A bit of Fussing

[*Raneguin]

I'm probably the only warlock who isn't going to have Flee The Scene and Vitriolic Blast
<_<

[*pelhikano]

This is probably a good time to bring this up (and it's not meant to be directed at anyone in particular): the "Stormwind Fallacy" is named after someone who described in detail why "the idea that building your character to be mechanically optimal means you're roleplaying poorly, or that building your character to be mechanically suboptimal means you're roleplaying well" does not make sense.

As far as I know none of SCoD's admin staff is of the opinion that building your character mechanically weak means your roleplaying is automatically better, and personally I don't want anyone to think that this is one of those servers where the Fallacy is perpetrated.

Roleplaying quality comes from one thing and one thing only: and that's HOW GOOD YOU ROLEPLAY, not your ability to slog through the levels painfully with a Sorcerer/Harper Agent/Rogue/Spirit Shaman build. Some of the best NWN2 roleplayers I've seen are very good build optimizers, and on the other hand weak builds can be RPed in a lame way as well.

The original text of the explanation is btw:

The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy
Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa.

Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game.

Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse roleplayer if he optimizes, and vice versa.
Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically roleplayed better than an optimized one, and vice versa.

(I admit that there are some diehards on both sides -- the RP fanatics who refuse to optimize as if strong characters were the mark of the Devil and the min/max munchkins who couldn't RP their way out of a paper bag without setting it on fire -- though I see these as extreme examples. The vast majority of people are in between, and thus the generalizations hold. The key word is 'automatically')

Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's gameplay. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Roleplaying deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else.
A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other.

Claiming that an optimizer cannot roleplay (or is participating in a playstyle that isn't supportive of roleplaying) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.

How does this impact "builds"? Simple.

In one extreme (say, Pun-Pun), they are thought experiments. Optimization tests that are not intended to see actual gameplay. Because they do not see gameplay, they do not commit the fallacy.

In the other extreme, you get the drama queens. They could care less about the rules, and are, essentially, playing free-form RP. Because the game is not necessary to this particular character, it doesn't fall into the fallacy.

By playing D&D, you opt in to an agreement of sorts -- the rules describe the world you live in, including yourself. To get the most out of those rules, in the same way you would get the most out of yourself, you must optimize in some respect (and don't look at me funny; you do it already, you just don't like to admit it. You don't need multiclassing or splatbooks to optimize). However, because it is a role-playing game, you also agree to play a role. This is dependent completely on you, and is independent of the rules.

And no, this isn't dependent on edition, or even what roleplaying game you're doing. If you are playing a roleplaying game with any form of rules or regulation, this fallacy can apply. The only difference is the nature of the optimization (based on the rules of that game; Tri-Stat optimizes differently than d20) or the flavor of the roleplay (based on the setting; Exalted feels different from Cthulu).

Conclusion: D&D, like it or not, has elements of both optimization AND roleplay in it. Any game that involves rules has optimization, and any role-playing game has roleplay. These are inherent to the game.

They go hand-in-hand in this sort of game. Deal with it. And in the name of all that is good and holy, stop committing the Stormwind Fallacy in the meantime.

[*Mausman]

oooh, nice one indeed.

[*Raneguin]

Fair, but you can't play an Angel Summoner unless you can summon hoards of celestial superbeings.

I'm not saying that min/maxing makes you a bad roleplayer, but my idea is that you should be roleplaying what's on your character sheet. What they can and can not do. Example, Abby is a skilled healer, and she plays a character that is a skilled healer, so it makes sense for her to have lots of points in heal.

Inversely, playing an absent minded, short attention span, oothatsshinyletmehaveitletmehaveit young sorceress, should I really have points in concentration? From a purely build point of view, absolutely. Concentration is important for spellcasters to have. It lets them cast stuff when they're surrounded by big burly monsters with sharp teeth. But, from a character point of view... should she have 30+ points in concentration? If she's easily distracted, probably not.

I'm not going to call people good or bad roleplayers depending on how they make their characters... I'm just a firm believer in playing what's on my character sheet.

[*pelhikano]

I'm just a firm believer in playing what's on my character sheet.

I totally agree with you, Rane. I suppose I was saying that your character sheet does not need to have "dies from a single hit, every time" on it for your character to be interesting, nor does it mean the character is impossible to roleplay well if the sheet says "can never die, ever".

[*[<3]]

Fair, but you can't play an Angel Summoner unless you can summon hoards of celestial superbeings.

I'm not saying that min/maxing makes you a bad roleplayer, but my idea is that you should be roleplaying what's on your character sheet. What they can and can not do. Example, Abby is a skilled healer, and she plays a character that is a skilled healer, so it makes sense for her to have lots of points in heal.

Inversely, playing an absent minded, short attention span, oothatsshinyletmehaveitletmehaveit young sorceress, should I really have points in concentration? From a purely build point of view, absolutely. Concentration is important for spellcasters to have. It lets them cast stuff when they're surrounded by big burly monsters with sharp teeth. But, from a character point of view... should she have 30+ points in concentration? If she's easily distracted, probably not.

I'm not going to call people good or bad roleplayers depending on how they make their characters... I'm just a firm believer in playing what's on my character sheet.

Absolutely agree here.

I decide on my characters stats, skills and feats (sometimes even additional classes) once I know where the concept will take me and not vice versa.
I.E. if the character is supposed to be a weakling his STR stat will of course reflect that, if she's afraid of the dark I'll surely not pick the blind fighting feat, etc... you get the deal.

My equation therefore comes down to: Roleplay > concept > build.

Also, I tend to keep an eye on consistency when it comes down to picking and using spells, feats, invocations etc. For example, should I ever play a tiefling warlock spawned by some creature with demon (Tanar'ri) blood I sure wouldn't take the Devil Shape inocation (or whatever it's name was) 'cause that's effectively a Baatezu, nor would I take levels in HW. If I had a tiefling summoner hailing from the Nine Hells on the contrary I wouldn't pick epic gate to summon Balors.

That's just my personal way to an atmospheric and consistent 'build' though.

Cheers,

[<3]

[*Lost and not Found]

Interesting topic , *wonders what he's missing as his warlock Weak*

I take that you saying your Warlock is weak. Like all characters, what they need is more levels.

To be little bit more specific with Warlocks, you really do not need a high Charisma Modifier with them. I'd leave the said ability score at 10 or 11, depending on whether you got warlock as your first or second class. High Charisma score is only needed if you're planning on getting things that benefit from high Charisma, or for some odd reason want to use those essences that have saves.

Because the blasts work as ranged touch attacks, this means that:
Warlock's Ranged Touch Attack is that of: 1d20 + base attack bonus + dexterity modifier + any attack bonuses you might have,

Against the Target's AC that is calculated in this manner: 10 + Dexterity bonus + Dodge AC bonus + Deflection AC bonus + Size modifier

In short, high dexterity score is most beneficial. Edit: It also helps you get a decen AC.

[*pelhikano]

,Oct 11 2009, 01:54 PM] That's just my personal way to an atmospheric and consistent 'build' though.

Yup, and other people may have other views what is still consistent and what isn't (is 10 concentration ranks total still too high for a "scatterbrained" character or is it not allowed to have any ranks at all?). This is a fussing thread, and fuss the OP did, but it's still a personal opinion and it was based on a false premise as well (that warlock haste is permanent).

We are trying to make SCoD a world where even "weak" chars can play and level moderately well, which means fairly high XP and even better XP if you play together with others, which is really the whole point of a PW. But D&D was never a balanced game, and will never be one without ceasing to be D&D completely.

We have tried to turn off some of the more obvious exploits (Stonebody for example) that don't follow the rules as described, and we added the Warlock Buddy to make some abilities (Hideous Blow mostly) be actually usable rather than suicidal. It's been said before somewhere: we will not waste time "nerfing" abilities that work as described.

[*[<3]]

,Oct 11 2009, 01:54 PM] That's just my personal way to an atmospheric and consistent 'build' though.

Yup, and other people may have other views what is still consistent ....

Huh, did I argue that ?
I just stated my opinion and the way to work things out for myself.
What was wrong with that ?

[*pelhikano]

Nothing, I wasn't criticizing you. Maybe the tone of my post was wrong.