That 2e DMG quote is flatly wrong. Particularly the point where it directly tells you to punish the player by arbitrarily deciding that he gets to suck. "Rocks fall, but only you die" is no way to DM.
That's not even close to what it says. It's suggesting that you highlight the weaknesses of their choices by putting them in situations where their min/max decision isn't doing them any favours, which is a really common tactic I've seen used all the time.
So, because it's common to be a jerk DM to players and intentionally avoid their characters' strength and penalize their weaknesses, then it's okay?
Sorry, no.
No, but the DM certainly has to find ways to exploit those weaknesses, else you will have a player with a 'max' that comes up every battle and a 'min' that never comes up, and the player will just steal the spotlight every time.
So its not about punishment really, its about knowing your players and creating a balance.
Its one of the reasons I don't like 'character flaws' in games, because players choose flaws that never really come up in exchange for bonuses.
But yeah, the DM has to be careful not to be a jerk about it and not make it so intentional because that will just lead to an argument or an angry player.
That's not even close to what it says. It's suggesting that you highlight the weaknesses of their choices by putting them in situations where their min/max decision isn't doing them any favours, which is a really common tactic I've seen used all the
Min/maxing involves optimizing both penalties and bonuses. As such, I do not min/max, I optimize. In 4e, there were no racial penalties, so min/maxing was not possible. It is the same for the playtest, this topic is a not an issue.
As for optimization, my characters are usually heroea, so not making them strong would be counterintuitive.
Min/maxing involves optimizing both penalties and bonuses. As such, I do not min/max, I optimize. In 4e, there were no racial penalties, so min/maxing was not possible. It is the same for the playtest, this topic is a not an issue.As for optimiza
I gotta say, Kadim, I'm both impressed and appalled that you managed to reframe this as an attack on free speech.
hah
Well I just think WOTC would write better games if they weren't such scrotums about speaking their minds. Good work is done by making a choice and being clear about your direction. This conciliatory nonsense that appears to be a culture in the books seems to rise from some kind of fear of criticism - justified or not.
I appreciate that TSR were plain in their opinions. I wish WOTC was.
hahWell I just think WOTC would write better games if they weren't such scrotums about speaking their minds. Good work is done by making a choice and being clear about your direction. This conciliatory nonsense that appears to be a culture in the boo
The extract of the 2e DMG above is agreeing with you on this point. what they're pointing out is that someone who is building something that is detrimental to the rest of the game deserves a bit of a smacking and they should be shown that the detrimental behaviour is not acceptable or even helpful by highlighting where their min/max is so very min.
That is a very good point. If the player is going to "MAX" then the DM can't forget to "MIN." If the DM fails to run his game with a good balance of situations that cater to both then he isn't doing his job. That character in play isn't being fully realized at the table. Both negative and positive aspects of a character must come into play and it's the DM's job to make that happen.
For example, the player picks the outlaw background for its mechancial benefits alone (optimizes), he can't then expect not to be hunted by the authorities in the game. A DM who doesn't take that negative aspect into consideration is not being fair to that character. I know I'd be upset if I was playing an outlaw and it just never ment anything in the game, after a while I'd look for a new DM.
That is a very good point. If the player is going to "MAX" then the DM can't forget to "MIN." If the DM fails to run his game with a good balance of situations that cater to both then he isn't doing his job. That character in play isn't being ful
Some people don't play this game for the drama and pathos, some of us just like to kill things and will build our characters thusly. Especially if we're in a system that already disfavors the archetype (3e and non-casters). PArt of DnD's appeal in my mind has always been its ability to bring people together, story tellers, actors, strategists, geeks, freeks, and nerds of all stripes. Is everyone going to enjoy the same aspects of the game? no! Does there need to be some juggling so people can get their individual fixes in? Yes! Can players create either intentionally or un, problematic characters? Oh heck yeah, I once put together a 3e character with a near perfect progression of abilities from 6 different classes, then there was the build that ended up with a 60+ str score.
That said the game rules should work to keep optimized and un optimized characters from growing too distant from one another. In 4e you could min-max like crazy but your core attributes remained in line with other PCs and you were generally still reliant on them for things. An optimized character couldn't take over the game like it did in 3e.
Min-maxxing is going to happen the rules should work to keep it manageable, and the DM needs to work to do the actual managing, that said if someone does come up with a completely uber-borked godling that is stealing all the action time and time again, then yeah you need to have a talk and adjust a few things. Which means yes people will on occasion get butthurt about something, the DM will on occasion be too heavy handed, and injustices will be committed. That's just life, WotC doesn't write the rules for that. Furthermore such problem builds need to be submitted to the attention of WotC for eratta.
Some people don't play this game for the drama and pathos, some of us just like to kill things and will build our characters thusly. Especially if we're in a system that already disfavors the archetype (3e and non-casters). PArt of DnD's appeal in my
See I can't tell if that's a problem build or not just from that.
IF it was I'd encourage you to switch a few things around (make use of retraining rules), or if I had the time I'd just complete a few of the character's major adventure motivations, and the rest of the party can have a little farewell shindig in your honor as your PC says good-bye.
I'd also write wizards to inform them of of the bork up, and encourage them to address the issue in some manner (hopefully via erratta or by explaining how our reading of the rules was wrong).
The deifinition of a problem build is also tricky because a lot depends on the players, I've known some players who barely participate in combat, and some who really shouldn't, so won't put up a stink no matter how borked another player's build is. On the other hand a 3e wizard fan boy get's all whiny if non-casters have anything to do besides spam basic attacks.
It's not always a clear call.
See I can't tell if that's a problem build or not just from that.IF it was I'd encourage you to switch a few things around (make use of retraining rules), or if I had the time I'd just complete a few of the character's major adventure motivations, an
See I can't tell if that's a problem build or not just from that.
IF it was I'd encourage you to switch a few things around (make use of retraining rules), or if I had the time I'd just complete a few of the character's major adventure motivations, and the rest of the party can have a little farewell shindig in your honor as your PC says good-bye.
I'd also write wizards to inform them of of the bork up, and encourage them to address the issue in some manner (hopefully via erratta or by explaining how our reading of the rules was wrong).
It's an old 3e loophole. Basically dragonwrought kobolds were considered true dragons and took on the monster template - which included access to epic feats pretty much right away. Epic feats are designed for characters who exceed the PHB ceiling (in 3e, 20) so you'd end up with things you just weren't meant to have.
Broken and anyone who actually allowed it was basically starting the game under the premise that the game was gonna be a free for all.
It's an old 3e loophole. Basically dragonwrought kobolds were considered true dragons and took on the monster template - which included access to epic feats pretty much right away. Epic feats are designed for characters who exceed the PHB ceiling (in
Personally I make a divide between mechanical and flavorful for most things. Yes I might choose a particularly iconic spell or class or race because it fits perfectly with the idea, but most times I just make a mechanically powerful character and then build something interesting on top of it.
I have a few characters that started out that way - and one that is built ENTIRELY on a mechanical concept (although not a particularly high-power one) but usually right at the start, and almost always very soon, I have ideas for the character as a person. And that will constrain my mechanical choices.
I did my first 4E character right after MP2 came out. I looked at the Tempest Fighter and Dual Strike, thought "that would be a great striker", and started building it. By the time I had decided on a race, I wasn't building a Tempest Fighter striker any more; instead I was building a dancer. By the time I was picking skills, the dancer was self-exiled nobility; and before I was done, I knew why he was self-exiled.
In 4e, in my understanding of 4e, your sheet is what your character fights like. Everything else is how you play at the table.
This is half of why I think that the claim that "AEDU makes everyone the same" is absurd. The other half is that even in combat I see huge differences in how characters play. Some people may not be able to tell the difference between sticking your sword in one goblin and spreading superglue over half the battlefield, but I can.
I believe characters should be built as it the character built themselves. If the character is a min/maxer of some degree, then he or she is built like one of the same degree.
And EVERY character that enters a highly dangerous profession is going to want to improve his ability to survive. Which in the case of a profession that involves a lot of combat, will involve some blend of ways to avoid being hit and ways to take down the enemy faster. It won't involve a lot of Craft:Basketweaving, except in a world that uses wicker armor.
That doesn't mean the character will spend NO resources on anything that doesn't involve combat. But it does mean that spending all resources on combat, and spending them on the combat-best options, is more plausible than spending very little on combat.
In other words, characters themselves would minmax to some (varying) degree.
I think there's a self-regulating element. If one character outperforms the group, or one character underperforms, that character will likely get swapped out to keep the game fun.
This. That dancer I built turned out to be, oddly enough, way too mobile to fit in well with the group I was in at the time. I was planning his death when I moved and had to leave the group.
--------------------------------
The character Minmax (yep that's his name) in the Goblins webcomic - if you haven't read it, go there now - is an extreme case (not a parody, I've seen people try for similarly extreme) of what gets mocked. This guy is a 3E character and not a Barbarian, so by RAW he's literate. He talked the DM into letting him give that up in exchange for a combat-related bonus. Along with:
the ability to rhyme on purpose
the ability to wink
the ability to dress himself
and I may have forgotten a few.
(Notice I said I've seen people try for similarly extreme. I've never seen one of them get away with it.)
I have a few characters that started out that way - and one that is built ENTIRELY on a mechanical concept (although not a particularly high-power one) but usually right at the start, and almost always very soon, I have ideas for the character as a p
At least if we mean the epic feats from draconomicon, those often required you to be a dragon and epic (cl 21+), there may have been one or two that alternate requirements for true dragons that pushed them down from epic requirements, but the feats were not technically epic.
Being a monster doesn't give special early access to epic feats. It's just that monsters rack up HD faster than PCs and can thus qualify for epic feats despite technically being a 20- CR.
A PC doesn't get to play that game because his HD should never be higher than his CL.
Oh that, see that doesn't work.At least if we mean the epic feats from draconomicon, those often required you to be a dragon and epic (cl 21+), there may have been one or two that alternate requirements for true dragons that pushed them down from epi
At least if we mean the epic feats from draconomicon, those often required you to be a dragon and epic (cl 21+), there may have been one or two that alternate requirements for true dragons that pushed them down from epic requirements, but the feats were not technically epic.
Being a monster doesn't give special early access to epic feats. It's just that monsters rack up HD faster than PCs and can thus qualify for epic feats despite technically being a 20- CR.
A PC doesn't get to play that game because his HD should never be higher than his CL.
The text was vague enough to include ALL epic feats in the game. 'Course, most of them had prerequisites that were well out of reach for a lvl 3 character but there were enough were out there to break the system well and proper. It's been a while since I dug up that bit of text and when I did it was to laugh at it and put it away so I could be mixing up the details.
I personally never tried to make a character like that, 'cause it's stupid and disruptive. I don't think anyone who has any sense of fair play would unless the point of the game was expressly to abuse whatever they could get their hands on.
The text was vague enough to include ALL epic feats in the game. 'Course, most of them had prerequisites that were well out of reach for a lvl 3 character but there were enough were out there to break the system well and proper. It's been a while sin
I gotta say, Kadim, I'm both impressed and appalled that you managed to reframe this as an attack on free speech.
hah
Well I just think WOTC would write better games if they weren't such scrotums about speaking their minds. Good work is done by making a choice and being clear about your direction. This conciliatory nonsense that appears to be a culture in the books seems to rise from some kind of fear of criticism - justified or not.
I appreciate that TSR were plain in their opinions. I wish WOTC was.
Are you saying WoTC as in the higher ups or WoTC as in the devs currently working on 5E? Because the devs are daily lambasted and insulted and criticized for every little thing they do. Mearls is burned in effigy at least once a week. Some people on these boards seem to equate his name with Hitler. That would take thicker skin than your reference to dirty parts indicates.
hahWell I just think WOTC would write better games if they weren't such scrotums about speaking their minds. Good work is done by making a choice and being clear about your direction. This conciliatory nonsense that appears to be a culture in the boo
I've min/maxed guys and role-played the hell out of them. My current 5E rogue is technically min/maxed using the array in the packet. But he is terribly boring and uninteresting in combat (which I hope will be corrected next packet). Does this make me a min/maxer? I've min/maxed characters to optimize their combat performance, i've min/maxed to optimize their out of combat performance. I've min/maxed to create generalists. I've come up with character concepts first and made the character on those concepts. I've rolled a character, optimized the hell out of it, and then came up with his story.
In short, claiming min/maxing dare diametrically opposed is a false dichotomy. They exist regardless of one another. Jerk players will be jerk players no matter what and jerk DMs will be jerk DMs no matter what. Being a jerk isn't exclusive to either 'camp'.
I've min/maxed guys and role-played the hell out of them. My current 5E rogue is technically min/maxed using the array in the packet. But he is terribly boring and uninteresting in combat (which I hope will be corrected next packet). Does this mak
Min/max-ing is good. Every character should try his/her/its hardest to be a productive member of the team, and that usually means playing to the character's strengths while trying to avoid becoming a liability for others. It's a form of social responsibility.
What I think puts some people off about the practice is that it can be difficult for the player to figure out how to represent this in terms of game mechanics (ability score, classes, feats, weapon choices, etc). It could be as straightforward as the strong guy wanting to use a heavy weapon to get the most out of his strength, and choosing to wear heavy armor to make up for his lack of mobility. Once that is settled, he could feel free to select whichever other skills or feats he wants, knowing that he's done his part.
In practice, sometimes there can be unexpected interactions between particular feats and class features (or sometimes racial features, or magic items). This can hurt immersion ("how is the prancy elf swinging that big sword harder than my dwarf paladin swings his axe?"), and sometimes it can lead to incredible power disparity ("why is my paladin even here, if the elf can solve everything by herself?"). Sometimes, especially as editions continue and feat lists grow, it can feel like you're obligated to justify every feat with some mechanical bonus, or you're not fulfilling your obligation - and even if you've resigned yourself to that, there's no guarantee that you've chosen the right combination of feats.
That sort of thing, if you're not a very particular kind of player, can feel like a huge burden. (Point buy is a major culprit here.) You just want to play your dwarf and beat up the bad guys, reclaim your homeland and all that jazz. Blaming min/max seems like the easy way out, but it's hiding the real problem, which is a poorly written system (or to be more generous, it's a system designed for a different kind of player).
A well-designed system (in my opinion), is one which doesn't obfuscate its rules with complex interactions, which very clearly explains what everything means, and which keeps the combinatiorial of choices to a minimum. That way, everyone can very clearly see how to min/max appropriately, and there are no huge suprises down the line due to unforeseen circumstances. (And then, if you want, you can add more choices on top of that, in an entirely optional feature for the kind of players who do like those extra choices.)
D&DN is actually doing a pretty good job of that so far, which is why it's such a tragedy that the fundamental math is so far beyond salvagable as to make the entire thing unplayable.
Min/max-ing is good. Every character should try his/her/its hardest to be a productive member of the team, and that usually means playing to the character's strengths while trying to avoid becoming a liability for others. It's a form of social resp
Are you saying WoTC as in the higher ups or WoTC as in the devs currently working on 5E? Because the devs are daily lambasted and insulted and criticized for every little thing they do. Mearls is burned in effigy at least once a week. Some people on these boards seem to equate his name with Hitler. That would take thicker skin than your reference to dirty parts indicates.
I'm saying that the books published by WOTC have used significantly less direct language when describing the game. I don't know exactly why they've taken that tact but I don't like it.
Since I don't know why, I should probably not attribute the company with cowardice but I do sorta feel like a decision to not be direct as a generally conciliatory and scrotal thing to do.
I could, of course, be wrong.
I'm saying that the books published by WOTC have used significantly less direct language when describing the game. I don't know exactly why they've taken that tact but I don't like it.Since I don't know why, I should probably not attribute the compan
Min/Maxing is fine as long as the mechanics don't allow it to unbalance the game. I love 4e, but I've played with a min/maxed 1st level 4e party that could have gotten through a seventh level adventure. Two of them could often hit even when rolling a 2 or 3. That type of min/maxing breaks the game for those that don't want to do it. The mechanics should allow for characters to be different (and yes, some even stronger than others). But, it should not be so heavily weighted where one character is worthless next to his min/maxed out friend.
Min/Maxing is fine as long as the mechanics don't allow it to unbalance the game. I love 4e, but I've played with a min/maxed 1st level 4e party that could have gotten through a seventh level adventure. Two of them could often hit even when rolling
As long as there are options, there will be optimization.
You can't avoid it, it's not harmful to roleplaying, and attempting to fix it is just going to gut the mechanical stability of the game.
Traveller. The skills that you gain in character generation are (semi-) random. Optimisation does not happen. The game is hardly mechanically unstable, having settled on it's current task resolution system back in the 1980s with very small nomenclature changes since. Nor does the lack of optimisation potential mean there aren't options.
Random rolling where in certain situations it is possible to reroll is very optimizable...the easiest example of this is classic roll 4d6, take the best 3. If I roll only 12s or worse, I have incentive to make my character die - at which point, I'll get to likely reroll my character again and odds are incredibly good that I get a better set of rolls.
Go to almost any table that uses the above rolling system and invariably, the group will be above the average expected values because of all kinds of handwaving to avoid such situations - if someone rolls 12s or worse, they'll often be allowed by the DM to simply reroll to avoid having that character deliberately throw the adventure off the rails to die faster.
Traveler has similar optimization potential. You pick the stupid dangerous character creation routes and if you die, you reroll. If you don't like the output of character creation, you mess up tactically or strategically in some way and then again, die and therefore reroll.
Repeat until you're more powerful than expected.
Traveller. The skills that you gain in character generation are (semi-) random. Optimisation does not happen. The game is hardly mechanically unstable, having settled on it's current task resolution system back in the 1980s with very small nomenclatu
Lol, seriously if a player did that whole pick dangerous options with dying as a recourse to failure thing, his character would be pretty immortal. Either that or not sitting at my table for long.
Lol, seriously if a player did that whole pick dangerous options with dying as a recourse to failure thing, his character would be pretty immortal. Either that or not sitting at my table for long.
It happens to some degree almost everywhere and with almost everything, but it's mostly absent at my tables. In fact if anything we're min/min'ers. We purposefully try to gimp characters as much as possible, and make the game Hard Mode x2.
It happens to some degree almost everywhere and with almost everything, but it's mostly absent at my tables. In fact if anything we're min/min'ers. We purposefully try to gimp characters as much as possible, and make the game Hard Mode x2.
I'm going to be the d-bag that this thread needs, and say I don't care, at all, about what he thinks about min/maxing, or why he thinks what he does, even in the face of the information in the OP. The first thing I'm going to do, is link one of the top five essays on role-playing games of all time, "How to Min/Max and Not Feel Ashamed." It's all in the spoiler link, and a large portion of the middle body is unimportant game-specific content, as this deals with another game, one which focuses on narrative much more than D&D will ever do. I mark the points where game-specific content begins and ends.
How to Min-Max and Not Feel Ashamed By Matthew McFarland In case you’re fortunate enough not to know the terminology, to “min-max” in a role-playing game is to arrange your characters traits (or “stats&rdquo in such a way as to maximize success for a certain kind of roll or action, typically combat, at the expense of other types of rolls. The rolls that usually fall by the wayside are social or mental ones. The thinking, here, as best as I understand it, is that combat always comes down to dice rolls, whereas the social stuff you can just roleplay out. Another hypothesis is that the lingering feeling is that combat is the most important part of the game, so that’s where the points should go to have a “successful” character. You’re probably expecting me to make some kind of crack about “roll-playing” and tell you what a lousy idea min-maxing is. I am, in fact, going to do just the opposite. Min-maxing is a great idea. You just have to do it right.
Beginning of game-specific content.
How to Min-Max. Assume that good min-maxing should get you at least three successes on any given roll. Yes, for noncombat rolls, more than one success is superfluous, but in combat or contested rolls (or in extended actions, for that matter), three successes is quite respectable. Besides, to bank on an exceptional success, you need something like 15 dice, and that’s hard to manage even with good min-maxing. Okay, so the goal is three successes. Eight dice gives about a 50/50 chance there, so let’s say we want between eight and ten dice for our min-maxed rolls. Taking it step by step: 1) Identify the rolls at which you want your character to succeed. Be general at this stage; “combat,” “research,” and “social stuff” are all fine. While you’re at it, spare a thought to how the character got so kickass at this sort of thing. Schooling? Natural talent? An obsessive drive to be the best? Secretive instruction by a character who only appears at night?
2) Narrow it down. You can’t be superhuman at everything, at least not to start with. Take the type of rolls you identified before and get specific. Think about the types of situations they’d be useful in, and about how you envision your character making use of them. If you said “combat” before, then figure out what kind of weapons (if any) your character should use. Is he a crack shot? A martial arts master? An expert swordsman? At the end of this step, you should be able to identify the character’s most common dice pool. 3) Assign Attributes and Skills. Obviously, you could just give yourself a dice pool of 10 right now. Just pump the Attribute and Skill in question up to five, and you’re already there! The problem with that, of course, is that the World of Darkness Rulebook (p. 34) says that taking five dots in a Skill, Attribute, or Merit costs two dots. That means that, where Attributes are concerned, you’re going to put all five dots in your primary category into one Attribute, while the 217 other two get stuck at one dot. For Skills, it’s not quite so bleak — you’ll be left with one or five dots to put into the other Skills in a given category, depending on whether your chosen Skill is in your secondary or primary group.
Now, I personally house-rule that “five dots costs six dots” thing right out the window. The intent behind it was to prevent min-maxing, I guess; actually, the stated intent might have been to reflect the awesome effort and talent that’s necessary to get to that level of mastery. Here’s a dirty secret, though: five dots means one more than four dots. That’s it. You don’t inflict lethal hand damage at Strength 5, you aren’t Sherlock Holmes at Investigation 5 (but go check out Extraordinary Mortals on p. 52!), and you aren’t going to automatically know your enemy’s thoughts at Empathy 5. You get one more die on applicable rolls with five dots in a trait. Hell, you can get one more die by using the right kind of cologne (no, seriously, p. 85 of the World of Darkness Rulebook), so the reality doesn’t match the logic. Fortunately, that’s not a hard one to fix. Just drop the “fifth dot costs double” thing (and do it for Merits, too; it’s really hard figuring out Merits like Haven and Safehouse and the like with that rule in effect) and let’s move on. After you’ve assigned Attributes and Skills, you want a base dice pool of not less than six. Let’s assume you’re making a gunfighter, because it’s an easy one.
Your dice pool is Dexterity + Firearms. If you put your character’s Dexterity up to four (assuming that Physical Attributes are primary, that leaves Strength and Stamina at 2, which isn’t bad) and you give your character Firearms 3, that’s seven dice as a base. That’s fine. 4) Assign Specialties. Pretty obvious what to do here, right? Be as general as your Storyteller will let you get away with. Here’s why: I can take a Firearms Specialty in “Pistols,” or I can take one in “.357 Magnum,” and they do exactly the same thing, except that one is a hell of a lot more useful. And remember, a Specialty nets you exactly one more die. So for our hypothetical gun-bunny, I’ll take Specialties in Shotgun and Pistols. My dice pool is now eight with either of those kinds of weapons. (Plus, if my character is good with a .357 Magnum, is it really weird to suggest he’d be good with a 9mm, or a .45 ACP?) 5) Assign Merits. The World of Darkness Rulebook is by no means the only source of Merits. Armory and Armory Reloaded have a bunch of Fighting Styles between them, and books like World of Darkness: Asylum and World of Darkness: Midnight Roads have other, non-combat-related ones. I’m just going to mention the ones in the core book, but if you’ve got other sourcebooks, use ‘em! (But check with your Storyteller.) When you’re checking out Merits and you’re trying to min-max well, have a look at the systems for the traits. A good choice for a Merit is one that has a clear, easily-defined effect on game mechanics.
A Merit that’s not appropriate for the min-maxer is one that doesn’t have a mechanical bonus, or one in which the bonus is too small for the dot rating you’re spending. A good example here is Striking Looks. For two dots, you get one die on certain rolls. Granted, it’s a good variety of rolls, but in my humble opinion, you’re better off figuring out what Skill you’re going to use the most often and taking a Specialty. That doesn’t eat two of your Merit dots (which you could use to buy, say, Resources — money should always be good for an equipment modifier), and it doesn’t carry the “people always remember you” drawback, which can be a bit of a pain. Now, for our gunslinger, I’m thinking that the Merit of the same name is appropriate. What it does (allow two attacks in a turn) is well worth three Merit dots. The decision I have to make then is whether I want to blow three more dots on Ambidextrous (negating the offhand penalty; I think it’s probably wise, given that I can’t decide to go back and get it later). Okay, there you have it. I now have a character with a base of eight dice to shoot people with pistols or shotguns.
Since most pistols have a 2(L) bonus, I get 10 dice on my first shot and nine on my second. I can bank on about three successes per roll for those pools, meaning I can take a normal opponent (Health 7, that is) down in one turn. If I spend Willpower, that adds three more dice. With a shotgun, we add new wrinkles; my dice pool goes to 12, but I also get 9-again, which means I’m likely to get even more successes. 6) Min-maxing in play. Of course, if you’re not min-maxing a combat roll, you’re going to have to work for it a little more. The key, here, is equipment modifiers. The guideline is no more than +5 from equipment on any given roll, but the World of Darkness Rulebook advises little modifiers for being well-dressed, having the right tools, and choosing your surroundings carefully. When the Storyteller describes a scene, ask if a given facet of that scene is good for a bonus on your chosen roll. This might seem like grubbing for a few extra dice. It is, but that’s not a bad thing (see below)! Finally, remember that you can get a three-dice bump for any roll by spending a point of Willpower. If you get hit with a modifier that you didn’t expect (maybe because of some supernatural influence — could happen, right?), that’s a good way to offset it.
End of game-specific content.
Why to Min-Max Role-playing games began as modified war games. This is why a lot of role-playing games have huge combat systems, whether or not the setting really How to min-max and not feel ashamed 218 appendix-house rules calls for a lot of combat. In a game like that, it’s not at all unreasonable to want your character to be great at fighting, and since he gets better at fighting when certain numbers on his sheet go up, it makes sense for you to arrange those numbers in the best way possible. And then games like Vampire: The Masquerade came along, and asked people to redefine how they look at mechanics vis-à-vis having fun in the game. And suddenly we had this weird assumption that if you paid attention to game traits and how they impacted your character, that was, well, kind of gauche. It’s not that everyone expected the characters to suck (lots of games out there make pathetic starting characters), it’s just that attending to mechanics just wasn’t “cool.” Well, to hell with that. The Storyteller system works when you use it.
Besides which, if a player cares enough to read the rules, learn them, and put the effort into realizing that 9-again is only of real, mathematical benefit at the 12-dice mark or thereabouts, well, that player has something invested in the game. And those are the players I want at my table. I’m by no means suggesting that someone who doesn’t want to crunch numbers isn’t invested, of course — I’m not a math guy myself, by nature. I just feel that it’s okay to want your character to be awesome. We could talk all day about genre, setting considerations, horror tropes, and the like, but let’s be real. Some games you play because you want to watch your characters go slowly insane, die in horrible tragic pain, or get eaten by their big, red god. The World of Darkness isn’t that sort of game.
It’s about dark mystery, maddening symbolism, occult exploration and, in a lot of ways, the triumph of cooperation and ingenuity over malicious forces (or forces more malicious than your characters, anyway). In that kind of setting, your character can be impressive in his chosen arena, because no matter how impressive he is, someone or something that can kill him with a thought is just around the corner. There’s one more step involved in min-maxing, and I saved it for the end here because it ties in with the second bit of the title of this essay: don’t be ashamed. Talk to your Storyteller and tell her you want opportunities for your gunslinger character to hold off an advancing mob of zombies with two pistols. Tell her you want your social charmer to be able to navigate a room full of vampires on sheer charisma and a strategically placed shaving cut. Tell her you want your researcher to burn the midnight oil to unlock the secret of the Chamfort Letters. Tell her there is no shame in being awesome, and you’ve got the dice pools to back it up.
With that out of the way, if I ever meet the guy who wrote that section of the AD&D 2nd Edition DMG, that person's getting punched, just like I'm punching Antonidas of Ninja Theory if I ever meet him in real life.
Now, I have a question for people, because the way something keeps getting brought up is confusing the hell out of me. Why do people seem to think there is a difference between role-playing and combat? Am I just reading something into peoples' ideas that isn't there, or did someone somewhere along the lines decide that combat wasn't somehow a part of role-playing?
I'm going to be the d-bag that this thread needs, and say I don't care, at all, about what he thinks about min/maxing, or why he thinks what he does, even in the face of the information in the OP. The first thing I'm going to do, is link one of the t
A well-designed system (in my opinion), is one which doesn't obfuscate its rules with complex interactions, which very clearly explains what everything means, and which keeps the combinatiorial of choices to a minimum. That way, everyone can very clearly see how to min/max appropriately, and there are no huge suprises down the line due to unforeseen circumstances. (And then, if you want, you can add more choices on top of that, in an entirely optional feature for the kind of players who do like those extra choices.)
I thought we agreed on a couple of things.. but I wasnt too sure. The above is one.
I thought we agreed on a couple of things.. but I wasnt too sure. The above is one.
Now, I have a question for people, because the way something keeps getting brought up is confusing the hell out of me. Why do people seem to think there is a difference between role-playing and combat? Am I just reading something into peoples' ideas that isn't there, or did someone somewhere along the lines decide that combat wasn't somehow a part of role-playing?
I can't explain in conflict is the center of stories.. without it there is no story...
I can't explain in conflict is the center of stories.. without it there is no story...
A character who puts a three in Charisma in an environment where every character will need to make a large number of charisma checks (enough that the -4 is worth worrying about, so worth worrying about that it's not actually worth it to do that) is not effectively min/maxed relative to the environment to begin with. It's just a character who's a little bad at something. Min/maxing happens relative to an environment. If an environment happens to have the property that a competency is super important for every single character and you completely abandon that competency, that's just making someone who is bad at something important. A character with a three in constitution in a game where people expect to be attacked by monsters is not well min-maxed. A character with a three in charisma in a game where people expect to have to make the (relatively high) number of relatively important charisma checks it would take to make Charisma not a trap stat for non-face characters is not well min-maxed relative to that environment. "Ha! We'll see who's laughing when you have to make a million charisma checks or be executed!!" is not victory over min/maxers, it's victory over people who give there characters glaring weaknesses to things that are actually important. The reason that "dump charisma" is associated with min/maxing is because historically across a wide variety of playstyles and across every edition making charisma your lowest stat or a very low stat has been relatively consequence-free. (There's also a certain common gamer twitch that also makes people see negative scores as grossly more high-impact than they actually are.)
A character who puts a three in Charisma in an environment where every character will need to make a large number of charisma checks (enough that the -4 is worth worrying about, so worth worrying about that it's not actually worth it to do that) is n
Ok either adventure design has deteriorated even further, or something is screwy because a min-maxxed 4e character shouldn't be able to nail level appropriate enemies on a 2 or a 3.
Ok either adventure design has deteriorated even further, or something is screwy because a min-maxxed 4e character shouldn't be able to nail level appropriate enemies on a 2 or a 3.
With that out of the way, if I ever meet the guy who wrote that section of the AD&D 2nd Edition DMG, that person's getting punched, just like I'm punching Antonidas of Ninja Theory if I ever meet him in real life.
Ha, if that section has you this incensed, next time you're on amazon or ebay, or in an old game store, see if they have any copies of the 2e books. You ought to be able to get the core set for under $20. I'm sure it would be very educational, and probably get your blood hot, too.
Now, I have a question for people, because the way something keeps getting brought up is confusing the hell out of me. Why do people seem to think there is a difference between role-playing and combat? Am I just reading something into peoples' ideas that isn't there, or did someone somewhere along the lines decide that combat wasn't somehow a part of role-playing?
Oh no, it's definitely there. Sometime in the past(I wanna say it was in the early 90's, but I'm not sure on that. Suffice to say it was quite long ago), there was a pretty big movement putting forth the idea that combat is not roleplaying, that real roleplaying is about emotional struggles and blathering with NPCs, and that you're pretty much just a horrible person if you enjoy anything that happens during an initiative count. It's complete bunk, but there are still quite a number of adherents to the idea. If you really want to see it come out, ask around about what D&D is about.
Ha, if that section has you this incensed, next time you're on amazon or ebay, or in an old game store, see if they have any copies of the 2e books. You ought to be able to get the core set for under $20. I'm sure it would be very educational, and
Ha, if that section has you this incensed, next time you're on amazon or ebay, or in an old game store, see if they have any copies of the 2e books. You ought to be able to get the core set for under $20. I'm sure it would be very educational, and probably get your blood hot, too.
For the good of my neighborhood, I think I'll try and stay away from those books. I'm not The Incredible Hulk or anything like that, more like Clyde from Law Abiding Citizen.
Oh no, it's definitely there. Sometime in the past(I wanna say it was in the early 90's, but I'm not sure on that. Suffice to say it was quite long ago), there was a pretty big movement putting forth the idea that combat is not roleplaying, that real roleplaying is about emotional struggles and blathering with NPCs, and that you're pretty much just a horrible person if you enjoy anything that happens during an initiative count. It's complete bunk, but there are still quite a number of adherents to the idea. If you really want to see it come out, ask around about what D&D is about.
Wow. I guess those people need to be reminded that the fight scenes in the original Star Wars trilogy were some of the most important moments in the series. Like Garthanos said, dramatic conflict is often the heart of a story.
Now, that isn't to say all conflict needs to specifically be combat, but there are few conflicts that are as harrowing and viscerally satisfying as violent ones. That's why gladitorial games were so loved back in the day. For a lot of characters, the time that they are in combat, even friendly sparring, who that character is can come out in ways it otherwise wouldn't. It's a time where pretense melts away.
(You can probably tell I like my combat to be as bone-crunchingly blood-spurtingly violent as can be. It makes people rage when it happens to a character they like, and makes them cheer when it happens to someone they hate. I do my best to get players to imagine the plaintive screams of pain and the sleek high cutting of steel into flesh. When I see someone shiver, I know I have the result I'm after.)
For the good of my neighborhood, I think I'll try and stay away from those books. I'm not The Incredible Hulk or anything like that, more like Clyde from Law Abiding Citizen.Wow. I guess those people need to be reminded that the fight scenes in the o
I min/max all the time, but I do my best to back it up with a concept.
My character creation generally goes like so:
"hmm I wonder how I can make this class work for me" *rummage through pdfs, apply google-fu* "dude cool let's try that"
I'll then proceed to make the character from a systemic standpoint using my resources to create the best thing I can, but I always try not to just pull a build off a website or something. I'll use the general direction I've researched: relevent sourcebooks, multiclassing advice; but I will do my own reading and make my own decisions about the build - I don't work from a script.
After the character is written down, I read it over again with a conceptual eye and start to write the backstory. The higher level the character, the more I write.
Exact same though I generally just start with I want to make a character that does X make the character then invent a backstory.
its building like that that got me to figure out the one man werewolf pack build in 4e*, and got me a monk in 3.5 that has almost all the monk features, turn undead, lay on hands, smite(i think), and aura of good. He is a blend of the eastern and western monk ideas. making him a monk of pelor (or something similar) because he also has a nimbus of light type thing going on (I found a DM willing to actually let me have vow of poverty) Though I have to rebuild him because I lost the character sheet. Building him started with the simple idea of I want a monk the ruins undead especially vampires. I've been rewarded for the build and concept with a guarnateed wuxia angtagonist for my monk to battle a few times in the story line.
*if you missed the explanation of the one man werewolf pack: -Race Longtooth Shifter (wolf man looking) -Class: Hybrid Ranger and Sentinel Druid of Spring (druid gives you your first wolf) -Theme: Pack Outcast (you can turn into a wolf and at level 10 you get hybrid form) -Background: Parentage - Rraised by Wolves(Birth) -First Feat: Hybrid Talent->Ranger Fighting Style->Beast Mastery->Wolf (ding second wolf companion) -Second Feat: Spirit Talker(nets you a spirit companion which you can flavor to look like a wolf) -Possible third feat: mending spirit (you will be syphoning surges like crazy to keep these guys alive the surgless healing from mending spirit cannot be overlooked) -Powers to take: Summon Pack Wolf, Summon Elder Pack Wolf, -Paragon class: Nocturnal allows you to summon a small pack of shadow wolves that provide some flanking partners(I reflavored them to just be more wolves because I liked it but you could go a little dark side and keep the shadow wolves) -Epic Destiny: Beast Lord -Items to aquire: Dire Wolves
That is just the basic breakdown. Reflavor the whole thing to be that the wolves are all actually members of your werewolf pack, and are werewolves that just enjoy the wolf shape more than the humanoid shape. Or possibly have them transform into humanoids for walking around town. This part really depends on DM flexibility. I still haven't been given a campaign to play this guy in yet so I haven't yet tailored a back story for him.
Exact same though I generally just start with I want to make a character that does X make the character then invent a backstory.its building like that that got me to figure out the one man werewolf pack build in 4e*, and got me a monk in 3.5 that has
Ha, if that section has you this incensed, next time you're on amazon or ebay, or in an old game store, see if they have any copies of the 2e books. You ought to be able to get the core set for under $20. I'm sure it would be very educational, and probably get your blood hot, too.
For the good of my neighborhood, I think I'll try and stay away from those books. I'm not The Incredible Hulk or anything like that, more like Clyde from Law Abiding Citizen.
Oh no, it's definitely there. Sometime in the past(I wanna say it was in the early 90's, but I'm not sure on that. Suffice to say it was quite long ago), there was a pretty big movement putting forth the idea that combat is not roleplaying, that real roleplaying is about emotional struggles and blathering with NPCs, and that you're pretty much just a horrible person if you enjoy anything that happens during an initiative count. It's complete bunk, but there are still quite a number of adherents to the idea. If you really want to see it come out, ask around about what D&D is about.
Wow. I guess those people need to be reminded that the fight scenes in the original Star Wars trilogy were some of the most important moments in the series. Like Garthanos said, dramatic conflict is often the heart of a story.
Now, that isn't to say all conflict needs to specifically be combat, but there are few conflicts that are as harrowing and viscerally satisfying as violent ones. That's why gladitorial games were so loved back in the day. For a lot of characters, the time that they are in combat, even friendly sparring, who that character is can come out in ways it otherwise wouldn't. It's a time where pretense melts away.
(You can probably tell I like my combat to be as bone-crunchingly blood-spurtingly violent as can be. It makes people rage when it happens to a character they like, and makes them cheer when it happens to someone they hate. I do my best to get players to imagine the plaintive screams of pain and the sleek high cutting of steel into flesh. When I see someone shiver, I know I have the result I'm after.)
Not gunna lie that got a little creepy at the end there...I've heard creepier but still...creepy.
For the good of my neighborhood, I think I'll try and stay away from those books. I'm not The Incredible Hulk or anything like that, more like Clyde from Law Abiding Citizen.Wow. I guess those people need to be reminded that the fight scenes in the o
In the words of Stover, "I want people to feel like they've lived through something." Granted, this means I have to be careful, because not everyone wants to live through an insane armored monster grippping them in their jaws and trying to thrash them in half.
But I prefer maximum grit, villains that make people want to look for a stronger explitive than "F***** up," and s***** situations that no one in their right mind wants to be in. Not for the sake of gratuitousness, but to give people the opportunity to be overcoming heroes, and the more vivid the image, the more real the experience.
I'll take it as a compliment.
In the words of Stover, "I want people to feel like they've lived through something." Granted, this means I have to be careful, because not everyone wants to live through an insane armored monster grippping them in their jaws and trying to thrash the
Min/Maxing and optimization are not the same thing. The only reason it's true in D&D is because the game is designed that way. You could make a game where having balanced abilities is optimal, and you could make a game where there are very clear trade offs such that min/maxing helps in some areas but overall isn't better than other builds. For example, the game could be designed such that improving attacks weakened a player's defense, in which case a person had to choose between strong offense and strong defense. If both extremes, and everything in between, were viable then it would be very hard for pure optimizers to outclass the other characters.
If people think that Min/Maxing is a problem, then it really is a system issue and not just a player issue.
Min/Maxing and optimization are not the same thing. The only reason it's true in D&D is because the game is designed that way. You could make a game where having balanced abilities is optimal, and you could make a game where there are very clear trad
I have no problem with min/maxing. As long as there are numbers to tweak, normal, rational people will try and get the best when they can. That's just how the human brain works.
Now blatant, rediculous powergaming? That's where I draw the line
I have no problem with min/maxing. As long as there are numbers to tweak, normal, rational people will try and get the best when they can. That's just how the human brain works.Now blatant, rediculous powergaming? That's where I draw the line :)
Taking 4 particular classes, most likely following a build you saw online, so that you become an unstopable killing machine thanks to certain well placed abilities.
Or a 4e character that takes certain abilities and items that work "too" well together and breaks the game.
Any time a character is refered to as a "build" really is at least a yellow flag to me
I will give an example. In a pathfinder game I ran a player took 1 level barbarian and 1 level of inquisitor. He took the inquisitor power that let him enlarge person for x rounds a day. So at 2nd level he enlarged, raged, and had a reach weapon. So he had 28 strength (or 26, I cant remember how much enlarge gives), 15 foot reach, and a large sized weapon dealing 3d8 damage. At level freaking 2.
He dealt almost 3x as much as the next highest damage dealer in the group, and everyone else felt useless :P When I asked him why he did this he replied "I wanted to see how rediculous it would be."
That's what I mean by powergaming. When your character is having fun at the expense of other people, for no good reason.
Edit: Oh, and I forgot people who abuse techicalities, bad wording, and obvious mechanical oversights
Taking 4 particular classes, most likely following a build you saw online, so that you become an unstopable killing machine thanks to certain well placed abilities.Or a 4e character that takes certain abilities and items that work "too" well together
It depends on the extent of the powergaming sometimes too. Like I abused a loophole in 4e that lets Hexblade's summoned blades have two magic item properties at once[Rod and a Ki Focus](I forget exactly how it works, along the lines of a Ki Focus works through any weapon, magic or nonmagic, but overrides the innate property of a magic weapon, but the hexblade's weapon has no properties, it just mimics the implement's properties.)
The full effect of this loophole abuse? Changing my at-will Hexblade attacks to fire, giving me a +1 to attack rolls, with just my melee at-wills. Not exactly gamebreaking.
It depends on the extent of the powergaming sometimes too. Like I abused a loophole in 4e that lets Hexblade's summoned blades have two magic item properties at once[Rod and a Ki Focus](I forget exactly how it works, along the lines of a Ki Focus wor
Rather than flavour around my optimisation I prefer to optimise around my flavour.
If I want to play a ranged sniper, I will take everything to make my guy do the most damage at range as possible (but I try to avoid blatantly out of theme gimmicks)
If I want to play a dual wielding Barbarian I'll start with that concept, then pick the best of the options available to me to maximise that concept.
If I want to play a pacifist healing Cleric I'll start with that idea and then maximise my healing to silly levels.
If I want to play a Necromancer wizard... well you get the idea.
I don't want to use crappy abilities or have crappy feats if there's a clearly superior option. I want my character to do the best at the role I've chosen for them.
The rest of my group does the same, though. So for us it's about a tough Ranger, a tough Barbarian and a tough Necromancer adventuring together. We are usually fairly competitive with each other from the point of view of damage/ contribution.
Rather than flavour around my optimisation I prefer to optimise around my flavour.If I want to play a ranged sniper, I will take everything to make my guy do the most damage at range as possible (but I try to avoid blatantly out of theme gimmicks)If
Welp, I see no possible way this could turn into a flame war.
Carry on.
Yeah, please don't feed the troll people. It isn't even a clever or imaginative one. "I don't understand why people enjoy constrained optimization!!!!!!"
Calling someone a troll is a CoC violation. As is trolling them... like you did in the above post.
Yeah, please don't feed the troll people. It isn't even a clever or imaginative one. "I don't understand why people enjoy constrained optimization!!!!!!"[/quote]Calling someone a troll is a CoC violation.As is trolling them... like you did in the a
Ok either adventure design has deteriorated even further, or something is screwy because a min-maxxed 4e character shouldn't be able to nail level appropriate enemies on a 2 or a 3.
Not at first level, no, but I play with someone who hates missing, and puts every resource into accuracy.
With a high attack stat, the right items and feats, accurate powers etc. you can get in the area you were talking about.
Not at first level, no, but I play with someone who hates missing, and puts every resource into accuracy.With a high attack stat, the right items and feats, accurate powers etc. you can get in the area you were talking about.
Taking 4 particular classes, most likely following a build you saw online, so that you become an unstopable killing machine thanks to certain well placed abilities.
Or a 4e character that takes certain abilities and items that work "too" well together and breaks the game.
Any time a character is refered to as a "build" really is at least a yellow flag to me
I will give an example. In a pathfinder game I ran a player took 1 level barbarian and 1 level of inquisitor. He took the inquisitor power that let him enlarge person for x rounds a day. So at 2nd level he enlarged, raged, and had a reach weapon. So he had 28 strength (or 26, I cant remember how much enlarge gives), 15 foot reach, and a large sized weapon dealing 3d8 damage. At level freaking 2.
He dealt almost 3x as much as the next highest damage dealer in the group, and everyone else felt useless :P When I asked him why he did this he replied "I wanted to see how rediculous it would be."
That's what I mean by powergaming. When your character is having fun at the expense of other people, for no good reason.
It doesn't sound so much like he was trying to ruin the others' experience, just like he was trying to have some fun with a different set-up. Anyone who is purposefully trying to have fun at other peoples' expense isn't a powergamer, but a dirty dirty munchkin.
Edit: Oh, and I forgot people who abuse techicalities, bad wording, and obvious mechanical oversights
Rules lawyers? Yeah, they're evil.
It doesn't sound so much like he was trying to ruin the others' experience, just like he was trying to have some fun with a different set-up. Anyone who is purposefully trying to have fun at other peoples' expense isn't a powergamer, but a dirty dirt
Lol, seriously if a player did that whole pick dangerous options with dying as a recourse to failure thing, his character would be pretty immortal. Either that or not sitting at my table for long.
That's the thing - groups go out of their way to avoid such situations by making it no longer completely random when someone gets unhappy about what they rolled. How many times in a roll 4d6, best of 3, have you seen a DM tell a player to pick the lowest roll and reroll it when they've had horrible luck? Or find out what the lowest high score is and just give it to the character?
That's not random, but a lot of groups do this without even noticing that it happens. The groups that don't reroll at all are usually the ones with a crazy high death rate at 1st level - only the strong aka above average rolled characters will survive.
You can notice this a lot in 1e-2e games - the difference between a 14 Con Wizard and 16 Con Wizard was breathtaking...
That's the thing - groups go out of their way to avoid such situations by making it no longer completely random when someone gets unhappy about what they rolled. How many times in a roll 4d6, best of 3, have you seen a DM tell a player to pick the lo
Ok the power gaming in that comic is just min-maxxing a broken system. It's the system's fault for creating that situation.
That's why I consider 3e to be a min-maxxer's playground, becuase it's easy to min-max and the results are dramatic. This is because the game is completely borked. If the player is using legitimate tactics and builds, it's the devs' fault for not being careful.
Example: in 3e if you played a 1/4 human, 1/4 dragon, 1/4 minotaur, 1/4 ogre you could rack up a +24 strength at the cost of a +4 LA. Was this over the top? Oh completely. Was it perfectly legal in game terms (assuming the GM allowed those templates)? Yes.
3e had a solid system underneath it, but when the devs actually wrote the feats, races, classes, and spells they borked it up tremendously, often because they ignored the ramifications of the core system interacting with the content they wrote for it, or the content interacting with other bits of content.
If you don't want wild disparity between PCs of the same level you have to have careful content writers.
Also: No 4e is too math deadlocked there aren't enough constant attack bonuses to run up a character's attack that much higher than it should be for his level. Now there are ways to rig it up so you almost never miss, but most of that is re-rolls and conditional bonus trigger abuse.
Ok the power gaming in that comic is just min-maxxing a broken system. It's the system's fault for creating that situation.That's why I consider 3e to be a min-maxxer's playground, becuase it's easy to min-max and the results are dramatic. This is be
There is no 1/4 dragon or 1/4 minotaur or 1/4 ogre template in 3e. The closest thing I can think of to any of that is a half-dragon. It's been a while since I looked through Savage Species but I don't remember a half-ogre or half-minotaur.
I kind of want to do a half-dragon minotaur now.
There is no 1/4 dragon or 1/4 minotaur or 1/4 ogre template in 3e. The closest thing I can think of to any of that is a half-dragon. It's been a while since I looked through Savage Species but I don't remember a half-ogre or half-minotaur.I kind of w
The 1/4th is just math logic re-asserting itself. the templates were half-minotaur, half-dragon, and half-ogre.
Half-dragon gave +8 str, and a +3 la, half-minotaur gave +4, boosted you to large and gave you the +8 from that, all for a measly +1 LA, and half-ogre only increased LA if applied to a creature whose size would be increased (ie someone who was small or medium and since the half-minotaur had already increased the size there was no LA increase from the half-minotaur) but still handed out a +4 str.
Also the draconic template was commonly used for 1/4th dragons.
The 1/4th is just math logic re-asserting itself. the templates were half-minotaur, half-dragon, and half-ogre.Half-dragon gave +8 str, and a +3 la, half-minotaur gave +4, boosted you to large and gave you the +8 from that, all for a measly +1 LA, an
The 1/4th is just math logic re-asserting itself. the templates were half-minotaur, half-dragon, and half-ogre.
Strictly taking the templates as they read, you can't have more than two halves. I don't think that it should just be taken for granted that you can take multiple templates of that nature just because it doesn't explicitly state you can't.
Half-dragon gave +8 str, and a +3 la, half-minotaur gave +4, boosted you to large and gave you the +8 from that, all for a measly +1 LA, and half-ogre only increased LA if applied to a creature whose size would be increased (ie someone who was small or medium and since the half-minotaur had already increased the size there was no LA increase from the half-minotaur) but still handed out a +4 str.
Half-ogre is a base race, not a template, and it's auto +1, and doesn't say anything about size. I'm not seeing a half-minotaur anywhere.
Strictly taking the templates as they read, you can't have more than two halves. I don't think that it should just be taken for granted that you can take multiple templates of that nature just because it doesn't explicitly state you can't.Half-ogre i
It's in one of the issues of dragon, article titled: strange bedfellows, had write ups for half minotaur, ogre, satyr, rakshasa, doppleganger, nymph (not fey, but specifically half-nymph), and genie.
As for the 4 halves issue, that's kind of the point. The system allows it, so even if it is crazy and non-sensical to you or me, it's still legal according to the rules of the game. The people writing the rules have to be careful. 3e suffered from sloppyness.
It's in one of the issues of dragon, article titled: strange bedfellows, had write ups for half minotaur, ogre, satyr, rakshasa, doppleganger, nymph (not fey, but specifically half-nymph), and genie.As for the 4 halves issue, that's kind of the point
It's in one of the issues of dragon, article titled: strange bedfellows, had write ups for half minotaur, ogre, satyr, rakshasa, doppleganger, nymph (not fey, but specifically half-nymph), and genie.
See, this is why I don't auto-allow splat, especially redundant splat that tries to deal with concepts that are already better represented elsewhere.
As for the 4 halves issue, that's kind of the point. The system allows it, so even if it is crazy and non-sensical to you or me, it's still legal according to the rules of the game.
I don't remember seeing anywhere that says that is allowed. Combine that with the fact that those templates are "halves" kind of puts a nail into that particular coffin.
The people writing the rules have to be careful. 3e suffered from sloppyness.
Yeah, no argument here. They really could have been more clear on a lot of points.
See, this is why I don't auto-allow splat, especially redundant splat that tries to deal with concepts that are already better represented elsewhere.I don't remember seeing anywhere that says that is allowed. Combine that with the fact that those tem
There was no limit on the number of templates that could be applied to a creature, PC or NPC, none of the templates specified that the creature became ineligible for other half templates. There was no rule written to prevent it, thus it was legal, regardless of whether or not it made logical sense outside the rules of the templates. There were no nails in the coffin.
You didn't even need splat, the splat just provided additional options, you could have a 4 halves beasty with just the MM, admittedly at a much higher LA, but with much better overall stats.
There was no limit on the number of templates that could be applied to a creature, PC or NPC, none of the templates specified that the creature became ineligible for other half templates. There was no rule written to prevent it, thus it was legal, r
There was no limit on the number of templates that could be applied to a creature, PC or NPC, none of the templates specified that the creature became ineligible for other half templates. There was no rule written to prevent it, thus it was legal, regardless of whether or not it made logical sense outside the rules of the templates. There were no nails in the coffin.
See, I have a problem with the assumption that it has to explicitly say you can't do something for you to not be able to do something. Just because it doesn't explicitly say you can't take multiple classes for each individual level doesn't mean you can. Since they're "halves" it would be impossible for there to be more than two halves.
Imagine trying to explain that in character. "I'm half ogre, half human, half troll, half red dragon, half nymph..." More than two halves is impossible, and it doesn't say you can do that, so, I'm going to say it can't be done. Other DMs may disagree with me, but the most stringent interpretation of RAW says no.
You didn't even need splat, the splat just provided additional options, you could have a 4 halves beasty with just the MM, admittedly at a much higher LA, but with much better overall stats.
So long as the LA puts them in line with other characters of that level, I'm okay with that. Then again, generally level adjustments were a bad idea, since they crippled you pretty severely in the long run.
See, I have a problem with the assumption that it has to explicitly say you can't do something for you to not be able to do something. Just because it doesn't explicitly say you can't take multiple classes for each individual level doesn't mean you c
I'll see your interpretation, Zaramon, and raise you by one: I don't see why you should be able to have more than one "half" template, screw two. You need to have a base race to apply the template to in the first place. Base half + template half = whole critter.
I'll see your interpretation, Zaramon, and raise you by one: I don't see why you should be able to have more than one "half" template, screw two. You need to have a base race to apply the template to in the first place. Base half + template half
See that's the point I'm trying to make. RAW allowed it, meaning it was legal unless the DM specified otherwise. It doesn't matter whether you think it's silly. It's completely legal within the standard rules framework.
Just because you think a feat combo is stupidly nonsensical doesn't change the RAW.
I think that 5e packet humans are broken, nonsensical, and a stain upon DnD's honor, doesn't mean that they're not a legal choice of race by RAW.
See that's the point I'm trying to make. RAW allowed it, meaning it was legal unless the DM specified otherwise. It doesn't matter whether you think it's silly. It's completely legal within the standard rules framework.Just because you think a feat c
I'll see your interpretation, Zaramon, and raise you by one: I don't see why you should be able to have more than one "half" template, screw two. You need to have a base race to apply the template to in the first place. Base half + template half = whole critter.
Well that's what I mean. When I said "two halves" I meant one half for the template, and the other half for the base race it is being applied too. Now, that still doesn't stop stuff like the half black dragon troll death knight, but that is super high LA and gimmicky. Fun though.
See that's the point I'm trying to make. RAW allowed it, meaning it was legal unless the DM specified otherwise.
If RAW allows it, then you can point to where it says it allows it.
Well that's what I mean. When I said "two halves" I meant one half for the template, and the other half for the base race it is being applied too. Now, that still doesn't stop stuff like the half black dragon troll death knight, but that is super hig
Each template had it's own rules for legitimate base creatures. There was no rule that limited th number of templates on a creature. The various half-templates do not render the creatures they are applied to incompatible with most of the other half-templates.
There is no rule that forbids the creation of a creature with the half -fiend, -dragon, and - celestial templates.
Half-template is not an official designation, there is no special rule concerning half-templates, because htey are not recognized by the rules as being a special category.
So the same rules apply to them as all other templates. You are allowed to stack templates as long as the base creature remains a legal target for the templates. Thus you are allowed to stack half-templates, becaus ehalf-templates, are not special, no matter how much you think they should be.
Each template had it's own rules for legitimate base creatures. There was no rule that limited th number of templates on a creature. The various half-templates do not render the creatures they are applied to incompatible with most of the other half-t
Each template had it's own rules for legitimate base creatures. There was no rule that limited th number of templates on a creature. The various half-templates do not render the creatures they are applied to incompatible with most of the other half-templates.
There is no rule that forbids the creation of a creature with the half -fiend, -dragon, and - celestial templates.
Half-template is not an official designation, there is no special rule concerning half-templates, because htey are not recognized by the rules as being a special category.
So the same rules apply to them as all other templates. You are allowed to stack templates as long as the base creature remains a legal target for the templates. Thus you are allowed to stack half-templates, becaus ehalf-templates, are not special, no matter how much you think they should be.
Again, if RAW allows the stacking of half templates, you can point to where it says it.
Know who came up with that? Bush. Know how he came up with it?Argument from silence (argumentum e silentio) – where the conclusion is based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence.He saw that logical fallacy and though
Page 293 of the 3.5 monster manual states that multiple templates may be applied.
Half-templates are templates and have no rules specifying a limit (even if such would make sense).
As such multiple half-templates may be applied.
See half-template is not a distinction the game makes, it's not a category according to the rules. Sort of how drakes don't get a sub-type within the larger dragon type. Most DnD players will recognize a drake as a dragon type creature without the distinct age categories of true dragons, and usually lessers of the true dragons ins size, power, magic, and intellect. However while they are called drakes, and players recognize the group they have no special rules (if anything they are defined by the lack of the usual special rules regarding true dragons).
Drake is not a category possessing special rules, neither half-template. As such both are subject ot the normal rules for overall group, the dragon type for drakes, and templates for half-templates.
There is nothing special about a half-template.
Page 293 of the 3.5 monster manual states that multiple templates may be applied.Half-templates are templates and have no rules specifying a limit (even if such would make sense).As such multiple half-templates may be applied. See half-template is no
Again, if RAW allows the stacking of half templates, you can point to where it says it.
RAW doesn't, and never has, stated in explicit language everything that is available to you.
Care to prove that?
Where does RAW say that you can attempt to disarm someone by throwing your shield at their wrist? It doesn't. As I said "RAW doesn't, and never has, stated in explicit language everything that is available to you."
RAW doesn't, and never has, stated in explicit language everything that is available to you.[/quote]Care to prove that?[/quote]Where does RAW say that you can attempt to disarm someone by throwing your shield at their wrist? It doesn't. As I said "
Again, if RAW allows the stacking of half templates, you can point to where it says it.
RAW doesn't, and never has, stated in explicit language everything that is available to you.
Care to prove that?
Quite simply spoken: All of your character die if they exist for more than a minute. There is no rule which states that you can breathe, and as such per RAW all character will die form suffocation within a short few minutes. What a badly designed game this is...
RAW doesn't, and never has, stated in explicit language everything that is available to you.[/quote]Care to prove that?[/quote]Quite simply spoken: All of your character die if they exist for more than a minute. There is no rule which states that you
Again, if RAW allows the stacking of half templates, you can point to where it says it.
RAW doesn't, and never has, stated in explicit language everything that is available to you.
Care to prove that?
Quite simply spoken: All of your character die if they exist for more than a minute. There is no rule which states that you can breathe, and as such per RAW all character will die form suffocation within a short few minutes. What a badly designed game this is...
You know, there's rules for suffocation in the 3e DMG, and it gives very clear conditions required for suffocation. It requires more than just existing for a minute. Good try though.
RAW doesn't, and never has, stated in explicit language everything that is available to you.[/quote]Care to prove that?[/quote]Quite simply spoken: All of your character die if they exist for more than a minute. There is no rule which states that you
Half-template is not a recognized subgroup, it has no special rules, therefore the rule on page 293 of the monster manual that allows stacking templates allows stacking half-templates.
My previous post however covers it.Half-template is not a recognized subgroup, it has no special rules, therefore the rule on page 293 of the monster manual that allows stacking templates allows stacking half-templates.
Again, if RAW allows the stacking of half templates, you can point to where it says it.
RAW doesn't, and never has, stated in explicit language everything that is available to you.
Care to prove that?
Quite simply spoken: All of your character die if they exist for more than a minute. There is no rule which states that you can breathe, and as such per RAW all character will die form suffocation within a short few minutes. What a badly designed game this is...
You know, there's rules for suffocation in the 3e DMG, and it gives very clear conditions required for suffocation. It requires more than just existing for a minute. Good try though.
Prove it. Point to where it says your character is always breathing.
RAW doesn't, and never has, stated in explicit language everything that is available to you.[/quote]Care to prove that?[/quote]Quite simply spoken: All of your character die if they exist for more than a minute. There is no rule which states that you
Tiefling Paladin. A Tiefling Paladin is allowed, by RAW, but it isn't ever explicitly stated to be allowed. There are doubtless people out there to whom it doesn't make sense that the Gods would choose a holy champion that has the ichor of the Abyss running in his veins, but it's a legal choice.
How about a less zany example?Tiefling Paladin. A Tiefling Paladin is allowed, by RAW, but it isn't ever explicitly stated to be allowed. There are doubtless people out there to whom it doesn't make sense that the Gods would choose a holy champion
Prove it. Point to where it says your character is always breathing.
Check out the 3.5 DMG article on the suffocation condition. Since it says what is required for suffocation, it is clear that suffocation can only happen under those conditions. If that's the case, then it can't happen under any other conditions. If it can't happen under any other condition, then your character must be breathing for that time when it can't happen. If not, it would be a contradiction of the rules.
Tiefling is a base race right? You can pick your race and your class, RAW is very clear on that, and the tiefling entry specifically confirms that not all tieflings are evil via it's alignment entry. So, I've got RAW saying you can do that.
It's not crazy to ask someone to prove a claim if they make one. RAW says you can add templates. Some templates are half-breeds. It's impossible to have half-breeds with multiple half-templates. Just like it's impossible to be a full elf and a full dwarf, or impossible to be sickened and not be sickened at the same time. One condition by necessaity eliminates the other.
Check out the 3.5 DMG article on the suffocation condition. Since it says what is required for suffocation, it is clear that suffocation can only happen under those conditions. If that's the case, then it can't happen under any other conditions. If i
Again, if RAW allows the stacking of half templates, you can point to where it says it.
RAW doesn't, and never has, stated in explicit language everything that is available to you.
Care to prove that?
Where does RAW say that you can attempt to disarm someone by throwing your shield at their wrist? It doesn't. As I said "RAW doesn't, and never has, stated in explicit language everything that is available to you."
Because I think it got lost in the conversation, allow me to repost this:RAW doesn't, and never has, stated in explicit language everything that is available to you.[/quote]Care to prove that?[/quote]Where does RAW say that you can attempt to disarm
Where does RAW say that you can attempt to disarm someone by throwing your shield at their wrist? It doesn't. As I said "RAW doesn't, and never has, stated in explicit language everything that is available to you."
Are you talking about the ranged disarm feat? And thank you for re-posting it.
Are you talking about the ranged disarm feat? And thank you for re-posting it.
Where does RAW say that you can attempt to disarm someone by throwing your shield at their wrist? It doesn't. As I said "RAW doesn't, and never has, stated in explicit language everything that is available to you."
Are you talking about the ranged disarm feat? And thank you for re-posting it.
No, I'm not talking about that feat. I'm talking about just doing it.
Are you talking about the ranged disarm feat? And thank you for re-posting it.[/quote]No, I'm not talking about that feat. I'm talking about just doing it.
Tiefling is a base race right? You can pick your race and your class, RAW is very clear on that, and the tiefling entry specifically confirms that not all tieflings are evil via it's alignment entry. So, I've got RAW saying you can do that.
But that's exactly my point. A Tiefling Paladin is every bit as RAW legal as multiple half-templates. How much sense it does or does not make is irrelevant when discussing RAW. There are explicit rules about picking your race and class, and they do not prohibit this choice. Further more, neither the Paladin class nor the Tiefling race include specific rules to modify the general.
Much the same as the templates argument.
But that's exactly my point. A Tiefling Paladin is every bit as RAW legal as multiple half-templates. How much sense it does or does not make is irrelevant when discussing RAW. There are explicit rules about picking your race and class, and they d
Prove it. Point to where it says your character is always breathing.
Check out the 3.5 DMG article on the suffocation condition. Since it says what is required for suffocation, it is clear that suffocation can only happen under those conditions. If that's the case, then it can't happen under any other conditions. If it can't happen under any other condition, then your character must be breathing for that time when it can't happen. If not, it would be a contradiction of the rules.
Then again, where in the book does it tell you how to breathe? Where are the rules for that? There are no rules for breathing, so by your interpretation of RAW you cannot breathe. So suffocation rules come into play. Seems to be perfectly in line with your reasoning...
Check out the 3.5 DMG article on the suffocation condition. Since it says what is required for suffocation, it is clear that suffocation can only happen under those conditions. If that's the case, then it can't happen under any other conditions. If i
Did anyone actually read my previous two posts on this subject?
It is being ignored in an attempt to not loose an argument, I'd say. People tend to do that.
Or the old no "argument" (popular around these parts...)/no one cares thing.
It is being ignored in an attempt to not loose an argument, I'd say. People tend to do that.[/quote]Or the old no "argument" (popular around these parts...)/no one cares thing.
Page 293 of the 3.5 monster manual states that multiple templates may be applied.
Half-templates are templates and have no rules specifying a limit (even if such would make sense).
As such multiple half-templates may be applied.
See half-template is not a distinction the game makes, it's not a category according to the rules. Sort of how drakes don't get a sub-type within the larger dragon type. Most DnD players will recognize a drake as a dragon type creature without the distinct age categories of true dragons, and usually lessers of the true dragons ins size, power, magic, and intellect. However while they are called drakes, and players recognize the group they have no special rules (if anything they are defined by the lack of the usual special rules regarding true dragons).
Drake is not a category possessing special rules, neither half-template. As such both are subject ot the normal rules for overall group, the dragon type for drakes, and templates for half-templates.
There is nothing special about a half-template.
You still can't have more than two halves. Unless there's a rule that says you can, the nature of the templates themselves make it non0functional in a setting.
You still can't have more than two halves. Unless there's a rule that says you can, the nature of the templates themselves make it non0functional in a setting.
Page 293 of the 3.5 monster manual states that multiple templates may be applied.
Half-templates are templates and have no rules specifying a limit (even if such would make sense).
As such multiple half-templates may be applied.
See half-template is not a distinction the game makes, it's not a category according to the rules. Sort of how drakes don't get a sub-type within the larger dragon type. Most DnD players will recognize a drake as a dragon type creature without the distinct age categories of true dragons, and usually lessers of the true dragons ins size, power, magic, and intellect. However while they are called drakes, and players recognize the group they have no special rules (if anything they are defined by the lack of the usual special rules regarding true dragons).
Drake is not a category possessing special rules, neither half-template. As such both are subject ot the normal rules for overall group, the dragon type for drakes, and templates for half-templates.
There is nothing special about a half-template.
You still can't have more than two halves. Unless there's a rule that says you can, the nature of the templates themselves make it non0functional in a setting.
A half-celestial elf has a baby with a half-dragon human. What is race of the baby?
And that's not even mentioning the other possible ways of getting those templates, like a half-dragon becoming infused with celestial power (and thus the half-celestial template).
You still can't have more than two halves. Unless there's a rule that says you can, the nature of the templates themselves make it non0functional in a setting.[/quote]A half-celestial elf has a baby with a half-dragon human. What is race of the baby?
Not a half celestial, half elf, half human, half dragon, that's for sure. It's just straight-up impossible. If you actually want to know how that could turn out, it could wind up being a half dragon half elf, or half human half celestial, or half dragon half celestial. But it's a mathematical impossibility to have more than two halves. This whole idea of multiple watered down aspects doesn't even work in real world genetic either, and there is no 1/4 templates in 3.5 that I'm aware of.
Not a half celestial, half elf, half human, half dragon, that's for sure. It's just straight-up impossible. If you actually want to know how that could turn out, it could wind up being a half dragon half elf, or half human half celestial, or half dra
Draconic creature was specifically for dragon blooded creatures that lacked enough blood connection to be considered half-bloods.
I never claimed it was logical, or that there was a good way for it to happen, however regardless of your inability to comprehend, it was still legal, still allowed by the rules as they were written.
Draconic creature was specifically for dragon blooded creatures that lacked enough blood connection to be considered half-bloods.I never claimed it was logical, or that there was a good way for it to happen, however regardless of your inability to c
Not a half celestial, half elf, half human, half dragon, that's for sure. It's just straight-up impossible. If you actually want to know how that could turn out, it could wind up being a half dragon half elf, or half human half celestial, or half dragon half celestial. But it's a mathematical impossibility to have more than two halves. This whole idea of multiple watered down aspects doesn't even work in real world genetic either, and there is no 1/4 templates in 3.5 that I'm aware of.
The mathematical impossibility of more than two halves is irrelevant in the face of the fact that being called "Half-Anything" is just a colloquialism for "Strong biological/magical/what have you ties to certain race/creature/being other than your 'base'."
The Half-Minotaur, Half-Dragon, Half-Ogre, Half-Human isn't actually half of all those things, they just have biological traits tending towards each of those races, which together has produced an incredibly strong mongrel. Does it make biological sense? Hell no, but Minotaurs, Dragons, and Ogres don't make biological sense in the first place.
The mathematical impossibility of more than two halves is irrelevant in the face of the fact that being called "Half-Anything" is just a colloquialism for "Strong biological/magical/what have you ties to certain race/creature/being other than your 'b
But it's a mathematical impossibility to have more than two halves.
Damn those powergamers of the ancient world...!
Must I say more than Gilgamesh?
I have only started reading a translation of the original so more info please
Damn those powergamers of the ancient world...!Must I say more than Gilgamesh?[/quote]I have only started reading a translation of the original so more info please
Draconic half-elf with outsider ancestry feat from races of toril I think.
At least using the rules on ancestry from bastards and bloodlines... or was that from erotic fantasy?
Anyway again you can apply however many half-templates you want to a creature because they aren't a special group with special rules, so the rule from pg. 293 of the MM stands. The DM is free to nix the character or specific templates of course, but by the RAW there's nothing to stop people from making a creature with all the half-templates.
Draconic half-elf with outsider ancestry feat from races of toril I think.At least using the rules on ancestry from bastards and bloodlines... or was that from erotic fantasy?Anyway again you can apply however many half-templates you want to a creatu
For the original poster... I'm glad you have something meaningful in D&D. That's really wonderful. I... I wouldn't say my tables min/max. We tend to build characters who are quite good at something. In 4e, I made a paladin mc cleric to be the party's main healer. But, this grew out of a character concept I had (military combat medic who is haunted by his failings). Therefore, I built him so that he would try his damndest to never ever see a friend die again. To fulfill that goal, I twinked out his magical gear and min/maxed his point buy. But, I do have a funny story from V:tM.I had a plot-oriented character who survived more than he should on rolling amazing rolls. My dice were always hot. For story reasons he left the coterie. I made a stupidly min-maxed caitiff to excel in combat (which for various reasons was allowed in). He pretty much got owned constantly due to consistently bad rolls.
For the original poster...I'm glad you have something meaningful in D&D. That's really wonderful.I... I wouldn't say my tables min/max. We tend to build characters who are quite good at something. In 4e, I made a paladin mc cleric to be the party's m
But it's a mathematical impossibility to have more than two halves.
Damn those powergamers of the ancient world...!
Must I say more than Gilgamesh?
I have only started reading a translation of the original so more info please
Gilgamesh is considered one-third god. He is just awesome like that.
Damn those powergamers of the ancient world...!Must I say more than Gilgamesh?[/quote]I have only started reading a translation of the original so more info please [/quote]Gilgamesh is considered one-third god. He is just awesome like that.
But it's a mathematical impossibility to have more than two halves.
Damn those powergamers of the ancient world...!
Must I say more than Gilgamesh?
I have only started reading a translation of the original so more info please
Gilgamesh is considered one-third god. He is just awesome like that.
As I said just started reading it... I think aside from killing them bad-ass monsters like well all the heros. It seemed more a story of friendship wrapped in an action adventure.
Damn those powergamers of the ancient world...!Must I say more than Gilgamesh?[/quote]I have only started reading a translation of the original so more info please [/quote]Gilgamesh is considered one-third god. He is just awesome like that.[/quote]As
Yeah, people often use the wrong metric for Gilgamesh. It's not that it's amazing compared to other things of its genre, it's that it created the genre.
Yeah, people often use the wrong metric for Gilgamesh. It's not that it's amazing compared to other things of its genre, it's that it created the genre.
Yeah, people often use the wrong metric for Gilgamesh. It's not that it's amazing compared to other things of its genre, it's that it created the genre.
In as far as written stories go (isn't it the oldest written story in existence), because I sincerely doubt it is the first one ever told amongst humanity
In as far as written stories go (isn't it the oldest written story in existence), because I sincerely doubt it is the first one ever told amongst humanity ;)
in such a way as to maximize success for a certain kind of roll or action, typically combat, at the expense of other types of rolls. The rolls that usually fall by the wayside are social or mental ones. The thinking, here, as best as I understand it, is that combat always comes down to dice rolls, whereas the social stuff you can just roleplay out. Another hypothesis is that the lingering feeling is that combat is the most important part of the game, so that’s where the points should go to have a “successful” character. You’re probably expecting me to make some kind of crack about “roll-playing” and tell you what a lousy idea min-maxing is. I am, in fact, going to do just the opposite. Min-maxing is a great idea. You just have to do it right. 
