Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="mhacdebhandia" data-source="post: 2743614" data-attributes="member: 18832">I'm not responding to your question directly, because I don't play with people whose only motivation is the mechanical side of the game, and I'm not one of them myself.Personally, though, the extent to which I try and "optimise" my characters depends upon the extent to which they're supposed to be really good at what they do.It's rare that I choose to play the Greatest Archer In The World; in certain circumstances, though, I will deliberately choose to have my character develop a mechanically-powerful schtick (in combat or otherwise), which will usually come at the cost of deficiencies elsewhere.For instance, I joined a d20 Wheel of Time campaign a few years ago. The party lacked a strong offensive fighter, since the only such character they had was multiclassing into a channelling class (and keeping it from the characters, if not necessarily the players). I created a mercenary ex-soldier whose main forte was mounted combat - he'd served in the cavalry - but who was also pretty good on foot.I coupled this effectiveness with a tactical idiocy on his part, due to overconfidence - he'd spent so long (prior to joining the party) just charging in and destroying the opposition that he saw no reason to doubt it would work the next time, and it continued to work for quite a while in the actual game. It didn't help that I also played him completely ignorant and quite skeptical of the various supernatural weirdness in the world: not the channellers of the Aes Sedai, no, even he realised they were genuine, but he didn't believe in the monsters he soon encountered . . . and it really didn't help that the first few times they encountered the most supposedly dangerous, he survived and even triumphed. First he defeated one trolloc, then three . . . and then they managed to beat back a myrdraal.He also owned a poor set of social skills - which got him into trouble often, and the whole party once. Again, though, sticking closely to his personality just made things worse - dumb luck on an untrained Bluff check saved half the party's bacon once when he convinced some soldiers he was drunk and needed an escort back to town, away from the ditch where the others were crouching. After that, he was unstoppable, though I tried not to be a jerk and ruin the game for others.My point is - sensible players combine mechanical efficiency, when it's appropriate, with a realistic personality. Maybe you'd be less annoyed by this guy if he tried to flesh out his character's history and nature more?</blockquote>

Verification