Optimization

repost for john to restart that discussion

Well its a touchy subject granted, but i think you will find there are some interesting people on your side of the fence (as I perceive it) and I would rather talk about it than let it be resented in other places.

I am of one opinion and I know my opinion is right for me, and it might not be right for you (or any other player) I am not trying to force my opinion on you or tell you that your opinion is wrong, I’m just trying to say different approaches get different results.

Cody i would posit a slight change, that they are Vals OR humans

I think the foundation of my argument is that while I agree that choices should have consequences, if the game truly wants to support an individual’s visions for their character concept, then reasonable choices need to be balanced. This doesn’t mean they must be equal, and some choices should offer a benefit in one area while having a drawback in another. Choices which have only benefits become the default standard and anyone not using those choices is considered ‘suboptimal’ or even ‘underpowered’.

As an example:
Say you want to play a character who specializes in tripping his opponents. You generally have 2 options in the game:
Option 1) Use a weapon that is traditionally known for tripping foes (whips, flails, staves, spiked chains)
Option 2) Use a shield (I’m sorry if it appears I am targeting anyone’s character, I’m not it’s just a good apples to apples comparison in my opinion)

Option 1: The traditional build would take Weapon Training in one of the listed weapons, learn the Maneuver “Trip Foe”, and continue to benefit from their Weapon Tricks. The “Trip Foe” maneuver costs +2 (1) speed, is Advanced (so can never be combined), and does no weapon damage. In addition, three of the weapons this is most closely associated with (whip, steel whip, and spike chain) are saddled with arguably several very poor Weapon Tricks (Bypass the Shield and Rapid Strike namely). Finally, one of the weapons is the single most expensive weapon in the game (steel whip) and has no compensating benefit.

Option 2: The shield build requires only Weapon Training (or Armor Training) in Shield and to use the Tier 1 (or 3) Weapon Trick Shield Slam. It’s a speed +0 (4), Base (so can be combined with many multi-target maneuvers), does weapon damage, and also pushes the opponent’s clock. The shield also has defensive abilities (though not usable when attacking) and some great weapon tricks (Assuming that Shield Defense works like Total Defense where the Recovery starts when you decide to act next).

So if you want the more traditional option with the less than common weapons, you are left with many suboptimal choices which can combine to be very bad. Or you can choose the obviously optimized solution. In my opinion, for things to be balanced and for the choices to be based upon how you see your character, Option 1 should have some other benefits to it to compensate for the distinct lack of comparable effectiveness.

This is just one example. Another is that of ranged weapons. If you want to play a ranged character, Bow (or sling) are your only viable options. While the bow has traditionally required more training, in the game, it’s just as easy to learn one as the other. For the choice to be based upon character concept, crossbows and flintlocks should be comparable, even if their strengths/weaknesses are different. However, bows have only strengths over the other two.
– Cost less
– Are much faster to shoot/reload
– Have greater range
– Have one of the best weapon tricks in the game (darken the sky)
– Remove reload all together with 1 Talent

Well I think that’s good enough for now I look forward to more discussion.

John

John the best solution i can see to your dilemma is talents or a fighting style that changes those advanced manuevers to basic ones.

I hear that PCI might have a book out soon, perhaps you can write up some suggestion and send em off to Pedro

I have some ideas, but honestly wasn’t aware of a new book for soliciting inputs. I was excited when I first saw Steel Dragon but it just wasn’t a good fit.

John

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)

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.
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