PCs out of Balance - Need some Help

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jasin Zujovic wrote:
> madafro@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>

[snip: Jasin demonstrating how Eberron pWnz my campaign]

> And Sharn could really fit in with what your doing, it seems. For all

> that Eberron claims not to be steampunk (and it isn't, really), it's
not
> hard to find some elements and emphasize them, especially in the
> magically intustrialized Sharn.
>
> It's a shame you'd be missing the artificer class from Eberron,
though,
> which should be a fine addition to any magically industrial setting.

I'll say this; you've convinced me to take a second look at the
setting, anyway. "Sorcery & Steam" does lots of things well enough, but
I could stand to see something a bit more high-fantasy to go with the
tech, if only to see how the two concepts can affect the world.

Okay, then. Next "buy cycle" I'll strongly consider investing in the
Eberron setting book, and I'll take a look at Sharn, as well. Don't
know if I'll actually run in the setting proper, but it sounds like
something I could pick clean for material at the very least.

--
Jay Knioum
The Mad Afro

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 23:57:16 GMT, Keith Davies
<keith.davies@kjdavies.org> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> Yeah, these are great apples. Eating them is literally 'take a bite,
> chew three times, swallow juice, finish chewing, swallow rest'.

Sounds like my parents' brayburns and splenders. Of course, the darned
things only started producing once us kids had left home.

> I even got a plum off one of my trees last year. A plum tree,
> obviously. I'm hoping for more this year. I'm also hoping for more
> cherries this year than I got last year.
>
> (Just so you know: 2 pear, 2 plum, 2 cherry, 2 hazelnut, 1 walnut, six
> apple. Cherries and two apples producing, rest are only a few years old
> now... may get *some* off them this year, but don't expect much.)

My parents' have lots of hazels (the nuts usually get lost int he
grass under them, almonds (which only set in years when the wind is
strong eoungh to blow them off before they ripen), several cherries
(which the birds usually loot before they colour even a little), some
plums that refuse to produce (though the people down the road get
massive crops), and some green gauges (like plums, but not the same)
that produce one fruit every few years. They also have a number of
good apple trees, some very produce crab-apple trees, feijoas in
abundance, a kiwifruit vine that grows like kudzu (last I saw it was
attcking the grapefruit and the grape vines), and some very fine
citrus trees, as well as assorted berries.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 23:57:16 GMT, Keith Davies
><keith.davies@kjdavies.org> carved upon a tablet of ether:
>
>> Yeah, these are great apples. Eating them is literally 'take a bite,
>> chew three times, swallow juice, finish chewing, swallow rest'.
>
> Sounds like my parents' brayburns and splenders. Of course, the darned
> things only started producing once us kids had left home.

Braeburn are another nice apple. You can buy them in the store. I
haven't seen Gravenstein around here, though.

>> I even got a plum off one of my trees last year. A plum tree,
>> obviously. I'm hoping for more this year. I'm also hoping for more
>> cherries this year than I got last year.
>>
>> (Just so you know: 2 pear, 2 plum, 2 cherry, 2 hazelnut, 1 walnut, six
>> apple. Cherries and two apples producing, rest are only a few years old
>> now... may get *some* off them this year, but don't expect much.)
>
> My parents' have lots of hazels (the nuts usually get lost int he
> grass under them, almonds (which only set in years when the wind is
> strong eoungh to blow them off before they ripen), several cherries
> (which the birds usually loot before they colour even a little), some

Our cherries come in around mid-late June. There's a stretch of about a
week when they can be picked before the birds get (the rest of them).

> plums that refuse to produce (though the people down the road get
> massive crops), and some green gauges (like plums, but not the same)

I got *one* plum off my trees last year, and if I hadn't been cutting
the grass that day I wouldn't have gotten it at all (I found it on the
ground). I've only had the trees about three years now, though. Two
years from bare root to fruit -- even just *one* -- isn't all that bad.

I'm hoping for more this year. They're asian plums. This one was a big
golden one. I forget what the other is supposed to produce, I think
it's a red.

Green gage are tasty too, but I don't have any of those.

> that produce one fruit every few years. They also have a number of
> good apple trees, some very produce crab-apple trees, feijoas in
> abundance, a kiwifruit vine that grows like kudzu (last I saw it was
> attcking the grapefruit and the grape vines), and some very fine
> citrus trees, as well as assorted berries.

I'm not familiar with feijoas. I'm told kiwi grow quite well around
here, and they're tasty. What kind of situation do they like?

Heh. I now feel an urge to run out and plant some more fruit trees.
I've got a nice sunny wall on one side of my house (it'd do nicely for
nectarines or peaches... probably nectarine, I like them better).

My neighbor's got a nectarine tree at his place. The *best* damn
nectarines I've ever tasted, too.


Keith
--
Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Keith Davies" <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote in message
news:slrnd6bf8k.gv.keith.davies@kjdavies.org...
> Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 23:57:16 GMT, Keith Davies
>><keith.davies@kjdavies.org> carved upon a tablet of ether:
>>
>>> Yeah, these are great apples. Eating them is literally 'take a bite,
>>> chew three times, swallow juice, finish chewing, swallow rest'.
>>
>> Sounds like my parents' brayburns and splenders. Of course, the darned
>> things only started producing once us kids had left home.
>
> Braeburn are another nice apple. You can buy them in the store. I
> haven't seen Gravenstein around here, though.

You can get them here (Sacramento), but you have to remember that they have
a funky season compared to other apples.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jeff Goslin wrote:
> Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> >
> > Oh, how cute. Jeffie came back for *more* of a beating.
>
> Predictably enough, he returns to tell me everything I
> said was wrong for any of a variety of reasons that
> make no sense whatsoever.

They make sense to the rest of us...

Do you have any proof that you have addressed MSB's arguments in any
meaningful way, much less destroyed them?

(That means multiple people now are asking you for proof, by the way.)

--
Nik
- remove vermin from email address to reply.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jeff Goslin wrote:
> Matt Frisch wrote:
> > Jeff Goslin wrote:
> > >
> > >"Retconning"? Not familiar with the term. A quick google search say
> that
> > >it's "Retroactive Continuity", claiming that something always was true.
> >
> > Strange then, how you replied to an earlier post using that very phrase.
>
> If I did(I don't recall, but I may have), it was likely in some sort of
> obvious context. Certainly *I* have never used the term before, but it's
> possible it was in a post I replied to.

He said you *replied* to his post, which used the phrase. You did so
with the implication of understanding the term.

Right here:
Matt Frisch wrote in message ID
<ljru51d7g3a19bb8590pqlhk75qhcov2dm@4ax.com>:
> > It's not relevant what the DM intended beforehand. Clever
> > retconning is a time-honored tradition.

Jeff Goslin wrote in message ID <VaOdnS8Ysr9sO8LfRVn-rw@comcast.com>:
> To the question of hamfistyness, it definitely is.

And you wonder why people get annoyed by your intellectual dishonesty?
Google is not, nor has it ever been, your friend.

--
Nik
- remove vermin from email address to reply.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> <chris.spol@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1114019026.965806.322490@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > You can make both a valid criticism and an ad hominem fallacy
against
> > one argument. "You are a moron, so no one should accept your
argument.
> > Also, your first premise is incorrect." There is an ad hominem
there.
>
> True. Also irrelevant. We are not talking about cases where we
create
> an illogical argument out of a personal attack, but simply have a
personal
> attack floating about near the actual fighting.

When will you understand that that's excatly what your personal attacks
do!?!? They *are* part and parcel to the actual fighting.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> "mcv" <mcvmcv@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
> news:4266905b$0$95247$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
> > Will Green <will_j_green@yxaxhxoxox.com> wrote:
> > > Jeff Goslin wrote:
> > >
> > >> If that single huge disadvantage is has been removed, I have to
wonder
> why
> > >> ANYONE would play anything BUT a wizard.
> > >
> > > Because the classes are reasonably well-balanced in 3E?
> >
> > My impression from this thread is that they aren't, because
Barbarians
> > are too strong. At least until level 5 or something.
>
> Then your reading comprehension needs an upgrade.

You really are blind, aren't you?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On 20 Apr 2005 01:20:01 GMT, Robert Singers
<rsingers@finger.hotmail.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> Between saving the world and having a spot of tea Rupert Boleyn said
>
> >> <nit> feijoa </nit>
> >
> > I wasn't sure of my spelling, but when I did a google I got both. So
> > there.
>
> We expect better of you.

Bah.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:u5OdnadsPfnUGPvfRVn-jw@comcast.com...
> "Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:7Cr9e.9389$An2.4725@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > Oh, how cute. Jeffie came back for *more* of a beating. This is too
>
> Predictably enough, he returns to tell me everything I said was wrong for
> any of a variety of reasons that make no sense whatsoever.

Predictably enough, Jeffie has once again snipped all the evidence to
the contrary so as to facilitate making delusional statements about not
having been wrong!

How right.

THIRTY ONE!!


-Michael

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Will Green <will_j_green@yxaxhxoxox.com> wrote:
> Jeff Goslin wrote:
>
>> If that single huge disadvantage is has been removed, I have to wonder why
>> ANYONE would play anything BUT a wizard.
>
> Because the classes are reasonably well-balanced in 3E?

My impression from this thread is that they aren't, because Barbarians
are too strong. At least until level 5 or something.

I'm not sure if this is true, but it sounds like it. The only barbarian
I've ever played was a halfling barbarian, which was not only lots of
fun, but still more effective than the dwarven warrior.


mcv.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"mcv" <mcvmcv@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:4266905b$0$95247$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
> Will Green <will_j_green@yxaxhxoxox.com> wrote:
> > Jeff Goslin wrote:
> >
> >> If that single huge disadvantage is has been removed, I have to wonder
why
> >> ANYONE would play anything BUT a wizard.
> >
> > Because the classes are reasonably well-balanced in 3E?
>
> My impression from this thread is that they aren't, because Barbarians
> are too strong. At least until level 5 or something.

Then your reading comprehension needs an upgrade.

-Michael

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Michael Scott Brown <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "mcv" <mcvmcv@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
> news:4266905b$0$95247$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
>> Will Green <will_j_green@yxaxhxoxox.com> wrote:
>> > Jeff Goslin wrote:
>> >
>> >> If that single huge disadvantage is has been removed, I have to wonder
> why
>> >> ANYONE would play anything BUT a wizard.
>> >
>> > Because the classes are reasonably well-balanced in 3E?
>>
>> My impression from this thread is that they aren't, because Barbarians
>> are too strong. At least until level 5 or something.
>
> Then your reading comprehension needs an upgrade.

Really? I see a huge thread with lots of people pointing out that a DM
needs to go to design his encounters carefully if he doesn't want a
pretty standard barbarian to overshadow an un-minmaxed fighter.


mcv.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"mcv" <mcvmcv@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:42669b5f$0$97029$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
> Michael Scott Brown <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > Then your reading comprehension needs an upgrade.
>
> Really? I see a huge thread with lots of people pointing out that a DM
> needs to go to design his encounters carefully if he doesn't want a
> pretty standard barbarian to overshadow an un-minmaxed fighter.

A barbarian who has a magic item that lets him use his core class
capability more often than normal, yes?
Imagine that! A discussion about an overpowered magical item!

Are you so sure this is about the *classes*?

And putting that aside, let's observe further. The issue is a
non-combat configured fighter (who *also* happens to be un-minmaxed, but it
is not lack of minmaxing that is the problem; the fighter's combat prowess
is limited lies due to specific and ineffective choices of feats. No more,
no less). Consequently, it is not the *classes* that are the problem. If
the fighter were trained in such a fashion as to actually make use of the
capabilities the class offers, he would be just as effective as the
barbarian. Not as effective at doing the things the barbarian does - but
just as effective nontheless. You can make a combat-ineffective wizard by
choosing nothing but hold portal and tensers floating disk type spells; this
doesn't mean wizards are weak. This situation is analogous to that.

Now, again, I admonish you. IMPROVE YOUR READING COMPREHENSION.
To have read the thread and come away with "D&D classes aren't balanced"
is simply incompetence.
Learn from your mistakes and improve yourself. You don't want to end up
like Goslin.

-Michael

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Nikolas Landauer" <dacileva.flea@hotmail.com.tick> wrote in message
news:1114021031.e687beffbb1750ef14ed4638c2ac717e@teranews...
> Do you have any proof that you have addressed MSB's arguments in any
> meaningful way, much less destroyed them?

Feel free to google my multiple responses, and likewise feel free to google
the dismissive response that invariably follows.

The implication or explicit statement that I didn't bother to respond is
invariably included in the response that follows, so it's pretty easy to
find.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Nikolas Landauer" <dacileva.flea@hotmail.com.tick> wrote in message
news:1114021623.dcbe36a2bd95f83d0c94ca2cd447110b@teranews...
> Jeff Goslin wrote:
> > Matt Frisch wrote:
> > > Jeff Goslin wrote:
> > > >
> > > >"Retconning"? Not familiar with the term. A quick google search say
> > that
> > > >it's "Retroactive Continuity", claiming that something always was
true.
> > >
> > > Strange then, how you replied to an earlier post using that very
phrase.
> >
> > If I did(I don't recall, but I may have), it was likely in some sort of
> > obvious context. Certainly *I* have never used the term before, but
it's
> > possible it was in a post I replied to.
>
> He said you *replied* to his post, which used the phrase. You did so
> with the implication of understanding the term.
>
> Right here:
> Matt Frisch wrote in message ID
> <ljru51d7g3a19bb8590pqlhk75qhcov2dm@4ax.com>:
> > > It's not relevant what the DM intended beforehand. Clever
> > > retconning is a time-honored tradition.
>
> Jeff Goslin wrote in message ID <VaOdnS8Ysr9sO8LfRVn-rw@comcast.com>:
> > To the question of hamfistyness, it definitely is.
>
> And you wonder why people get annoyed by your intellectual dishonesty?
> Google is not, nor has it ever been, your friend.

Did you even bother to read what you posted? The replied sentence very
clearly is directed at the first statement. I must have simply left in the
other part simply out of lazy snipping.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

chris.spol@gmail.com wrote:
>> You can make both a valid criticism and an ad hominem fallacy against
>> one argument. "You are a moron, so no one should accept your
>> argument. Also, your first premise is incorrect." There is an ad
>> hominem there.

Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> True. Also irrelevant. We are not talking about cases where we create
> an illogical argument out of a personal attack ....

Irrelevant. The informal fallacies include more than just illogic.
"Begging the question" is an obvious example.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On 20 Apr 2005 17:24:43 GMT, mcv <mcvmcv@xs4all.nl> scribed into the ether:

>Will Green <will_j_green@yxaxhxoxox.com> wrote:
>> Jeff Goslin wrote:
>>
>>> If that single huge disadvantage is has been removed, I have to wonder why
>>> ANYONE would play anything BUT a wizard.
>>
>> Because the classes are reasonably well-balanced in 3E?
>
>My impression from this thread is that they aren't, because Barbarians
>are too strong. At least until level 5 or something.

Your impression is a bit lacking...the fighter was severely
under-optimized, and the barbarian had a disproportionate amount of magic
items. The fighter was also trying to compare himself in the barbarian's
area of specialty...you could about as equally argue that paladins are
inferior as an entire class to clerics based solely on spellcasting.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 18:29:11 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
<mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:

>"mcv" <mcvmcv@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
>news:42669b5f$0$97029$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
>> Michael Scott Brown <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> > Then your reading comprehension needs an upgrade.
>>
>> Really? I see a huge thread with lots of people pointing out that a DM
>> needs to go to design his encounters carefully if he doesn't want a
>> pretty standard barbarian to overshadow an un-minmaxed fighter.
>
> A barbarian who has a magic item that lets him use his core class
>capability more often than normal, yes?
> Imagine that! A discussion about an overpowered magical item!
>
> Are you so sure this is about the *classes*?
>
> And putting that aside, let's observe further. The issue is a
>non-combat configured fighter (who *also* happens to be un-minmaxed, but it
>is not lack of minmaxing that is the problem; the fighter's combat prowess
>is limited lies due to specific and ineffective choices of feats. No more,
>no less).

Isn't making ineffective design and development choices exactly what
could be described as a lack of minmaxing?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"David Johnston" wrote
> "Michael Scott Brown" wrote:
>
> > And putting that aside, let's observe further. The issue is a
> >non-combat configured fighter (who *also* happens to be un-minmaxed, but
it
> >is not lack of minmaxing that is the problem; the fighter's combat
prowess
> >is limited lies due to specific and ineffective choices of feats. No
more,
> >no less).
>
> Isn't making ineffective design and development choices exactly what
> could be described as a lack of minmaxing?

An effective character is not necessarily one that is minmaxed.


John

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 21:18:28 GMT, "John Phillips"
<jsphillips1@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>
>"David Johnston" wrote
>> "Michael Scott Brown" wrote:
>>
>> > And putting that aside, let's observe further. The issue is a
>> >non-combat configured fighter (who *also* happens to be un-minmaxed, but
>it
>> >is not lack of minmaxing that is the problem; the fighter's combat
>prowess
>> >is limited lies due to specific and ineffective choices of feats. No
>more,
>> >no less).
>>
>> Isn't making ineffective design and development choices exactly what
>> could be described as a lack of minmaxing?
>
>An effective character is not necessarily one that is minmaxed.

I say it is. To be specific I say that the very definition of
minmaxing is to design a character for maximum effectiveness.
Do you have some other definition in mind?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

John Phillips wrote:
>> An effective character is not necessarily one that is minmaxed.

David Johnston wrote:
> I say it is. To be specific I say that the very definition of
> minmaxing is to design a character for maximum effectiveness.

That's a bogus definition, because it completely ignores the importance
of the "min" in "min-maxing." The term refers specifically to the
practice of creating disadvantages with minimal scope so that you have
extra resources to spend on advantages with greater scope.

Putting your worst stat into Charisma so that you have more points to
spend on Strength is min-maxing. Buying a greataxe instead of a dagger
is not, because it's not using "dump stats" to save points.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <TP6dnROU1P8bJfjfRVn-2g@comcast.com>,
Jeff Goslin <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:
>"David Alex Lamb" <dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca> wrote in message
>news:d4429n$6ou$1@knot.queensu.ca...
>> Aside from in bad soap operas, retconning appears to most often be used to
>fix
>> a major problem like a TPK. I can't give examples, but they've been
>discussed
>> in rgf.advocacy occasionally.
>
>Or perhaps to fix a major problem like out of balance characters causing
>envy and jealousy caused by a magic item that is unbalanced in favor of one
>character? Would that be an example? 😉

That's certainly an example of something that might be a problem -- although
some of your "interlocutors" have said there is no problem. Whether a retcon
is the right fix is a matter of judgement. My impression is that retconning
is not used lightly, but you'd get better advice from someone who has used it.

And yes, I'm treating a joke far too seriously.
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> When someone isn't interested in persuading anyone with their mockery,
> *wants* to be hostile, *enjoys* tomfoolery, and is beyond (court)
> sanction .... Then they aren't engaging in *JUST* critical thinking
> .... They can *also* be engaging in ENTERTAINMENT.

Feel free to call red herrings "entertainment," but claiming that the
entertainment value makes them anything but red herrings, that's pure
intellectual dishonesty of the "fooling yourself" variety.

While we're at it, let's strip away all your rhetoric: The usual Usenet
term for what you've just described is "trolling." Aristotle called it
ignoratio elenchi, literally "ignorance of what constitutes a proper
argument," and modern textbooks call it a red herring. Spin it any way
you like, it's still an informal fallacy, still a bad argument, and
still shoddy thinking.

You try to twist definitions and put up smoke screens to hide your
ignorance and your lack of skill, but you aren't fooling anyone, not
even fools.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

David Johnston <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 21:18:28 GMT, "John Phillips"
> <jsphillips1@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>"David Johnston" wrote
>>> "Michael Scott Brown" wrote:
>>>
>>> > And putting that aside, let's observe further. The issue is a
>>> >non-combat configured fighter (who *also* happens to be un-minmaxed, but
>>it
>>> >is not lack of minmaxing that is the problem; the fighter's combat
>>prowess
>>> >is limited lies due to specific and ineffective choices of feats. No
>>more,
>>> >no less).
>>>
>>> Isn't making ineffective design and development choices exactly what
>>> could be described as a lack of minmaxing?
>>
>>An effective character is not necessarily one that is minmaxed.
>
> I say it is. To be specific I say that the very definition of
> minmaxing is to design a character for maximum effectiveness.
> Do you have some other definition in mind?

I'd say it depends on the class. You can create a stereotypical barbarian
without too much thought (high STR and CON, big weapon) and end up with
a very effective character. A fighter who chooses some feats that seem
like fun, instead of feats that are effective for him and work well
together, ends up with a much less effective character. The way I
understand it: if a fighter and a barbarian are each designed with little
regard for what is good and what isn't, the barbarian will generally be
a lot more effective.


mcv.