22 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Emphasis on the “ wunderkind ”, a prodigy . Even if he had one or two deficiencies, it’s because the character was probably min-maxed to focus on one or two key strengths that played into his career and specialization.
I’ve seen your character builds. I’ve read your threads on concept builds. In every one of them you look to mix and match careers and specializations that maximize a character’s abilities and minimize his or her weaknesses. You’ve also pushed others to do so as well, myself included. You always push Niman Disciple as the end-all be-all lightsaber spec that everyone should take because of how powerful you believe it is. For you it’s all about building the better stats . It’s all a numbers game . You do the exact same thing she is telling us many D&D players and GMs she’s played with do.

Secondly, no, those aren’t scare quotes. And if you actually watched her video, she specifically doesn’t optimize her characters at all. She doesn’t take the most powerful spells of her class, she doesn’t pump up her class’ optimal stats, etc. For her, the numbers are insignificant. They’re just numbers. She builds the characters she wants and lets them grow organically, taking spells, skills etc that are often completely counter to the “accepted” norms for that class. Her signature character, Ashling (sp?), being her prime example: a Warlock without Eldridge Blast , nor many other powerful typical Warlock spells; a Warlock multclassed with Druid. Have you ever built a character like that? Have you ever built a Jedi who wasn’t strong in the Force? One who wasn’t necessarily good with a lightsaber? Have you ever not put most or all of your starting XP into attributes? Have you ever not taken the +10 starting XP option during character creation? No. You build to the career’s strengths. You optimize the stats. You maximize the chances of success in the dice rolling. To you it’s all about the statistics and averages. You’re a numbers person, always looking at the numbers. It’s why you’re an engineer. It’s how you think.

1) I've never min maxed a character I intended to play, I usually prefer broadly capable characters, and this one was mostly broadly capable other than the few weaknesses I design into him (social awkward, and brawn and DeX at 2 because he was a little klutzy and weak not being fully mature physically yet), btw this character started with a 4 in int, 3 in willpower (or maybe it was a 3 in int and 4 in willpower, I'd have to check) and +20 morality rather than +10 xp so yes to that question.

2) niman-disciple is not the best lightsaber form, ataru striker is, niman-disciple is the second best lightsaber form and the one with the most utility, and as noted in the previous bullet I generally optimize for broad utility.

3) it's not all a numbers game to me. I start with a concept a work the numbers to help fulfil the concept. Concept has "always" (standard disclaimer on always) come first on any character I intended to play.

4) I watched her video start to finish before my first post in this thread, she designed her character to be effective at fulfilling her concept which is optimization.

5) optimization of rpg characters does not mean choosing the most powerful or capable build although those are possible objective functions.

6) i always look at the numbers but it's not all/only about the numbers.

23 hours ago, Jegergryte said:

The conflict between the "bold" and the "everything is optimisation" is a never-ending conflict of pedantism, with disparate premises, adherents always shoot past each other, never giving up, staying in the trenches, determined to ... I don't really know.

Not quite everything is optimization, but designing to fulfill a purpose/concept is, so everything could benefit from optimization.

3 minutes ago, EliasWindrider said:

Not quite everything is optimization, but designing to fulfill a purpose/concept is, so everything could benefit from optimization.

Because then it becomes a relativistic concept, that applies whenever, wherever, regardless ... and it becomes meaningless. On the other hand, it is not necessarily an absolute term either, despite allusions to silly notions of "objectivity".

If I understand you correctly, you define "benefit" from a normative perspective of "good" versus "bad" (not along an ethical dimension, but along a pragmatic and instrumentalist/system rational dimension)? Sure. But this "optimisation" may not be sought, or desired, by a given player. It may be that this "benefit" (here meant as something akin to improved chances of game mechanical "goal-attainment") is exactly the opposite from what the player desires. If the "goal-attainment" is understood as any which goal the player may have (i.e. game mechanical, role playing, and/or whatever else may be the "goal"), then we are moving towards relativism, the term becomes universally applicable, and tends towards the meaningless (or at the very least pointless). Context matters, when applying it on comparatively disparate and obfuscated cases of agent behaviour and individual decision-making. In other words, vernacularisation of the term can be problematic (it can enhance the relativistic meaning-content), particularly if one party adheres to a more specialised or specific understanding as related to a specific sector, discipline, or field, whereas the other does not. This makes deliberations and communicative rationality problematic, or at the very least challenging, when the premises are unequal and opaque. Particularly, if the parties involved inhabits different ontological and epistemological positions, knowingly or not.

So, being clear on what "optimisation" is understood as is pretty important - whether it's a wide or narrow understanding. In this case, I see that whether you build a character to follow "conventions" and do what is "right" (mathematically, tactically, conceptually) or going against this and focusing your fun (whatever that is - but here understood as making the character "wrong", i.e. not making the decisions that increases game mechanical or system rational choices adhering to the RPG system in question), can both be optimisation, but that's not really the issue or question as I understand it.

It's about adhering to traditions or "consensus" relating to how to make the "best" [insert archetype] taking advantage of the options and alternatives offered by the game system (i.e. relating to dice rolling and ensuring increased chances of success (and advantage, and triumph)), versus not focusing on the metrics of the system - at least not with the intent on optimising chances of "system-based goal-attainment". The discussion was not, in the beginning, on optimisation, but about making different, unconventional, and ... "wrong" (referring to consensus) choices. But I may be wrong.

I prefer my players to start out with unconventional choices, under-optimised if you will, to learn how to "play-to-lose", this creates a more natural and less meta-gamey experience, where players are not afraid to attempt things they (according to convention) should not because they are "bad at it". As the game progresses, optimisation (in whatever way you choose to understand it) usually happens, whether intentionally or unintentionally, as players seek to realise their vision of the character and the journey it's on. This is also why I often choose to play with new players after a group has understood or is starting to game the system ... that's fine, but not the kind of games I like to run, because then the story is soon relegated to be a background thing, only serving as a source for XP to make "the optimised character".

Anyway. Move along, nothing to read here.

I tell my Players to make the character they want to play and that to survive in my games it's going to take more than just killing well, so not to overly concern themselves with, what do the kids call it theses days... "DPS". My general advice is have an idea of what kind of PC abilities they want as a goal but to play the campaign not just their character concept. Players should be open to changing their focus as they gain experience during the campaign or they will find themselves without the skills they need to succeed. In practice it's a mixed bag but I find that Players that build more well rounded PC's have a wider range of options open to them then those that min-max. More options mean more fun in the long run and Players that build PCs like that are generally more engaged in the story. It's not always the case but in the 25 or so years I've GM'd it's a noticeable pattern.

Just as a side note on two House Rules I have on spending EXP in FFGSW, the first is that a PC cannot go up more than one Rank in a particular Skill or one Row down in a Talent or Power Tree between sessions. I also allow a PC with saved EXP to spend that EXP on raising one Rank in a non-combat Skill once during a session.

5 hours ago, Jegergryte said:

Because then it becomes a relativistic concept, that applies whenever, wherever, regardless ... and it becomes meaningless. On the other hand, it is not necessarily an absolute term either, despite allusions to silly notions of "objectivity".

If I understand you correctly, you define "benefit" from a normative perspective of "good" versus "bad" (not along an ethical dimension, but along a pragmatic and instrumentalist/system rational dimension)? Sure. But this "optimisation" may not be sought, or desired, by a given player. It may be that this "benefit" (here meant as something akin to improved chances of game mechanical "goal-attainment") is exactly the opposite from what the player desires. If the "goal-attainment" is understood as any which goal the player may have (i.e. game mechanical, role playing, and/or whatever else may be the "goal"), then we are moving towards relativism, the term becomes universally applicable, and tends towards the meaningless (or at the very least pointless). Context matters, when applying it on comparatively disparate and obfuscated cases of agent behaviour and individual decision-making. In other words, vernacularisation of the term can be problematic (it can enhance the relativistic meaning-content), particularly if one party adheres to a more specialised or specific understanding as related to a specific sector, discipline, or field, whereas the other does not. This makes deliberations and communicative rationality problematic, or at the very least challenging, when the premises are unequal and opaque. Particularly, if the parties involved inhabits different ontological and epistemological positions, knowingly or not.

So, being clear on what "optimisation" is understood as is pretty important - whether it's a wide or narrow understanding. In this case, I see that whether you build a character to follow "conventions" and do what is "right" (mathematically, tactically, conceptually) or going against this and focusing your fun (whatever that is - but here understood as making the character "wrong", i.e. not making the decisions that increases game mechanical or system rational choices adhering to the RPG system in question), can both be optimisation, but that's not really the issue or question as I understand it.

It's about adhering to traditions or "consensus" relating to how to make the "best" [insert archetype] taking advantage of the options and alternatives offered by the game system (i.e. relating to dice rolling and ensuring increased chances of success (and advantage, and triumph)), versus not focusing on the metrics of the system - at least not with the intent on optimising chances of "system-based goal-attainment". The discussion was not, in the beginning, on optimisation, but about making different, unconventional, and ... "wrong" (referring to consensus) choices. But I may be wrong.

I prefer my players to start out with unconventional choices, under-optimised if you will, to learn how to "play-to-lose", this creates a more natural and less meta-gamey experience, where players are not afraid to attempt things they (according to convention) should not because they are "bad at it". As the game progresses, optimisation (in whatever way you choose to understand it) usually happens, whether intentionally or unintentionally, as players seek to realise their vision of the character and the journey it's on. This is also why I often choose to play with new players after a group has understood or is starting to game the system ... that's fine, but not the kind of games I like to run, because then the story is soon relegated to be a background thing, only serving as a source for XP to make "the optimised character".

Anyway. Move along, nothing to read here.

You hit the nail right on the head. Optimization, as Ginny Di is defining it revolves around maximizing the character’s game mechanics . Always looking for the best skills, the best attributes, the best weapons, the best talents, the best spells for that class/career from a mechanics perspective. And @EliasWindrider , you do optimize your characters, by that definition . You tried to convince me to do the same when I was converting Korath, which was not appropriate for what I was attempting to accomplish. What Ginny Di is talking about is not building a character to maximize his or her mechanical abilities, but, rather, concentrate completely on concept, even if that concept ends up mechanically “weaker” than other examples of that archetype.

35 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

You hit the nail right on the head. Optimization, as Ginny Di is defining it revolves around maximizing the character’s game mechanics . Always looking for the best skills, the best attributes, the best weapons, the best talents, the best spells for that class/career from a mechanics perspective. And @EliasWindrider , you do optimize your characters, by that definition . You tried to convince me to do the same when I was converting Korath, which was not appropriate for what I was attempting to accomplish. What Ginny Di is talking about is not building a character to maximize his or her mechanical abilities, but, rather, concentrate completely on concept, even if that concept ends up mechanically “weaker” than other examples of that archetype.

Weaker team mates aren't pulling their weight when the **** hits the fan.

18 minutes ago, Eoen said:

Weaker team mates aren't pulling their weight when the **** hits the fan.

I don't want to assume before I respond so what do you mean when you say "**** hits the fan"?

11 minutes ago, FuriousGreg said:

I don't want to assume before I respond so what do you mean when you say "**** hits the fan"?

S H I T. My point being it's lame having to put up with players who aren't contributing to the parties survival but the GM still accounts for their presence when scaling the encounter. I'm not talking about good role-players who contribute in other ways such as being the face of the party. I'm not saying they have to be combat monsters either, just competent in at least one combat function, like how Amadala never missed a shot, but was no warrior either.

18 minutes ago, Eoen said:

S H I T. My point being it's lame having to put up with players who aren't contributing to the parties survival but the GM still accounts for their presence when scaling the encounter. I'm not talking about good role-players who contribute in other ways such as being the face of the party. I'm not saying they have to be combat monsters either, just competent in at least one combat function, like how Amadala never missed a shot, but was no warrior either.

Yah, man. This can be a challenge, but is very dependent upon group-dynamics and the GM's awareness. Also, sometimes running away is a preferable solution.

Anyway, groups will differ here, and no "universal rule" can be gleaned, I think.

Everyone should "contribute" - whatever that means; medic, guns, mechanics, face, whatever. I have a small group, three players, so all "positions" cannot, or will not, be filled. This means it becomes less about brute-forcing things, and more about solving things in whatever way is possible, given the skills and competencies of the group.

I'm also one of those GMs that don't "scale encounters" according to group (most of the time), but according to what seems plausible. These intersect of course, and must be adjusted for according to other variables at times. Like when the group introduces a fact about a sudden early resistance movement on the planet they were visiting.

5 minutes ago, Eoen said:

S H I T. My point being it's lame having to put up with players who aren't contributing to the parties survival but the GM still accounts for their presence when scaling the encounter. I'm not talking about good role-players who contribute in other ways such as being the face of the party. I'm not saying they have to be combat monsters either, just competent in at least one combat function, like how Amadala never missed a shot, but was no warrior either.

I see, so their effectiveness in combat is the measure when you say weaker and stronger. If that's the case I'd argue that from my experience as a GM it's the combat focused PCs that offer the least to a good adventure. Combat is easy and generally mindless in RPGs: choose weapon, choose target, roll to hit, do damage, repeat until one side is defeated. The "stronger" the PC the less they actually do, sure they pump out damage but other than that what are they good for? They've had to sacrifice other useful Skills and Talents to get that DPS and generally look at every problem as nail to pound on, I guess if that's what gives you that tingle more power too you. Let's be honest though and acknowledge that it ends up being the "weaker" PCs that solve the mysteries, find the important info, get past the security systems, fast talk the NPCs, get the best deals on stuff, and generally move the story along while the "stronger" PCs sit back and try and figure out how to carry an E-Web into battle and still have room for a half dozen grenades. So sure it can make combat a bit more challenging to have weaker PCs but let's not say that they are somehow contributing less to the adventure.

8 minutes ago, FuriousGreg said:

I see, so their effectiveness in combat is the measure when you say weaker and stronger. If that's the case I'd argue that from my experience as a GM it's the combat focused PCs that offer the least to a good adventure. Combat is easy and generally mindless in RPGs: choose weapon, choose target, roll to hit, do damage, repeat until one side is defeated. The "stronger" the PC the less they actually do, sure they pump out damage but other than that what are they good for? They've had to sacrifice other useful Skills and Talents to get that DPS and generally look at every problem as nail to pound on, I guess if that's what gives you that tingle more power too you. Let's be honest though and acknowledge that it ends up being the "weaker" PCs that solve the mysteries, find the important info, get past the security systems, fast talk the NPCs, get the best deals on stuff, and generally move the story along while the "stronger" PCs sit back and try and figure out how to carry an E-Web into battle and still have room for a half dozen grenades. So sure it can make combat a bit more challenging to have weaker PCs but let's not say that they are somehow contributing less to the adventure.

That's not what I said, the people who tend to gravitate toward "unoptimized" characters are the players who won't pull you half dead body out of harms way because it's not what their "character" would do. They are also the same kind of player who will split the party to "Roleplay" while everyone else is trying to get something done. Also if your combat is that boring somebody in your group is very unimaginative in their descriptions of their actions. Also a well oiled PC group doesn't take forever in combat scenes they work together and resolve conflict in a timely fashion unless the entire scenario is one big battle scene.

3 minutes ago, Eoen said:

That's not what I said, the people who tend to gravitate toward "unoptimized" characters are the players who won't pull you half dead body out of harms way because it's not what their "character" would do. They are also the same kind of player who will split the party to "Roleplay" while everyone else is trying to get something done. Also if your combat is that boring somebody in your group is very unimaginative in their descriptions of their actions. Also a well oiled PC group doesn't take forever in combat scenes they work together and resolve conflict in a timely fashion unless the entire scenario is one big battle scene.

I'm just talking character attributes, the mechanics of the character, not the roleplaying of the Players, bad roleplaying as you are describing isn't the issue here. PCs optimized for combat can be roleplayed well and I have players that play them well but the fact is in a purely mechanical sense they fail a lot rolls outside of combat. Whereas the PCs who have a broader range of Skills and such succeed more often and move the story along. Mechanically (ie. rolls and such) it's the "weaker" PCs that generally end up contributing more to an adventure than the "stronger", combat focused PCs. Also I didn't say combat was boring I said it was easy to do. What I mean is the "stronger" the PC the less imaginative they have to be to succeed, it doesn't mean they can't be super creative it's just they don't generally have to be. Weaker PCs on the other hand have to come up with creative solutions during combat or they'll end up dead. So again my point is, roleplaying skill aside, it's the weaker, more balanced PCs that contribute the most to an adventure, and it's the stronger, combat oriented PCs, while valuable when the **** hits the fan and still fun to play, that are kinda weak sauce everywhere else.

13 minutes ago, FuriousGreg said:

I'm just talking character attributes, the mechanics of the character, not the roleplaying of the Players, bad roleplaying as you are describing isn't the issue here. PCs optimized for combat can be roleplayed well and I have players that play them well but the fact is in a purely mechanical sense they fail a lot rolls outside of combat. Whereas the PCs who have a broader range of Skills and such succeed more often and move the story along. Mechanically (ie. rolls and such) it's the "weaker" PCs that generally end up contributing more to an adventure than the "stronger", combat focused PCs. Also I didn't say combat was boring I said it was easy to do. What I mean is the "stronger" the PC the less imaginative they have to be to succeed, it doesn't mean they can't be super creative it's just they don't generally have to be. Weaker PCs on the other hand have to come up with creative solutions during combat or they'll end up dead. So again my point is, roleplaying skill aside, it's the weaker, more balanced PCs that contribute the most to an adventure, and it's the stronger, combat oriented PCs, while valuable when the **** hits the fan and still fun to play, that are kinda weak sauce everywhere else.

Who said combat optimized characters had to be one trick ponies? I'm not talking about starting characters, but ones with xp under their belts. What I'm complaining about is one trick ponies. All a face character needs is one combat skill that's semi-decent they don't even need talents in combat.

1 hour ago, Eoen said:

That's not what I said, the people who tend to gravitate toward "unoptimized" characters are the players who won't pull you half dead body out of harms way because it's not what their "character" would do. They are also the same kind of player who will split the party to "Roleplay" while everyone else is trying to get something done. Also if your combat is that boring somebody in your group is very unimaginative in their descriptions of their actions. Also a well oiled PC group doesn't take forever in combat scenes they work together and resolve conflict in a timely fashion unless the entire scenario is one big battle scene.

That is pretty much exactly what you said.

And you seem to be confusing "non-optimised" with "stereotypical evil or paladin D&D player from that got stuck in the 80s".

Quote

Who said combat optimized characters had to be one trick ponies?

That is kind of what optimised means as it relates to RPGs. Being able to do more things makes you less good at the things you do.

15 minutes ago, micheldebruyn said:

That is pretty much exactly what you said.

And you seem to be confusing "non-optimised" with "stereotypical evil or paladin D&D player from that got stuck in the 80s".

That is kind of what optimised means as it relates to RPGs. Being able to do more things makes you less good at the things you do.

By non optimized I mean the stereotypical kind of useless characters people make, ones who aren't good at anything and usually really suck at one thing which is typically combat encounters where not sucking matters most in most encounters because everyone can die.

I'm not confused with paladins it the players of those paladins who suck not the class. I'm playing a cleric/paladin right now in pathfinder 2e organized play.

That so is not what anybody means by not-optimised. Seriously, that really is not what the term means at all.

On 12/8/2020 at 4:38 PM, Eoen said:

aren't good at anything and usually really suck at one thing which is typically combat encounters

Yeah that's exactly what non optimized means. If they where good at something anything they would be optimized.

I'm certainly not talking about someone who has a racial stat block that leans one way and who has to build their character against type to be good at something but they are doing that on purpose. Nor am I talking about their opposite the one who has the right stat block the optimal talent trees, maxed out combat skills, maxed combat attribute, etc.

Non optimized means poorly built, which is also ok if they are beginners.

10 minutes ago, Eoen said:

Yeah that's exactly what non optimized means. If they where good at something anything they would be optimized.

I'm certainly not talking about someone who has a racial stat block that leans one way and who has to build their character against type to be good at something but they are doing that one purpose. Nor am I talking about their opposite the one who has the right stat block the optimal talent trees, maxed out combat skills, maxed combat attribute, etc.

Non optimized means poorly built, which is also ok if they are beginners.

But that is precisely what an optimised character is.

If you want to make a character that is good at shooting things, and you go for an optimised build, then that means you start out with the highest Agility your GM allows at character creation, and you don't buy stuff that do not help you shoot better.

A non-optimised shooter is one that has a lot of shooty stuff, but for whatever reason could have been better at shooting if the player didn't also want to be reasonable at gambling and piloting.

What you are talking about is a troll.

40 minutes ago, micheldebruyn said:

But that is precisely what an optimised character is.

If you want to make a character that is good at shooting things, and you go for an optimised build, then that means you start out with the highest Agility your GM allows at character creation, and you don't buy stuff that do not help you shoot better.

A non-optimised shooter is one that has a lot of shooty stuff, but for whatever reason could have been better at shooting if the player didn't also want to be reasonable at gambling and piloting.

What you are talking about is a troll.

OK well there are two many trolls in gaming then. I spent three years playing the game of the month at a local shop and then the last year playing pathfinder organized play. At least 40% of the people you meet are trolls.

6 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

You hit the nail right on the head. Optimization, as Ginny Di is defining it revolves around maximizing the character’s game mechanics . Always looking for the best skills, the best attributes, the best weapons, the best talents, the best spells for that class/career from a mechanics perspective. And @EliasWindrider , you do optimize your characters, by that definition . You tried to convince me to do the same when I was converting Korath, which was not appropriate for what I was attempting to accomplish. What Ginny Di is talking about is not building a character to maximize his or her mechanical abilities, but, rather, concentrate completely on concept, even if that concept ends up mechanically “weaker” than other examples of that archetype.

You have stated that Korath was a ginzu with a lightsaber, strong in the force, strong willed, a jack of all trades, drill sergeant of a jedi master, and I have seen you roleplay him as that and more across decades and across systems. The ffg build you put together for Korath did not measure up to that concept and you drained the destiny pool to upgrade your combat checks while fighting mooks. I encouraged you to use a build that fulfilled your concept using 400 to 500 fewer xp than your build for Korath at the time.

I have optimized most of my characters for broad utility (Jack of all trades with an area of elevated focus) with interesting novelty gimmick abilities that correspond to a narrative schtick for the character, and my character optimization has always been second place to and in support of how I have roleplayed the character. I can and have "always" (for as long as you have known me) optimized my characters in a way that enhances the story rather than detracting from it. So say that all I do is look at the numbers is at best a highly incomplete statement, and when you say mechanically best it's false because I as noted usually optimize my characters for broad utility with the goal of being second best at as much as possible so I can round out and support a party rather than hog the spotlight.

For the context of why I was trying to help you build a character that matches your espoused concept (i.e. what follows is an explanation not an attack)

You don't fit the definition of a power gamer but you most certainly are a metagaming power player, and you "always" (standard disclaimer on always but I've never seen you not do this with a character) try to control the narrative so that Korath (or Rei) is "always" in the spotlight/at the center of the story in a position of power so that characters that do not defer to him (or her) are either put in their place or forced out of the game. That's the kind of metagaming that detracts from (and kills) games, not building well rounded characters. And i was hoping that if you had a character that could mechanically pull his own weight/live up to your espoused concept then maybe you wouldn't feel the need to metagame the narrative to get enough time in the spotlight.

5 hours ago, Eoen said:

Yeah that's exactly what non optimized means. If they where good at something anything they would be optimized.

I'm certainly not talking about someone who has a racial stat block that leans one way and who has to build their character against type to be good at something but they are doing that one purpose. Nor am I talking about their opposite the one who has the right stat block the optimal talent trees, maxed out combat skills, maxed combat attribute, etc.

Non optimized means poorly built, which is also ok if they are beginners.

This is someone who understands optimization... I commend you sir.

I will extend this slightly to being optimized for utility (jack of all trades) characters who can at least make do in any situation even if they aren't the best at any task in the group, these are the characters who are second best in the group at everything, that's my most frequent target.

5 hours ago, micheldebruyn said:

But that is precisely what an optimised character is.

If you want to make a character that is good at shooting things, and you go for an optimised build, then that means you start out with the highest Agility your GM allows at character creation, and you don't buy stuff that do not help you shoot better.

A non-optimised shooter is one that has a lot of shooty stuff, but for whatever reason could have been better at shooting if the player didn't also want to be reasonable at gambling and piloting.

What you are talking about is a troll.

This is the definition of min maxed for combat, which is a very specific choice of objective function... min max means to be awesome at one thing or a small set of things and suck at everything else... you have further restricted min maxing to the one thing you're good at being combat but you could also minmax to being a good face and suck at everything else.

Maximizing utility, a.k.a. max meaning, is to try to have the highest AVERAGE ability across a very broad set of skills, these are the characters that can pull their weight in any situation without being the best at anything, they are typically better at everything that a specialized character hasn't specialized in, so frequently end up being the second best character in the group at everything... this let's them fill holes when a specialized PC misses the session or when the players split the party.

On 12/7/2020 at 10:16 PM, atama2 said:

In D6 I had a Jedi (I think the template was “Young Jedi”) who only used a blaster. He used the Force to help him shoot things. I thought it was fun to be different, and figured if the Force helps you excel at anything, why does it have to be a glow stick? Luke used the Force to blow up the Death Star after all.

I’m tempted to make a Jedi baker someday who can sense your favorite flavors and make you the perfect meal.

Nice!

I had a similar concept, a clumsy Cerean Jedi padawan, wannabe librarian. Kept the 1 in agility, but learnt Enchance to be a pilot!

On 12/7/2020 at 10:16 PM, atama2 said:

On 12/7/2020 at 10:16 PM, atama2 said:

9 hours ago, Eoen said:

Weaker team mates aren't pulling their weight when the **** hits the fan.

This was specifically mentioned in the video. Obviously the table has to know what you are about and agree with it, otherwise it will just cause tension, if you are surrended with players who thinks you are dragging them down.

Nothing wrong with either, needs communication.