaign, since their power level allows the DM to pull stunts he otherwise may not be able to use on a less powerful party, such as invading hell and taking Dispater head on (and I am talking about the cr60+ dicefreaks version, not the anemic FC2 one.

[Zovc]

Eh, I had good mileage out of a theurge build a long while back, but it hinged on early entry shenanigans and making use of stuff a straight cleric would've abused just fine.

Right, essentially the only purpose to use Mystic Theurge would be to get 'more mileage' in the sense of having more spells to cast. I'm sure some would argue that having less high-level spells would defeat the purpose of this.

Also, if you think OP's group frowns upon Mystic Theurge, see what they think of entering it before level 5.

Hee... CL 19 Cleric, CL 11 (15) Wizard with Initiate of Mystra, Divine Metamagic: Persistent Spell, Craft Contingencies, and late levels in Dweomerkeeper. Free Miracles, Contingent effects that only activated if someone got through my 24 hr Anti Magic Field, a 24 hr AMF combined with a 24 hr Stormrage... fun stuff. Later version replaced Stormrage with Ghostform, so if you didn't have Ghostblight or the ability to be incorporeal as an ex ability... I was immune.

For some reason, I doubt CL 19, 15, or even 11 has ever really been utilized by OP's group. If it has, it probably hasn't been utilized 'in an optimal manner'. Otherwise, I doubt OP's group would feel the way they do about the game as a whole.

But yeah, usually not a good choice, the Theurge.

Indeed, and OP agreed with you in the first post of this thread.

[taltamir]

For the record, disallowing a sub-optimally designed PrC on the unsupported grounds that it is over-powered is not how the game is "supposed" to be played either. It is a stance rooted in the technical ignorance typical of those who have a free form mindset and cannot be bothered to understand the rules/mechanics of the game they are playing.

Beautifully said.
I would point out that convincing them to let you run an already sub-optimal build if you hobble it further is a recipe for suffering.

@OP, I wouldn't bother... expect them to constantly give you crap about it and say "see, see! its over powered" every time you don't totally suck.
Just look at the classes they think are under powered and min/max one of those.

For example, if they think that wizard is totally the same power as fighter... well, play a wizard. You will be more powerful than a theurge, the DM will be less likely to ABUSE your character, and the other players wouldn't constantly whine bitch and moan about it either. (as long as you play them right... aka, give the fighter some buffs)

[Psyx]

I don't see anything inherently wrong with a game that includes planar shepherds, dweomerkeepers and dragonspawn loredrake dragonwrought kobolds so long as the DM is able to accommodate and challenge them adequately.

It's rather indicative of a bunch of people playing a bunch of numbers, rather than a roleplaying game, isn't it? Before the idiocy that is Races of the Dragon came out, what proportion of players were keen to play a hundred year old geriatric kobold? I can't remember anyone ever asking to play one.

I don't want to play a skirmish wargame. If I did, I'd play a better one than D&D.

I'm not sure what's worse:
1) One player in the group insisting on playing something insanely powerful compared to their 'friends' so that they are better than everyone else, resulting in the GM either upping the ante to the point where everyone not optimising to the max becomes roadkill or where the uber character destroys everything in its path and everyone else is essentially surplus.

2) Everyone in the party doing it.


I always feel annoyed at players who pull out all the stops to 'beat' me as a GM, rather than trusting me to set the level of difficulty in comparison to their characters; especially when they are doing it to the detriment of the rest of their friends. It doesn't make for a nice game. It also doubles the number of hours I have to spend statting things and thinking of 'oh yeah but they can do X clauses', which means less time thought about story arc, which is generally detrimental to the game. As a result, when the dice 'turn' on such characters, I don't bother giving the benefit of the doubt that I might give to a character who is playing a character first and foremost, regardless of the advantages/disadvantages of doing so.

[olentu]

tl;dr: The Mystic Theurge PrC makes Admiral Akbar's spidey sense tingle.

Ah good old Admiral Ackbar, I bet he thanks the force every day that he chose not to take penetrating strike.

It's rather indicative of a bunch of people playing a bunch of numbers, rather than a roleplaying game, isn't it? Before the idiocy that is Races of the Dragon came out, what proportion of players were keen to play a hundred year old geriatric kobold? I can't remember anyone ever asking to play one.

I don't want to play a skirmish wargame. If I did, I'd play a better one than D&D.

I'm not sure what's worse:
1) One player in the group insisting on playing something insanely powerful compared to their 'friends' so that they are better than everyone else, resulting in the GM either upping the ante to the point where everyone not optimising to the max becomes roadkill or where the uber character destroys everything in its path and everyone else is essentially surplus.

2) Everyone in the party doing it.


I always feel annoyed at players who pull out all the stops to 'beat' me as a GM, rather than trusting me to set the level of difficulty in comparison to their characters; especially when they are doing it to the detriment of the rest of their friends. It doesn't make for a nice game. It also doubles the number of hours I have to spend statting things and thinking of 'oh yeah but they can do X clauses', which means less time thought about story arc, which is generally detrimental to the game. As a result, when the dice 'turn' on such characters, I don't bother giving the benefit of the doubt that I might give to a character who is playing a character first and foremost, regardless of the advantages/disadvantages of doing so.

Eh as for 2 I really don't see the problem with playing fun powerful characters so long as everyone is fine with it. Sure you have the point that it might not work in your groups but there is no reason to be so disparaging about what for other groups might find to be just the thing for them.

[taltamir]

who is Admiral Ackbar?

[hamishspence]

Its a reference to the "It's a TRAP!" Admiral Ackbar meme.

[2xMachina]

Tier 4, 5's pretty suck though.

They can do 1 thing, if that.
If someone shows up with an unoptimized Truenamer, you'll have a bloody headache trying to make encounters for him in any case.

Tier 3 is pretty fine.

Personally, I don't bother with optimizing tier 1/2's. Sure, you can handle everything, if you plan for it, but that's a lot of work.

Some people DO play D&D as a strategy war game though. I do. It's better than computer games, cause they can't accept unexpected plans. And more customizable options (main reason I like 3.5)

EDIT: Ok, tier 4 isn't all that bad. They can be fine... but it's not so great.

[Amphetryon]

It's rather indicative of a bunch of people playing a bunch of numbers, rather than a roleplaying game, isn't it?

It's rather indicative of wanting to play professional adventurers who are the elite and good at there job, for a different perspective. The notion that I am only 'roleplaying' if my character's stats aren't good is at the heart of Stormwind Fallacy.

[Greenish]

It's rather indicative of a bunch of people playing a bunch of numbers, rather than a roleplaying game, isn't it?

That's a false dichotomy.

Before the idiocy that is Races of the Dragon came out, what proportion of players were keen to play a hundred year old geriatric kobold? I can't remember anyone ever asking to play one.

Races of the Dragon did things to kobold fluff, too, made them something other than low level speedbumbs. Besides, Loredrake, Sovereign Archetypes nor even Greater Dragonic Ritual are in RotD.

I don't want to play a skirmish wargame. If I did, I'd play a better one than D&D.

There's a difference between thinking about the numbers too and playing a skirmish wargame.

1) One player in the group insisting on playing something insanely powerful compared to their 'friends' so that they are better than everyone else, resulting in the GM either upping the ante to the point where everyone not optimising to the max becomes roadkill or where the uber character destroys everything in its path and everyone else is essentially surplus.

What has that to do with anything? Just because you play a high-strength barbarian or a bard without racial charisma penalty doesn't mean you're trying to be better than everyone else.

[taltamir]

Its a reference to the "It's a TRAP!" Admiral Ackbar meme.

oh right... that one :P. I should have just googled right away before even asking. I just assumed its a gitp forums thing.

[lsfreak]

It's rather indicative of a bunch of people playing a bunch of numbers, rather than a roleplaying game, isn't it?

I'm going to play off this real quick.

You're a professional soldier. You probably have at least some concept of good training versus bad training, and if you've got an Int or Wis of at least 8 (probably more like 6), you're going to know you should figure out what training is good and what training is bad. Would such a character not look into various kinds of training, figure out what tends to be effective and what not?

As you're regularly risking your life for your profession, it is poor roleplaying to not look at the numbers.

[Runestar]

Before the idiocy that is Races of the Dragon came out, what proportion of players were keen to play a hundred year old geriatric kobold? I can't remember anyone ever asking to play one.

You just answered your own question.

Nobody played a hundred year old geriatric kobold prior to races of dragon exactly because the rules couldn't support the creation of a viable kobold PC. Emphasis being on the word "viable". They were intentionally watered down so they could make for very weak npcs, but that also meant PC kobolds were screwed, as there was no precedent for a negative LA.

You should be thankful that RoD made such a concept viable. What does that say about "rollplaying", when it actually increases the variety of character archetypes available.

You can say that stats aren't everything to a PC, but to me, without stats, the PCs are nothing.