they dont usually solicit input, its something you have to be proactive about


and the bit about a new book was the blessed lands book but i was being smartass

oohhh (fingers start moving) touchy touchy touchy ...

(takes soapbox and stands...)

Optimization. Dirty word? Holy grail? Fact of Life?

We all want the "spotlight" to fall on our characters at some point during the game where we appear to be the HERO. Getting that spotlight moment is usually either through clever role playing or through mechanical dominance. Seeking the spotlight through mechanical dominance is often what I think of as "optimization." Usually this is through combat optimization but it doesn't have to be. You can also optimize for making money, being the greatest artist of the generation, a great investigator, a diplomat etc etc. So. Do you feel the campaign (or the game) rewards your design? Do you feel like the spotlight is passing you by because of your build? Or, do you believe that others are keeping you're character from shineing because they do what you want to do only better?

If you are answering yes to any of these questions then we're somewhere in the world of optimization.

Here is a truth about the A:RPG. 80-90% of your character will be mechanically defined by your talents and your skills. (Your attributes and gear are also important ... but IMO more static). So when we are talking about optimization we're really talking about skills or talents.

The skills are somewhat comparable to each other. Obviously you need a "combat" skill to make attacks with. But otherwise is Mettle more useful than Tracking? Is Perception better than Athletics? I am asserting that skills are close enough in utility that characters are not going to be made or broken by their "optimal" skill sets. Congrats! You have made Dr. McNinja. Master of stealth and medicine. And now please enter this social situation ...

Okay. So really if we're talking about optimization we're not talking about skills. We're talking about talents and pseudo talents (like weapon tricks).

That's because Talents are not comparable to each other. Doubt this statement? Consider this list: Loyal Companion, Leadership, and Smite Infidel which are all to be had for 1 Talents. Now consider Animal Affinity, Apothecary, and Infernal Heritage: Big Horns which are all also 1 Talent. The lists do similar things. The first talents is "druidish" and potentially shows you are good with animals. The second talent potentially allows you to heal people. The last talent lets you pull out a special maneuver for extra damage. Do you think these talents are remotely comparable in "power?" How about Arcane Spell Casting (1 talent) and Born in the Saddle?

So, to me, what we are usually talking about in questions of Optimization are problems with unequal talents. I think this comes down to two areas. 1) I want to be the best (diplomat/scholar/tomb raider) but I don't feel like I get many chances to shine. & 2) I want to wield a (trident/steep whip/pistol) but I don't think the mechanics to support these weapons are as powerful as other options.

I have some sympathy for people who are in group 1. If your PC never had a chance to shine at the table why did you sit down? We can all be ordinary in real life. This is an issue for judges and module writers. I have some sympathy for other people who have chosen weapons or talents that are under powered. But you did make this choice. Yeah, your horns and the whip and the katar aren't that impressive. But no one made you pick them. If you're unhappy find another choice! Or if your concept really focuses on some odd weapon then go Grand Master and steal some tricks to add to your "whip" like shield slam (Shazam! And down they go!).

Why is the game wonky this way? Its a first edition. St. Gygax had plenty of oddness in his first round of DnD which is the foundation we're standing on. I am glad we have all moved beyond the concepts of THAC0 and negative Armor Classes.

I have no idea how much optimization is too much. Actually that's wrong, the point where your optimized build discourages other players from building the character they want to play is too much. But I don't know where that point is until grumpy people start showing up.

(surrenders soap box to next orator)

Okay, my turn on the soapbox, I guess.

The focus of the conversation, thus far has seemingly been on combat. So I'll keep my comments centered there as well. (Although I respectfully disagree with Eric's [implied] assertion that skills are not a significant part of the optimization equation.)

I know that this is a game. And we play that game for fun and escape. But like real life, the game has to have a sort of... physics that sets the foundation for the rules. And that set of physics is modeled after real-world physics. (examples: People are roughly 6' tall. Weapons fit the people and aren't giant oak trees with handles. Travel speeds mimic real-life. Etc.) And in order for the game to feel more like a novel and not a cartoon, not everything can be equal. A wooden shiv might be really effective against an unarmored cellmate, but it's not going to be an effective weapon against a knight in plate. And as much as I think my concept for an escaped prisoner who specializes in a shiv that he made from old toothpicks and Elmer's Glue is a cool concept, it's just not viable. It cannot be on par with a gladius, greatsword or halbard. If it was, then the setting would lose its credibility.

Choices have consequences. We all like that about Arcanis. And as cool as a whip (to use John's character as an example {apologies if that's an issue}) is, historically, a whip was not a weapon used in combat. It was used mainly as negative reinforcement to train animals, prisoners and slaves. (And as a very nifty tool in archaeology by Indiana Jones.) To posit that all weapons should be equal is a problem. Some do more damage. Some are more easily concealable. Some rust! (But not in game, since that would just be more paperwork than it's worth.) Some are better at putting an opponent on his back and others are better at keeping an opponent at a distance. In real life, some weapons shined at certain periods in history. And others never did. So as much as the idea of all characters being equal sounds nice to our enlightened, egalitarian ears, the reality is that it defies the underlying "physics" of the world to make it so. And the idea that my toothpick shiv is just as nice of a weapon as your katana would reduce the credibility and believability of the system to the point where it would not be nearly as much fun to play.

I'd like to make one more observation while I'm here... The same is true of character races. They all have their plusses and minuses. And while they should all be on par with eachother, I've never liked the thought that they should all be equal. "Equal" in RPGs is analogous with "same". Similar is good. Same is bad. (In the old AD&D system, Elves were far superior to other races and Rangers were superior to other classes. If you made an Elven Ranger, you were superman.) It was not balanced at all. (They use differing XP requirements to level up as the balancing factor, but it did not work.) In most modern RPGs, races and classes are all balanced with each other. They're all very close in relative power levels. But if you try too hard to make them all equal, then you get that same generic, flavorless result. And that gets boring. If you're goal for playing an RPG is to have fun, then try to forget about who's outshining whom in combat and remember that you're all a team working to tell a collaborative story. So what if Raistlin outshined Tasselhoff? They both were fun and interesting characters that helped form a hugely successful story. It's not a competition. Nor is it a race. And it's the differences that make the stories memorable.

Okay, thank you for reading. I'll vacate the soapbox, now.

Scott

I am glad to see this discussion picking up a bit.

I'd like to address something which may have been misunderstood. I don't expect every weapon to be good at attacking every target. In fact, I expect weapons to be good at what they are designed for. I expect daggers, short swords, and side swords to be good for lightly armored combatants attacking lightly armored targets and to have some versatility. I expect long swords and other medium type weapons to be versatile and generally good in a range of scenarios. I expect heavy weapons to be good at dishing out damage against heavily armored opponents. I expect shields to be good at defending and have a few attack options. I also expect weapons like whips, steel whips, spiked chains, and flails to be good at tripping and disarming.

Choosing a weapon should be done based upon what you envision doing sigh it. If I picked a dagger and expected to do massive damage against heavily armored knights, that's not going to happen. Hereford, when I say weapons should be balanced, I say it with respect to the weapon's intended purpose. When you pick a weapon based upon its design and intent, and there are weapons not designed for this use which are much better in that capacity, that's where I see potential balance problems. It also may result in people needing to pick weapons for mechanical benefits rather than purpose.

Maybe, as others have said, I need to submit some maneuvers, tricks, or fighting styles that support my assertion. However, there are limited opportunities for these to become official, so I haven't put a lot of effort into it yet. That will change

John

While those characters are fun to read and watch and enjoy, I do not want to play Tasslehoff while you play Raistlin. I don't want to be Yamcha while you play Goku. I'm not saying Tas didn't have a lot of great moments and do some awesome things, but in a cooperative game you can't expect most people to be okay sitting that far on the side lines.

Now I think that you might have just chosen two characters that couldn't compare in game stat terms, but I agree to the point. And we haven't even gotten to characters who are skill oriented instead of combat driven, or characters who are in the middle somewhere. Classes should be balanced not equal. Races should be balanced not equal. And with weapons, not all of them have to be balanced, so long as the common weapons are, there are enough choices and different weapons that one is granted a lot of great choices before running into a subpar weapon.

here is a thought:

you should be good at what you want to do, and then try to make opportunity to do that thing.

if there arent a lot of chances for you to do that thing you might be too too narrow in scope

if you arent as good as other players, you might be too broad in scope

John i think part of your problem here is a push back from 3.5 days where the whip was too powerful and your seeing the result.

Having a played 3.5 since it was released, I don't recall the whip being too powerful. Spiked chains were crazy awesome, but that was because they stacked too much on it. In what was a whip powerful?

John

i can recall some rediculously powerful steel whip builds from 3.5 arcanis, i dont really remember how they were built tho

Well it's disappointing that certain weapons were 'nerfed' due to the 3.5 days while other weapons were made stronger in their place in the new systems. I suppose if there's a new edition, we'll hear about how some of the new weapons were ridiculously powerful, as is the cycle. For the record, having never played the original Arcanis game, that was not why I chose the steel whip. I chose it because I had thought I could contribute to combat by tripping or disarming enemies with style and flare, rather than dealing massive amounts of damage.

John