|
5 years ago ::
Jul 05, 2008 - 1:40AM
#461
|
Date Joined:
Jun 28, 2004
|
So your group doesn't want to have fun together?
Now you're being dishonest, you know what I meant. Don't twist my words and then insult me based upon what you made up.
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.
In my group we realise that D&D is just a game, and allowing people to play what they want makes us all (ALL) happy.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 05, 2008 - 9:09AM
#462
|
Date Joined:
Jul 20, 2004
|
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.
I see this as problem with YOUR group and not the player. Are you making a HEALER is one thing, but a cleric?!? Do you have any idea how much CD there is to being a cleric? How many different roles that class can play? And this is CD, why are you guys not talking about the background of each character and how they intertwine together? This is not an MMO where cleric automatically = healer. And even then I play clerics in MMO who specifically does NOT heal. Yeah the immuture people get mad...the better players realize that I'm just not filling a healer role but something else.
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.
Why is the PC hired?!? Can't they be a friend? How many fantasy stories start off with I hired a cleric so they could heal us? It's usually friends, somebody you meet slong the way or some such. There is very little hiring going on. IF you hire an NPC to do a job that is one thing, but to think of every party member as hired goon is somewhat limited view of how this game could be played.
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.
And does that matter?!? As long as the player feels like he's getting the feel of what he wants to play from the class, does anything else matter?...okay other then communicating what he is ACTUALLY playing to the rest of the party. That is the issue with the new wizard. Those of us who love the wizard no longer get the feel of a wizard with the 4e version. It feels like I'm playing a bloody sorcerer actually.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 05, 2008 - 10:07AM
#463
|
Date Joined:
Apr 14, 2004
|
I see this as problem with YOUR group and not the player. Are you making a HEALER is one thing, but a cleric?!? Do you have any idea how much CD there is to being a cleric? How many different roles that class can play? And this is CD, why are you guys not talking about the background of each character and how they intertwine together? This is not an MMO where cleric automatically = healer. And even then I play clerics in MMO who specifically does NOT heal. Yeah the immuture people get mad...the better players realize that I'm just not filling a healer role but something else.
None of that changed the fact that a wis 12 cleric in inferior as a cleric. As I've said MANY times, he might be a good character, but a poor cleric. If people were expecting you to make a cleric to fill out the party, you failed.
Why is the PC hired?!? Can't they be a friend? How many fantasy stories start off with I hired a cleric so they could heal us? It's usually friends, somebody you meet slong the way or some such. There is very little hiring going on. IF you hire an NPC to do a job that is one thing, but to think of every party member as hired goon is somewhat limited view of how this game could be played.
LOL hired, friends, ect. What does it matter. It doesn't change the facts. I was was replying to this
What if they hired the cleric for moral guidance, for his knowledge in history or religion, etc.
Please note were AdrianLP said HIRED.
And does that matter?!? As long as the player feels like he's getting the feel of what he wants to play from the class, does anything else matter?...okay other then communicating what he is ACTUALLY playing to the rest of the party. That is the issue with the new wizard. Those of us who love the wizard no longer get the feel of a wizard with the 4e version. It feels like I'm playing a bloody sorcerer actually.
It doesn't, never said it did. As I've said more that once, a sucky cleric, wizard ect, might be a good character even though he's inferior at his primary job.
Those of you that do not like the new wizard miss the unbridled power and the ability to do everyone's job's better than they ever could. You can no longer do EVERYTHING by just taking a nap and reading some books. You have to actually interact with the party and use tactics. I can feel your pain at having to be the same power level as everyone else.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 05, 2008 - 10:20AM
#464
|
Date Joined:
Jul 20, 2004
|
None of that changed the fact that a wis 12 cleric in inferior as a cleric. As I've said MANY times, he might be a good character, but a poor cleric. If people were expecting you to make a cleric to fill out the party, you failed.
Cleric does NOT have to be a healer. He is inferior as a HEALER...but to say he is so as a cleric is not quite right. IF the party said we want a healer, thats one thing...if they said they want a cleric and the player makes a spiritual leader with high cha and low wis who is a good spiritual leader of the religion, then the player successfully made a CLERIC. The party FAILED because they did not state what they wanted.
It doesn't, never said it did. As I've said more that once, a sucky cleric, wizard ect, might be a good character even though he's inferior at his primary job.
Those of you that do not like the new wizard miss the unbridled power and the ability to do everyone's job's better than they ever could. You can no longer do EVERYTHING by just taking a nap and reading some books. You have to actually interact with the party and use tactics. I can feel your pain at having to be the same power level as everyone else.
Once again a FALLACY. I have said many times, it's NOT about the power level. In fact, I rarely play wizards to full tilt...and if I REALLY wanted to break a game, I wouldn't use a wizard...the artifcer, archivist and druid can do so much better. And I don't really like those classes as much as the wizard. Well the archivist is fine...but they are pretty much reflavored wizards  . And the MOST broken character I have ever played with my non power gaming group was a FIGHTER. Yes, outside of the we will push the rules to limit group, my most powerful character was a fighter. So no, it's not the power.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 05, 2008 - 10:21AM
#465
|
Date Joined:
Apr 14, 2004
|
Now you're being dishonest, you know what I meant. Don't twist my words and then insult me based upon what you made up.
In my group we realise that D&D is just a game, and allowing people to play what they want makes us all (ALL) happy.
You yourself are being dishonest to a point be ignoring my points by saying thing and ignoring what I meant.
It's all fine and good as long as everyone remembers that the game is more about making a character that makes them happy. There are others playing too and you shouldn't make a character that makes it harder for others to enjoy it. We also realise it's a game but we also realise that's it's a game to be played as a team. Letting someone play what they want is sometime disruptive and not good for the team as a whole. It all depends on the player, the character and the group.
If someone making an inferior character doesn't bother your characters, then it's not a problem for you. Just do not pretend that it's not a problem for others that expect people to create characters that help them in a meaningful when an encounter happens. There is more to D&D than just role playing. You have to be able to survive to the next chance to talk to someone.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 05, 2008 - 10:26AM
#466
|
Date Joined:
Jun 28, 2004
|
LOL hired, friends, ect. What does it matter. It doesn't change the facts. I was was replying to this Please note were AdrianLP said HIRED.
First, you should have known what I meant. Aside from accidentally slipping and saying "hiring", it was obvious the topic of discussion was, "a cleric in the matter, despite circumstances". And if that wasn't obvious before, consider this a clarification.
Secondly, it does change facts. A cleric isn't only a healer. Its another character who may or may not be able to heal. Because the cleric possibly has better potetntial to heal than any other class, that doesn't mean that is all the cleric adds to the party, that doesn't even mean that should be the main thing. A cleric who happens to have lots of connections and provides the party with more magical items, knowledge, support of local leaders, etc, has provided more than the cleric who only heals. Can other classes provide the same functionality (having connections, etc), sure, I never said they didn't. That isn't relevent though.
HOWEVER, if you consider a cleric a collection of mechanical stats used in a game, and not as a character and person who is more than just a collection of numbers, then I might be more tempted to agree with you. In that case, as someone pointed out previous, anything less than a 20 wisdom is inferior and a waste of a character (provided a 20 wisdom doesn't make the cleric too overly deficient in other needed attribute scores).
I guess it comes down to how you view characters. For example people normally introduce me to others as Adrian Parker, NOT a senior programmer analyst. A person is more than their job, even in fantasy.
It doesn't, never said it did. As I've said more that once, a sucky cleric, wizard ect, might be a good character even though he's inferior at his primary job.
I debate your argument of "primary job". As someone else pointed out, a cleric with 20 wisdom might be even better, making the cleric with only 18 wisdom poor at his "primary job" (relatively speaking).
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 05, 2008 - 10:33AM
#467
|
Date Joined:
Jun 28, 2004
|
You yourself are being dishonest to a point be ignoring my points by saying thing and ignoring what I meant.
I haven't ignored anything you said. If I did not reply specifically to a given sentence it was for a reason. Probably because I thought nothing more needed to be said, or I thought you were just up for argument so I didn't bother, or I agreed with the point, or... etc
It's all fine and good as long as everyone remembers that the game is more about making a character that makes them happy. There are others playing too and you shouldn't make a character that makes it harder for others to enjoy it.
So the person who wants to role play should bend to the will if ANYONE in the party wants to treat it primarily as a combat simulator? I would suggest majority rules, and the DM make it clear up front the expectations. Personally I'd sooner not play with a group, then be told how I have to make my character.
We also realise it's a game but we also realise that's it's a game to be played as a team. Letting someone play what they want is sometime disruptive and not good for the team as a whole. It all depends on the player, the character and the group.
You seem to say that not min/maxing hurts the team as a whole. I do not agree.
If someone making an inferior character doesn't bother your characters, then it's not a problem for you.
You still haven't proven its inferior.
Who determines the ideal build (attributes, skills, feats, etc)? Can you please specify the perfect build so that we can declare any variation from this at all is less perfect, inferior, and not worth using?
I bet you'll say there can be variation. Where do you draw the line, and why is your opinion of where that line is drawn any more important than anyone else's opinion?
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 05, 2008 - 10:34AM
#468
|
Date Joined:
Apr 14, 2004
|
Cleric does NOT have to be a healer. He is inferior as a HEALER...but to say he is so as a cleric is not quite right. IF the party said we want a healer, thats one thing...if they said they want a cleric and the player makes a spiritual leader with high cha and low wis who is a good spiritual leader of the religion, then the player successfully made a CLERIC. The party FAILED because they did not state what they wanted.
A cleric is a spellcaster class plain and simple. If they can't cast their spells they are inferior at their class. The high cha charatcer's is a fine expert, lame caster. Lame caster=lame cleric.
Once again a FALLACY. I have said many times, it's NOT about the power level. In fact, I rarely play wizards to full tilt...and if I REALLY wanted to break a game, I wouldn't use a wizard...the artifcer, archivist and druid can do so much better. And I don't really like those classes as much as the wizard. Well the archivist is fine...but they are pretty much reflavored wizards . And the MOST broken character I have ever played with my non power gaming group was a FIGHTER. Yes, outside of the we will push the rules to limit group, my most powerful character was a fighter. So no, it's not the power.
LOL fighter? Something was broken with (I use full attack, next!)  Artifcer, archivist and druid aren't completed classes yet, so we can't look at those to see if you'd hate them as much. Most spellcasters that could change their spells ended up being too powerful in the end.
So if it isn't the power then you want to do everyone's jobs. It's always one or the other from people that do not like the new wizard.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 05, 2008 - 10:43AM
#469
|
Date Joined:
Jun 28, 2004
|
So if it isn't the power then you want to do everyone's jobs. It's always one or the other from people that do not like the new wizard.
I think your logical process is greatly deficient. You believe there are only two reasons someone could prefer the 3e Wizard. That's absurd, and shows a sign that someone can't see beyond their own opinion. I liked the old mage for several reasons that aren't even in the two you list:
[LIST=1]
Vancian casting, makes mages feel like they did in the Dragonlance novels.
I prefer that in 2e and 3e Wizards (all classes really) did not feel like characters in an arcade style game. 4e, to me, feels more like an arcade game than D&D.
I liked the massive spells selection. Even if 20 of the attack spells did essentially the same thing, I liked the feel of variation. You would argue that the spell selection allows you to do other's jobs, but that was NOT the draw to the spell selection. I liked reading through books of spells. I liked seeing interesting affects. I liked the spell selection of the sake of the selection. For all I care, you could remove the spells that you feel do other's jobs.
They didn't feel like sorcerers to me, in 4e they feel like sorcerers to me.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 05, 2008 - 10:46AM
#470
|
Date Joined:
Apr 14, 2004
|
So the person who wants to role play should bend to the will if ANYONE in the party wants to treat it primarily as a combat simulator? I would suggest majority rules, and the DM make it clear up front the expectations. Personally I'd sooner not play with a group, then be told how I have to make my character.
LOL To you the one person is more important than the group? That's fine but unrealistic. As I put in an example, a drow in an all elf group is just asking for problems. And who said not to roleplay? I'm saying the game has more than JUST roleplaying and if the only thing the character CAN do well is roleplay, you drag the others down when you aren't.
You seem to say that not min/maxing hurts the team as a whole. I do not agree.
Not at all. I'm saying not making a useful character hurts the team as a whole. Two different things.
You still haven't proven its inferior.
Who determines the ideal build (attributes, skills, feats, etc)? Can you please specify the perfect build so that we can declare any variation from this at all is less perfect, inferior, and not worth using?
I bet you'll say there can be variation. Where do you draw the line, and why is your opinion of where that line is drawn any more important than anyone else's opinion?
LOL A spellcaster that can't cast it's spells fully is inferior. It's plainly simple. there is nothing I have to prove, it's visible for all to see.
Variations? The line is simple. When you stop keeping up with the rest of the group. The 12 wis cleric stopped keeping up with the rest of the group at 4th level.
Again you are mixing an inferior cleric with an inferior character. You keep lumping them together. It's possible for someone to be either one, both or neither. Please stop doing that.
|
|
|
