Community

Sep 11, 2012 -- 5:39AM, Pashalik_Mons wrote:

Actually, it touches on an entire other issue, which is "How does optimization(or lack thereof, or anti-op) affect fun in RPGs?"

And if you ask three people that question, you'll get at least four mutually contradictory answers - all of them correct. Because different people have different tastes.

I have a theory-op character build that I keep trying to come back to and improve. I'd love to get a chance to actually play it... for probably about two hours, then I'd be ready to put it away and never play it again because it's way way too complicated. (Next time I revisit it, I'll be checking to see if I can now up it to SIX pets. Plus summon powers. In Heroic.)

So right there are two answers to the question. 

Sep 11, 2012 -- 3:47PM, Noctaem wrote:

has this build ever been posted Warrl ?  Got me curious with the pets thing.  I've often tinkered with Zoomancers myself but I wouldn't mind seeing your take on it.

Yes but not lately. Here is a thread from way-the-heck-a-long-time-ago.

Sep 10, 2012 -- 9:40PM, Clansmansix wrote:

@Zathris: Dismissing my opinion as "ignorant" only shows why I consider the advice in the CharOp boards worth the paper it's printed on. Have any of the regular dozen you mention there actually played any the classes in question? Because I can tell you, having seen a Sentinel and a Vampire in action in my campaigns long-term, they are definitely not "worthless." I guess that their players are going to continue having badwrongfun. I think they will be okay with that.

You seem to like the word "Dismiss", but I don't think it means what you think it means. Which is to say, stop using it to describe what you consider to be the bad behavior of others in a manner that is dismissive itself. You are misunderstanding our position, and misinterpreting my response, and thus dismissing my actual points out of association with something that is not present.

To address your original post of accusing CharOp of being dismissive, since you seem to misunderstand my/our position; CharOp does not dismiss sub-optimal, we do not immediately respond to requests involving sub-optimal concepts with "That is dumb, play X instead", we attempt to optimize the concept because it is the Character Optimization forums, and if you don't want help playing an Optimized character, do not waste our time. I consider that a fair, and reasonable request, which a very large number of people don't seem to get, so I understand why you have the view that CharOp is dismissive - we have no other choice but to be when someone comes to us with a concept to optimize, and then not only ignores nearly every bit of advice, but also gets passive aggressive or outright insulting when we call them on it, it's called trolling and we don't stand for it.

We do, however, dismiss worthless. Concept has nothing to do with mechanical function, it's what you do and why you do them, it is not 'who' it is not 'how' it is not 'where' and it is not 'when' except in the most general senses of those things. The ability to detach yourself from the words WotC uses to describe mechanics is paramount when creating an optimized character, which again, is what CharOp does. There is not a single character concept that fits a 'worthless' character build better than it would a more optimal character build, that is the reason why they are worthless, something else does everything better, and in fact, those classes are entirely improved by Hybriding or Multi-classing with power swaps, even with each other because at least you have access to more options and can choose 'not terrible' instead of 'terrible'. As a rather literal example, would you like $5 or $20? I can even give you four $5s if your goal is to have those. No? How about you take half of the $20 and half of the $5? That's $12.50, still dramatically better than the $5 but it even takes part of the $5? Simply, the single $5 is worth-less.

I hope you understand why I'm calling the Vampire worthless. I have never played one, I have played a Sentinel, and a Binder, they were not "so terrible that it was impossible to have fun" nor, due to my efforts "so terrible that I was a monster-add", they were entirely worse than a different class I could have chosen. It's not as noticable at lower levels where power, feat, pp, and scaling differences are basically non-existant, but you get to level 9, 11, 16 ...

And going back to warrl's scenario, A non-hybrid Vampire that attempts to become a passable leader in terms of how the game is designed, will fail, and playing that character in a party will be actively harmful to the party as described above, forcing the party to compensate (which means optimize) or the DM to compensate (which is more work for the person who is already doing all the work), in both cases it is extraordinarily selfish to force others to compensate for your personal whim of restricting yourself to horrible mechanical choices (Because Vampire Leader isn't a character story/fluff/background/whatever choice). This doesn't mean it cannot be fun, the rest of the party might enjoy optimizing, and/or your DM might be awesome and come up with a way to perfectly fit your character into the game; that doesn't make you less of a jerk for doing it, lots of people have fun while playing with jerks. I'll repeat, it doesn't mean you cannot have fun.

...the dozen of us never will, because we have respect for RPGs, and anti-optimization is actively harmful to the genre...

 Which just shows that "dozen" are ignorant of the whole point of RPGs: having fun. That's really all I have to say on the subject. 

So now, while I have countered your point of view and only called your opinion ignorant, you have both hypocritically dismissed my opinions, AND called me ignorant. You are quite a piece of work.

Sep 19, 2012 -- 10:53AM, windgate wrote:

Speaking to the problems of mixed groups..

I am effectively the sole optimizer in my current homebrew campaign group. There is some comfort in that 4e seems to make it difficult to make a character that is detrimental to the group but I am starting to see the combat effectiveness differential becoming more and more prevalient as we approach paragon levels (weve had an avenger who excelusively used ranged attacks and a fire themed wizard picking up feats to boost ongoing damage when her only source of it is a single daily)

There really isn't much you can do when another player systematically anti-optimizes their character. Except ask them if they'd be willing to either improve something they do often, or do more of what they are improving. And then if they refuse, drop it.

I find min./maxing the mathematics behind the game fun (the others are more interested in the RP dialog)

I'm sympathetic to both views, preferably simultaneously, but I give slightly more weight to character concept and role-playing. If I have an inherently somewhat-lame concept, I still try to optimize - but not by violating the concept.

I think Ive been more successful in mantaining group harmony and ensuring the others feel contibituitonal in combat (as an Opt'er myself) sticking to the leader and defender roles with inherently weaker classes designed to shore up the rest of the parties weaknesses. If I didnt do those roles I am worried id be forced to intentionally nueter a striker or controller ( if people are not having fun they will likely  quit. If they quit there is no longer a game)

I understand. It's amazing how touchy some people are - I've had another player take offense because my warlord had a higher History skill than his wizard. (The warlord was Int-secondary and trained in the skill, the wizard wasn't trained.)

Good and smart job deliberately playing a less conspicuous role to avoid overshadowing.

But if you want to play a striker, just pick one of the weaker striker classes - monk, assassin, or vampire. (Warn the DM, I'm pretty sure he knows what's going on, so he can tone down encounters a bit.) Vampire is so weak that the message thread that is pretty much the index to CharOp, "the complete collection of character build links", doesn't include it in the index posts (as of a few days ago).