The Gaming Den

I've recently seen the sentiment expressed that at a given level, all PCs should be equally effective. Fair enough, that's what you'd expect. But this was stated to the extent that no race should be better or worse for a given class than any other. And it raises the question - where would you draw the line? So here's a poll.

Now personally, I would say the crossover point is at D (low Int, random feats). At C, there would be a trade-off between casting ability and combat, which may or may not be ideal given the rest of the party, but it would be worth considering. But at D, I have no problem saying "you have failed, try again". Where would you draw the line?

First off, let's make it clear that the assumption that wizards need Int's an example, not a fact even hard to change. But I'm going with it for now, of course.

I chose D too - not because of the low Int, but because of the random building. A character will have to be ineffective if built at random. Aside from that, no character should ever be subpar when built - it can be subpar when played literally as much as the player's willing to/unable not to.

I picked C, a character that tries to excel at something that another character is supposed to be doing should be suboptimal.

A fighter that takes Craft Magic Item, without spellcasting should be equally effect to a wizard that takes Stab People with Sharp things.

That said, I think that as long as you take feats marginally related to what you do, you should excel. It doesn't matter if you take Face-Stabbin' or Bear-Grapplin', as long as you do either of those things. However, if are a druid and you take Spell Focus and not Natural Spell, and then stay wildshapped all of the time, it will be a wasted feat choice.

I vote D. I could see C being appropriate, but I am assuming Bob is trying to make a useful character (and thus picking combat feats that might actually be useful).

Once you vary from your class's basic schtick so far that you have to explain why you're a member of said class...you're not, really.

D is for me.

What Talisman said. C is a little too extreme to make "you're useless", but depending on the exact circumstances I might go for it.

Thusly, D. Once you're not really doing the basic schtick, you're...playing a wizard how? And why?

I'd say C, although I would ensure that the PC would be salvageable--perhaps a gish PrC or multiclassing ability.

I put E, because that's the only place I can definitely see it. If he takes combat feats and doesn't use them (C done badly), or randomly picks feats even from the pile of feats that suck for him (D done badly), that's just as bad, but if he takes half combat feats and then uses spells that take advantage of them, or picks feats that are supposed to be acceptable for his class at random, then he should be fine.

It's when he stops actually using his good class features that he should get thwacked.

It completely depends on what game system you're talking about. Your example is obviously from D&D, and D&D simply assumes that the majority of possible characters are awful and won't be played.

If the question was more generic it might be valid. As it stands it's like asking 'To what extent should D&D magically not behave like D&D?'.

Why'd it not be applicable to "anywhere wizards are expected to intelligent and mainly cast spells", which I think's way more than D&D?

GURPS uses it (Magery, an advantage, can boost effective IQ, but its still Intelligence driven), so yeah.

Its not just D&D. Carrying on.

If you are a Crafter (makes mechanical drone things to do your bidding), and you take the entire Point Blank Shot, you deserve to be suboptimal. Not suck, just less that what you could have been if you focused more effort on being good at what you do.

Depends on the specifics, but yeah.

If I'm playing an archer and I take melee feats/options/whatever, I'm going to be a less effective archer. That can be okay if I drop from "astounding" to "quite good" at archery and my melee climbs from "pathetic" to "useful." I'm still an overall decent character, and I can pull my weight.

If I take the "archer" class, then randomly determine my stats and options...I deserve to suck. Maybe even play 4e.

Now a question. What would "useful" melee be?

What is the range you can fail at before you're too inept to succeed "enough of the time"?

15+ to succeed? 18+? 13+?

I do think this really needs another thread to be done in full, but I'm too curious to not want to hear Talisman's answer, because I agree with his comment on "D because C is too much.", and would like to know how close we are to arguing the same point.

In my opinion, 8-12 on d20 is within the range of "a good portion of the time".

Less than half that and you will be doing it easily (5 or more). More likely than that by very much (15+) and you're probably hard pressed. Assuming 8-12 is standard, perhaps a bit too hard pressed.

This is a rough statement, but I'd say that its a decent range, assuming a typical roll is 10 or so, which unfortunately 1d20 doesn't deliver.

C, but primarily because it's the upper end of the high likelihood range and I got a heads.

I'm beginning to whether it should be C instead of D. If the entire point of the class is to not be a fighter, dedicating half of your feats and having the stat it's built around be lower than "not prioritized" sounds like you're ignoring the fact it's a class system.

Yeah.

I mean, while there's nothing wrong with a wizard who dabbles in unarmed (or armed) combat, if you're a wizard spending as much effort on (un?)armed as magic...you're...not...doing...the...wizard...class.

If "I use nonmagic combat and spells equally" is a viable option (a legitimate arguement for a gish class), then we need a gish class...

But not to make it so that you lose nothing by trying to play one as the "nongish caster".

Elennsar wrote:Now a question. What would "useful" melee be?

What is the range you can fail at before you're too inept to succeed "enough of the time"?

<snip>

In my opinion, 8-12 on d20 is within the range of "a good portion of the time".

Less than half that and you will be doing it easily (5 or more). More likely than that by very much (15+) and you're probably hard pressed. Assuming 8-12 is standard, perhaps a bit too hard pressed.

IMO, for a schtick to be worth considering it should be viable at least 40% of the time. If it's your promary schtick, it should be useable - not necessarily optimal, but useable - more like 70%-80% of the time.

If we want to hash this out further, I think we should start a new thread rather than derail this one further.

---

Returning to the actual topic. I picked D because, to me, C is still trying to work with the system and the other players. It may be suboptimal, but I'd rather see an interesting, slightly suboptimal build than the One True Build. However, at D you're basically just screwing around to amuse yourself at the expense of the team.

The question is highly subjective based on the individual player as well. I know people I wouldn't trust below B, and I know people I would trust all the way to E. The reason is, the B people tend to flail about helplessly (and uselessly) outside of the archtype, while the E people tend to be very creative and find something useful to do no matter what the situation.

Ideally, a character could randomize EVERYTHING he chooses and still be viable.

I draw the line in actions actually taken during the game. If you are a wizard who has taken Unarmed Fighting techniques, great. If your Unarmed Fighting Wizard decides he wants to try his hand at shooting stuff with a crossbow with which he has no training, THEN he should fail.

The idea here is that the effectiveness of a character isn't determined by the things done during character creation, but by the CHOICES the player makes during combat/socializing/whatever.

That's an ideal that is hard to realize, but when the designer presents a player with an option during character creation, it his responsibility that the option isn't just there to be bullshit or a be a "bad choice 'cause you're too dumb to understand the rules" type of situation.


Magic: The Gathering, for instance, is a game FULL of bullshit options. Although you COULD run Chimney Imp in your Constructed Extended deck, no one with half a brain cell actually will (it's pretty shit in Limited too).

However, it is understood by those who play Magic that deck design is actually part of the game. I do not believe that this is a universally understood or accepted part of RPGs, nor should it be.

There is a difference between character building and in-game tactics. Bad tactics should equal less effectiveness.

As for character building: If a combination of abilities appears to be good to a reasonable new player, and that particular combination creates a poor character (trap), then the game is faulty.

C. Assuming that the player has access to better options to fulfill his concept than a straight wizard with a bunch of combat feats, he deserves to suck. Player experience is an issue here, but any player with at least a year of gaming under their belt should expect to suck if they make choices that are obviously not intended by the game designers. Or they should be playing free form.

TS

The only way that ideal could work and still have variation is if you put character variation on the rails. Stuff like wizards not being allowed to take vast portions of the combat feats (and requiring a minimum ratio of casting:non-casting), while throwing in ability score prerequisites on classes.

That sounds like the result would be "You can pick any of these pregenerated characters."

Which is kind of disappointing, and I imagine even worse for the people who feel being unique and unusual is desirable.

Your "elf wizard specialized in divination" would be exactly like everyone else's.

Or so close to identical that the differences were insignificant.

That was kind of the intent. If choice means nothing in character creation, then you get what you ask for. I don't know of any system other than a potentially large list of pre-gens that would even allow this.

Bigode wrote:Why'd it not be applicable to "anywhere wizards are expected to intelligent and mainly cast spells", which I think's way more than D&D?

Because asking "How should this already existing system behave?" and answering "In some way which it does not." is an exercise in futility.

To get anywhere, you need to look at the desired outcome and then figure out how you're going to get there. Arbitrarily deciding that 'My selection of various D&D idioms is going to get me a functional character 73% of the time.' gets you nowhere.