Yes, you are. Talking about your advice is categorically different than talking about how you play your characters or how you build them for your campaigns.
Oh, and why don't you tell me how you define "powergaming"
Gray's 1st Question(s)
- Thread starter Gray Lensman
- Start date
Oh, and why don't you tell me how you define "powergaming"
Nice try.
Let's see what Wiki says and see if that seems to line up better with your advice...
Powergaming (or power gaming) is a style of interacting with games or game-like systems with the aim of maximising progress towards a specific goal, to the exclusion of other considerations such as (in videogames, boardgames, and roleplaying games) storytelling, atmosphere and camaraderie.
Jackinthegreen
Explorer
I'm reminded of the page concerning the junior high I attended. It burned down and one of the teachers made a few comments about it, which were reposted on the Wiki page. The relevant parts of what was written there went something like this:
"Mr. McBride (aka Mr. Dumbass) said..." "Dumbass also noted..."
Sekhmet
First Post
I think the point we should be taking here is that Dandu wants to help the OP become proficient with the system (skills, feats, and class dipping) in order to maximize the effectiveness of a Ranger (as a front line combatant).
To this end, feats like Dodge and Whirlwind Attack are absolute horrible feats when considering any aspect of combat whatsoever, whereas feats like Power Attack not only open up additional feats, but is where quite a bit of damage comes from - making it a better combat choice for any front line combatant.
Arrowhawk seems to be arguing that, to be a Ranger, one must be a Ranger (not a Ranger/Rogue/Fighter), even though at it's very heart, the Ranger is a Fighter/Rogue with a forest feel and a splash of Druid.
What your build accomplishes is the effectiveness of your character - if you want to be a survivalist, sneaking, ambushing, Ranger type character - honestly, Ranger is probably not even a very good choice for you in terms of effectiveness. A Scout does every job a Ranger does, except better, at range and with skills - while a multitude of front line combatants do the better job in the fray.
And I -like- Rangers.
But the very heart of his argument is that RPGs are not all about stat blocks and dice rolls, but about immersive, interactive storytelling between the players and the DM, which I can absolutely agree with - and you don't have to be an optimized character build just to contribute to your party in a meaningful way. Hell, we got along just fine when it was just the PH, MM, and DMG - and there really wasn't much in the way of optimization there if you weren't a Druid or a Wizard.
However, the middle ground exists in that being an optimized character build does not inhibit your ability to be a part of a greater story, to have immersive fun with your friends, or to develop a rich, deep personality and background for a character.
Arrowhawk also seems to be trying to argue with Dandu, which - when examined very carefully, we can find enough evidence exists to suggest that it never works in the favour of anyone but Dandu.
And I -like- Dandu.
To this end, feats like Dodge and Whirlwind Attack are absolute horrible feats when considering any aspect of combat whatsoever, whereas feats like Power Attack not only open up additional feats, but is where quite a bit of damage comes from - making it a better combat choice for any front line combatant.
Arrowhawk seems to be arguing that, to be a Ranger, one must be a Ranger (not a Ranger/Rogue/Fighter), even though at it's very heart, the Ranger is a Fighter/Rogue with a forest feel and a splash of Druid.
What your build accomplishes is the effectiveness of your character - if you want to be a survivalist, sneaking, ambushing, Ranger type character - honestly, Ranger is probably not even a very good choice for you in terms of effectiveness. A Scout does every job a Ranger does, except better, at range and with skills - while a multitude of front line combatants do the better job in the fray.
And I -like- Rangers.
But the very heart of his argument is that RPGs are not all about stat blocks and dice rolls, but about immersive, interactive storytelling between the players and the DM, which I can absolutely agree with - and you don't have to be an optimized character build just to contribute to your party in a meaningful way. Hell, we got along just fine when it was just the PH, MM, and DMG - and there really wasn't much in the way of optimization there if you weren't a Druid or a Wizard.
However, the middle ground exists in that being an optimized character build does not inhibit your ability to be a part of a greater story, to have immersive fun with your friends, or to develop a rich, deep personality and background for a character.
Arrowhawk also seems to be trying to argue with Dandu, which - when examined very carefully, we can find enough evidence exists to suggest that it never works in the favour of anyone but Dandu.
And I -like- Dandu.
kitcik
Adventurer
When I look at Wikipedia it says this:
Powergaming (or power gaming) is a style of interacting with games or game-like systems with the aim of maximising progress towards a specific goal, to the exclusion of other considerations such as (in videogames, boardgames, and roleplaying games) storytelling, atmosphere and camaraderie. Due to its focus on the letter of the rules over the spirit of the rules, it is often seen as unsporting, un-fun, or unsociable. This behaviour is most often found in games with a wide range of game features, lengthy campaigns or prize tournaments such as role-playing, massively multiplayer or collectible games.[1]
Power gaming can also mean making the most effective character possible for a given concept through use of guile, wit, and the power of friendship.
Last edited:
I was wondering why you'd color the truth like this. Then I saw this:
Now I get it. Dandu is a woman isn't she?
Similar Threads
