Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lyxen" data-source="post: 8385456" data-attributes="member: 7032025">I'm sorry, but you are the one mixing everything here. My point, demonstrated before, is that people who absolutely need a +1 to a stat to claim to be able to explore class/races that they could not before are doing this purely for the power of the Floating ASIs, and are therefore powergamers.After that, it so happens that it's not the style of play that we prefer at our tables, as we have seen the detrimental consequences of that, in particular about the competition that it introduces at the table, and the power gap with more roleplay/story/casual players.And on top of that, there are cases of jerks, which I have encountered a lot through my long roleplaying experience, with a lot of them being around powergaming/ruleslawyering.You can draw the conclusions that you want from this, but obviously, there are as many types and degrees of powergaming as it is of extreme roleplaying, and neither is inherently more annoying than the other.What accusations exactly ?But it is. Allowing feats is an option that no build can live without, and which is purely technical. Allowing multiclassing can be nice for roleplaying, but is mostly used by powergamers to create builds with level dip.See below about the power gap between characters, are you advocating that it's a good thing ?Because we can play very well without these options, completely within the spirit of the game, and limiting the power gap because it's inherently a BAD thing in our opinion.Unfortunately no, there is the problem of temptation. If you remove it from the equation, not only will the jerks have less opportunity to be so, but people who are not jerks will be less tempted to behave like it. This is why, in society, we have laws.Absolutely not.I do it because people advocating for Floating ASIs are behaving like it's absolutely part of the game,and you are basically a jerk for not seeing that ie has to be, that it's the only way to combat racism and by implication that you are a racist if you do not put them in place. Even in this relatively tame thread, it has been expressed that way.Because I don't believe any of the above, I like reminding people that it's only an option and that on any official site, the Racial ASIs are the rule.You are the one rolling out a huge rethoric here, unless you believe that it's not reasonable to limit the power gap ?Satisfying because more powerful => powergamer.Because of a lacking +1 ? Considering the range of a d20 ? It's your perception, because of the above.the story of a +1, that practically affected you 5% of the time when using your primary attribute, fantastic.I feel like you make a mountain of nothing, and for the wrong reasons.You are the one saying that it's wrong and bad, whereas I never said anything of the kind. I only said that because it's only about the technical power of the character, it's powergaming to make the choices that you made for power only.I never said that all powergamers are that bad. On the contrary, I said that there are many shades of them, but that unfortunately I have met too many that behaved badly to leave the door open to that, and that I prefer to close the power gap to avoid drift whenever I can.Only it has not reduced the gap, not only did it create more powerful options besides the existing ones, but again, to exploit them (and the previous ones), you need to be a powergamer. Casual/roleplaying/storytelling will not care, and the power gap is actually extended by allowing powergamers more options to powergame further. Your claim is baseless.No one asks you do to a stupid and powerless character either. But it's a totally different matter. As long as you are reasonably effective, which all race/class combination can be without powergaming if you follow the simple recommendations from the book or your DM.It was a 15 IIRC, because while I don't go out of the way to create a stupid character more than I go out of my way just to play the specific race that only gives me the highest bonus, despite the fact that it fits less well in the campaign.Now just be honest with yourself and admit that you also like playing a powerful character for whatever reason even if it's only personal preference. It's OK, I've been there, and there is nothing wrong or bad with it, especially if you admit it.And this might just be more because of the rest of the power gap than about that stat. If the other characters, in addition to the increase stats, also had optimised builds, and were played to type, then I agree that too much of a power gap is bad, which is why it's reasonable to reduce it,not by touching your two characters who I'm sure where fine, but by preventing others to twist the system around their whims.Moreover, if you were not the only one noticing the power gap, the DM should have done something about it, seeing that that two characters were struggling. There are countless ways for a DM to do it, but it's better to do it at character creation because it sets expectations right, which is why limiting powergaming options is better.The story of a +1 ? You have lost me there.And if the players don't enjoy the game because of that, it's a bad choice.But you are comparing effectiveness and suffering from it...So what is better for the group is power ? It's not about having a cleric that buffs, heals, and pulls comrades out of death's grasp every other fight ? I'm lost there.Equal share of what exactly ? Damage done ?I'm looking down on absolutely no-one. I'm just telling you that, by the spirit of the game, this should not matter, but if it is what you enjoy, fine, go with it, just be conscious of the reasons, that's all.Again, I don't think anyone is telling you this. On the contrary, I'm telling you that your previous character would have been extremely welcome at our tables, and that we would have taken steps, either at character creation or during the game to make sure that you don't feel like you were struggling for years because honestly, that is no way to game and to enjoy it.No, this is a sophism, I said that people who blindly follow the guides because of the power reasons are very probably powergamers, which is completely different.You can, but if you go to the guides to look at powerful options (which is what I've seen in every forum or real life discussion about them), then you are a powergamer.They prove, in particular by the discussions around them, that there are many people interested by powergaming, and by the same token, they allow DMs who care about the power gap to see where there are holes that should be plugged to avoid it at their table, because it's a bad thing that causes people like you to be miserable for years of playing their character.No one said DMs are perfect, however, it's also not a good idea to start an arms race "behind his back" (or using options hidden in plain sight) to compete in power with other characters.You are clearly not responding to me here. Yes it does. The DM has, at the very least, prepared the campaign and is going to run it. That is a lot more than most players are doing. So I will respect the DM for his work, at the very least.And again, did I advocate not allowing it ? No, contrary to some powergaming options, it's never been refused, it's the PLAYERS who don't want to use itm because they find it bland.Moreover, if the DM wants to run a heroic campaign, and he wants characters that look heroic even on paper, it's his absolute right to determine everything he wants during character creation. If players don't like it, their can be a discussion, and if they walk aways, too bad for everyone. But the player has not right to impose anything.I'm not sure. None of my friends and fellow players (and I've had hundreds) have ever complained about a really bad DM. As you say, some made mistakes, for various reasons, but it's just a game amongst friends, and can be discussed between adults, or even with children (I've ran game for tons of them).As long as no one's serious about it, or take it as a competition, it's solvable.I'm sorry for you obviously, I'm jsut wondering how you could get so many bad experiences in such a comparatively short time.Possibly not, but he has been doing work for you. Respect this at the very least. Not respecting work is also one way to annoy people. And one of the worst case (and I'm not saying it's your case at all) is the entitled player. These deserve no respect at all.Then we have different opinions. I respect my DMs on principle, and always thank them for running the games. Always, because I respect what they have done to prepare and run the game. It's much more difficult than being a player and just sitting at the table to be entertained. So the level of respect due is obviously not the same.</blockquote>

Verification