|
5 years ago ::
Jul 03, 2008 - 1:04PM
#451
|
|
|
...The job of a character is more than what he does for it's player. A character has to help his group. If he doesn't have the tools to do his expected job, he's inferior.
Actually a character does not -have- to help the group. A character could be a tagalong kid brother who is completely ineffective but who is fun to have around. Certainly such a character isn't contributing to the group but if the other players don't care then what does it matter? Of course if the players do care then such a character wouldn't really be fun for most of us to play, would it? (see post above)
And to the 20 wisdom 1st level character. You'd only become inferior if you do not have the wisdom to cast your highest level spell. IE 1st=11, 7th=14, 11th =16 ect.
No. You are inferior because your Wisdom roll, which is used for a more of your powers than any other roll, isn't +5. It is +4 at best and might even be lower. Since you want to say the job of the cleric is to cast spells you would be inferior. Again, this is for 4e. In 3.5 the argument would be that without the maximum wisdom possible saving throws against your spells are easier to make, thus making you inferior.
I'm not saying such a character is horribly gimped and unplayable. I'm just saying they are inferior, which is true by your logic. That's part of the purpose of reductio ab absurdum, to show a flaw in an underlying concept (a character who is a cleric with lower wisdom is an inferior character).
Of course one could carry reductio ab absurdum the other way and make a cleric with a 3 wisdom. Is such a character an inferior character? They can't cast any cleric spells. Well, is the character still fun to play? Obviously this depends on the player and the group but if the answer is yes (hard to imagine, I know, but it is one of the bounds of condition and needs to be accepted) then it really isn't an inferior character, is it?
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 03, 2008 - 1:14PM
#452
|
Date Joined:
Apr 14, 2004
|
Actually, I didn't, but I did use a certain shorthand when I said the job of a character is to be 'fun'. I did that because I really didn't want a huge long post.
There's a lot of elements for 'fun' and how a character interacts with others in his group is one of them. You say that playing a character who can't pull their own weight sucks. Well, if you feel that way then obviously the character isn't 'fun', is it?
You also say it isn't fun to play with someone who isn't pulling their own weight. Well, for most people aggravating those around them isn't 'fun'. There are a few people for whom this is fun but they generally aren't welcome to play for very long so I have to assume that most people I am speaking to do not fall into this category and as such would find not find it 'fun' to play a character who causes aggravation for the other players.
Of course a lot of people get enjoyment by having a well delineated job in the group so that the effects of their contributions can clearly be seen. This may even be the majority of players. For them a more standard cleric build would be more fun but that still doesn't contradict my assertion that first and foremost the purpose of a character is to provide the player with fun. All that really says is that for those players, in those conditions, such a character wouldn't be fun.
Given this I still stand by my statement that the job of any character is to be fun. Maybe you have fun being the comic relief, and if it isn't upsetting anyone else then how is this a bad thing? Maybe the group already has someone who wants to be a dedicated cleric and you want to just sort of straddle between fighter and cleric by providing a little bit of healing backup while focusing more on your combat abilities. If the group doesn't care that you're neither fish nor fowl because healing is covered then why does it matter?
In the end this is a game, not a job. We play games to have fun. If you aren't having fun then why are you playing?
LOL You must not have kept up on my posts too much on this thread. I've said before as long as the character can contribute to the group he shouldn't be a problem. The back-up fighter/healer? No problem. He's inferior to both a straight fighter or cleric but can contribute in two area AND the cleric's job is covered already.
My point has been that AdrianLP has been talking about making mechanically inferior characters JUST for roleplaying flavor for that character. That's fine if A. You have enough people to cover his slack and they do not mind or B. everyone is inferior and you adjust for that. However, that doesn't stop them from being inferior at their jobs, They are what they are.
Given this I still stand by my statement that the job of any character is to be fun.
I disagree with you. The job of a character is to be fun for EVERYONE. If the group as a whole isn't having fun just because of your character, the character has failed. The idea of D&D is for everyone involved to have fun, not just one person.
I know a person who got some sick joy in making the most off the wall characters that in no way fit into the group. Maybe he just liked being an outsider and being disruptive, I don't know, but as a fellow player it was a pain in the butt. In a group of elves and half elves he come walking in with a drow. We quickly killed him and tossed him overboard as any sane person would have expected us to do, and we have to endure the whining that his ultra cool character never had a chance. 
Lets just say I have an issue with people making bad choices that are disruptive. If the other players and DM do not mind someone making a sub-par character, then there is no problem with me. I just know myself how hard those types of characters are to deal with as a player and a DM. The farther apart the PC's are in there abilities the harder it is to create something that challenges them all without being over/under powered.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 03, 2008 - 1:24PM
#453
|
Date Joined:
Apr 14, 2004
|
Actually a character does not -have- to help the group. A character could be a tagalong kid brother who is completely ineffective but who is fun to have around. Certainly such a character isn't contributing to the group but if the other players don't care then what does it matter? Of course if the players do care then such a character wouldn't really be fun for most of us to play, would it? (see post above)
As I've said, if the other players do not mind the sub par character, there is no problem. That doesn't change the math on how good he is at his classes job.
No. You are inferior because your Wisdom roll, which is used for a more of your powers than any other roll, isn't +5. It is +4 at best and might even be lower. Since you want to say the job of the cleric is to cast spells you would be inferior. Again, this is for 4e. In 3.5 the argument would be that without the maximum wisdom possible saving throws against your spells are easier to make, thus making you inferior.
They are intertwined and really can't be separated. Your stats affected how good you are at your job.
I'm not saying such a character is horribly gimped and unplayable. I'm just saying they are inferior, which is true by your logic. That's part of the purpose of reductio ab absurdum, to show a flaw in an underlying concept (a character who is a cleric with lower wisdom is an inferior character).
No, no, no. You have me wrong. he's an inferior CLERIC, he doesn't have to be an inferior CHARACTER. Those are two different things.
Of course one could carry reductio ab absurdum the other way and make a cleric with a 3 wisdom. Is such a character an inferior character? They can't cast any cleric spells. Well, is the character still fun to play? Obviously this depends on the player and the group but if the answer is yes (hard to imagine, I know, but it is one of the bounds of condition and needs to be accepted) then it really isn't an inferior character, is it?
Inferior cleric, you bet. Again I never said an inferior character. You have been mixing those for some reason. If the wisdom 3 cleric fills a role in the group somehow, he can be a good PC.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 03, 2008 - 2:34PM
#454
|
|
|
You perhaps forget that D&D is generally played as a cooperative game.
If everyone wants to play the equivalent of clerics with 12 wisdom, that's fine. If one player wants to, you generally have a problem because (not true for everyone, but true for nearly everyone I've ever gamed with):
1) It sucks to be the one person who can't pull their weight. People playing cooperative games generally like to feel like they contribute most of the time. That doesn't mean that everyone should seek some mythical optimal build, but it does mean they should avoid intentionally terrible ones if they want to have a good time.
2) It sucks to be the teammates of someone who doesn't pull their own weight. Obviously ability to pull weight isn't the sole thing you look for in someone to play with, but it is a thing.
Interesting... I've seen #1 many times (and it generally gets fixed quickly), but I've never seen #2. I've seen players have pity for the underpowered, or be amused by the underpowered, but I've never seen players feel the way you describe (that a character was so underpowered it couldn't pull its weight).
I think it's an interesting commentary on the diverse culture of our gaming community, that some groups would (apparently) care a lot about that, while others would never even think of it.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 03, 2008 - 2:45PM
#455
|
Date Joined:
Apr 14, 2004
|
Interesting... I've seen #1 many times (and it generally gets fixed quickly), but I've never seen #2. I've seen players have pity for the underpowered, or be amused by the underpowered, but I've never seen players feel the way you describe (that a character was so underpowered it couldn't pull its weight).
I think it's an interesting commentary on the diverse culture of our gaming community, that some groups would (apparently) care a lot about that, while others would never even think of it.
Some people go out of their way to be as useless as possible because the character is different and unique and they just have a need to play the underdog. It's fine the first time, but it gets old quick. It's hard to pity or be amused when the player WANTS to suck so much that they drag down the people around them. I'm glad you've never had to deal with it. I wish I could say the same.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 03, 2008 - 4:20PM
#456
|
|
|
Some people go out of their way to be as useless as possible because the character is different and unique and they just have a need to play the underdog. It's fine the first time, but it gets old quick. It's hard to pity or be amused when the player WANTS to suck so much that they drag down the people around them. I'm glad you've never had to deal with it. I wish I could say the same.
Been there. What's worse is that said character always was getting the group in trouble stemming from his ineptitude and moronic ways.
As for Wizard, I don't think it's less powerful but definately they switch gears from being a flexible Buffer/Debuffer/Ect. to the point where most of a Wizards powers are ways to explode, burn or freeze people. I never played my Wizards as a howitzer. They really should have called Wizard a Nuker instead of Controller IMO.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 03, 2008 - 5:52PM
#457
|
Date Joined:
Apr 14, 2004
|
Been there. What's worse is that said character always was getting the group in trouble stemming from his ineptitude and moronic ways.
As for Wizard, I don't think it's less powerful but definately they switch gears from being a flexible Buffer/Debuffer/Ect. to the point where most of a Wizards powers are ways to explode, burn or freeze people. I never played my Wizards as a howitzer. They really should have called Wizard a Nuker instead of Controller IMO.
LOL it almost sounds like we are taking about the same person.
They count doing damage to multiple targets control, and I agree. Taking out minions is one of the wizard's main tasks. What you should note is that most of your spells have effect other than damage. Create zones, move people, ongoing damage, conditions. The main thing that's different is that all your in combat spells are actually combat spells, dealing damage at their base with special effects on as a rider instead of JUST the special effect. For out of combat stuff, you have utility spells and rituals.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 03, 2008 - 8:28PM
#458
|
|
|
Some people go out of their way to be as useless as possible because the character is different and unique and they just have a need to play the underdog. It's fine the first time, but it gets old quick. It's hard to pity or be amused when the player WANTS to suck so much that they drag down the people around them. I'm glad you've never had to deal with it. I wish I could say the same.
Why would a half-way competent DM let that happen?
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 03, 2008 - 8:34PM
#459
|
Date Joined:
Jun 28, 2004
|
LOL You are so far off base madscientistlabrat. The job of a character is more than what he does for it's player. A character has to help his group. If he doesn't have the tools to do his expected job, he's inferior.
I'm not sure where you're drawing this eternal principle from, but my group doesn't agree, which can only lead me to believe you're spouting opinion as fact.
If I hire a fighter, but his low con has made it so he only has 1hp/die and he goes down in one hit, he's an inferior fighter.
If I hire a rogue to be a trapfinder that hasn't put any points into search and disable device, he's inferior.
What if they hired the cleric for moral guidance, for his knowledge in history or religion, etc.
You're making assumpations by the purpose of every cleric in every group.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 03, 2008 - 8:57PM
#460
|
Date Joined:
Apr 14, 2004
|
Why would a half-way competent DM let that happen?
The DM didn't have to. It only took us a whole 2 rounds to kill him and toss him overboard! :D It's really why we do not play with him anymore. We gave him several tries, but that's what he'd always do.
I'm not sure where you're drawing this eternal principle from, but my group doesn't agree, which can only lead me to believe you're spouting opinion as fact.
So your group doesn't want to have fun together? I'm glad I don't play with you. See, in our group we try to make sure everyone in enjoying themselves and we do not try to have fun at the expense of someone else. When they ask is someone is making a cleric and someone says yes, they expect the person to actually play a useful cleric to help them with their adventures, not bog them down because it would be such an awesome roleplaying experience to play a healer that can't heal.
What if they hired the cleric for moral guidance, for his knowledge in history or religion, etc.
You're making assumpations by the purpose of every cleric in every group.
Once again you do not seem to comprehend what I'm saying. I said if that hire someone for their job you expect them to do their job. What you are talking about is hiring an expert, not a cleric. If the party hires him as one of those, good for them. If they hired him to be a cleric, they got ripped off.
Clerics are THE healing class of the game. To be a good cleric (healer), you need to be able to cast your spells. If you can't, you are not a good cleric. You might make a good backup fighter, expert, heck even a rogue, but you do not stack up at your primary job.
What you are saying is that the PC may be good at other thing. That may be true. He might be a fine PC and be a good part of the team. However, he is no where close to a good cleric. You are mixing his profession with his class. He could be the best spiritual advisor ever, making him awsome at his Profession:priest but that doesn't change the fact that he can't perform up to the average abilities of someone of his level in his class; IE inferior at his class.
|
|
|
