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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6050077" data-attributes="member: 6681948">To pick one, Patton's slapping incident seems a poor tactical decision. He was guided by his emotions.  Actually, I find the "PC's = Military" suggestion pretty narrow. PC's come from all manner of backgrounds, at least in my games, and are neither soldiers nor officers. Some seek out adventure, and others have it thrust upon them.  This first assumes PC's can read the rule books and assess their options in such a focused manner, knowing exactly when a new BAB, bonus feat or Saving Throw bonus will be earned. I suggest, rather, that they train constantly and do not, as PC's, decide to take a Bard, Wizard or Fighter level. To the Barbarian School of Lame Oracalism, I question how the barbarians all arrange to be "granted power without their choice, selected by providence to wield powers that even they do not fully understand". Now, I could choose to interpret the fact that the choice of Oracle curse "is made at 1st level, and once made, it cannot be changed" as meaning any L1 character must take a curse or forever be barred from Oracle levels. Oddly, this actually seems consistent with the fact that the "oracle must pick one mystery upon taking her first level of oracle", phrasing quite different from the curse selection a couple of paragraphs later. I wonder how many barbarians would be OK working for their first 8 levels with the Lame curse, without the "never fatigued" benefit. Odd, also, that these characters all return to their training in barbarian skills, and never follow up on the Mystery that granted their rudimentary powers. Choosing a more difficult option may well be in character, and out of tactical wizardry. If my character hates Wizards, or Orcs, then facing off against the Orc Wizard's summoned beast while my teammates take down the vile spellcaster may be the tactically correct choice, but attacking the wizard may be the appropriate role playing selection. The player may know the best way to elicit information from a reluctant captive is a Torch to the Groin, but the character may be opposed to torture. Patiently waiting may be the best tactic in many cases, but an impulsive, impetuous character would not often be properly played when exercise such patience. I know on many occasions there are things I should be doing, but I keep typing away on message boards instead. Few of us select the "tactically best choice" consistently throughout our lives. Neither do the protagonists in most good adventure fiction. Wouldn't Batman, Doc Savage and Spider-Man be better off to carry a gun - it would only give them more options. Yet none of them do. Weaknesses are as much a part of the character as strengths, often the aspects that make them most interesting.  I doubt we'll ever hear an uber-optimized PC question "why it had to be snakes". Of course, to encourage PC's who are not optimized to the maximum possible extent, the GM also has to run a game where failure to optimize PC power and tactical choices is not guaranteed failure/death to the PC at best and the whole party at worst.  Some games are all about the competition between the GM and players to best use the resources available to them, and between the players to optimize their individual power.  I prefer more balance between "Role Playing" and "Game" myself.</blockquote>

Verification