Where to Draw the Line?

General questions, debates, and rants about RPGs

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply

At what point should a PC be noticably less effective than others of their level?

Bob plays a Wizard, but he doesn't crossreference every splatbook to find the perfect combination of items, feats, and spells.
0
No votes
Bob plays a Wizard, but he doesn't prioritize intelligence completely or pick exclusively spellcasting-related feats.
2
4%
Bob plays a Wizard; his Int isn't that high, and he picks about half combat feats.
16
36%
Bob plays a Wizard; his Int is actually low, and he picks random feats/powers.
17
38%
Bob plays a Wizard, and prefers to punch people instead of casting spells.
3
7%
Bob plays a Wizard, and prefers to tickle people instead of casting spells.
2
4%
Bob plays a Wizard, and prefers to stand there mooning the biggest foe.
0
No votes
Never - mooning people instead of fighting should be just as effective an option.
5
11%
 
Total votes: 45
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Username17 »

RC wrote:The wizard for instance is going to have shitty HP, and probably doesn't want to get into melee at all. Therefore having a power that requires him to get close up is probably a bad idea.
Bad example. We're looking more at things like Fireball vs. Lightning Bolt. While I grant you that there are many powers that a D&D wizard cannot effectively get because the opportunity cost of selecting them at a level that will ever actually work is very high - we were in fact talking about a binary selection of two functional abilities.

The Wizard doesn't get Trembling Mountain Thrust because to actually use it effectively he'd have to bump his BAB, AC, and Hit Points until charging into thrust range seemed like a good idea. And then he still doesn't do it because closing to close combat range also fucks his fuck holes when it comes to casting further spells. But again and still that has fuck all to do with what we're talking about, which is selecting abilities that are different in effect rather than abilities that are the same. This is more akin to the Wizard assigning a spell slot to a new spell vs. doubling up on the same spell.

Now if our Wizard is looking at getting as much as a relative +1 or -1 against different opponents for using Fire or Lightning, it works out like this:
  • +0 overall:
    It doesn't matter what you use.
  • +1 Lightning, +1 Fire
    It doesn't matter what you use.
  • -1 Lightning, -1 Fire
    It doesn't matter what you use.
  • +1 Lightning, +0 Fire.
    The mixed guy gets +1 on the first round, +0 on the second.
    The Fire guy gets +0 both rounds.
    The Lightning guy gets +1 both rounds.
  • +1 Lightning, -1 Fire
    The mixed guy gets +1 on the first round, -1 on the second.
    The Fire guy gets -1 both rounds.
    The Lightning guy gets +1 both rounds.
  • +0 Lightning, +1 Fire.
    The mixed guy gets +1 on the first round, +0 on the second.
    The Fire guy gets +1 both rounds.
    The Lightning guy gets +0 both rounds.
  • -1 Lightning, +1 Fire.
    The mixed guy gets +1 on the first round, -1 on the second.
    The Fire guy gets +1 both rounds.
    The Lightning guy gets -1 both rounds.
The guy who has one shot of Lightning and one shot of Fire is better than either the All Lightning or the All Fire guys. By a huge amount.

-Username17
Top
User avatar
Bigode
Duke
Posts: 2246
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Bigode »

I'm not seeing this advantage in any case other than the battles potentially not having the second round - missing anything?
Hans Freyer, s.b.u.h. wrote:A manly, a bold tone prevails in history. He who has the grip has the booty.
Huston Smith wrote:Life gives us no view of the whole. We see only snatches here and there, (...)
brotherfrancis75 wrote:Perhaps you imagine that Ayn Rand is our friend? And the Mont Pelerin Society? No, those are but the more subtle versions of the Bolshevik Communist Revolution you imagine you reject. (...) FOX NEWS IS ALSO COMMUNIST!
LDSChristian wrote:True. I do wonder which is worse: killing so many people like Hitler did or denying Christ 3 times like Peter did.
Top
zeruslord
Knight-Baron
Posts: 601
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by zeruslord »

I'd assume that you are meant to win at +0. Under that assumption, the mixed guy is totally boned some of the time, but only when the other two are both totally boned. He narrowly wins against a +0/-1 and a -1/+0. Essentially, he is totally boned once, narrowly wins twice, wins normally three times, wins by a lot twice, and totally owns once. The other two are totally boned three times, win normally three times, and totally own three times. Essentially, the mixed guy has one third the chance of dying horribly and unavoidably of either of the specialists.
Top
Post Reply

Return to “In My Humble Opinion...”