Quote from: CRKrueger;590669...and that's not what we're remotely talking about.

I disagree.  We're absolutely talking about characters that don't meet the minimum requirements to contribute to the party's success.  In a standard D&D adventure, it means that they don't bring basic skills to survive.  Whether they're fun to play or not becomes irrelevant - if they survive, it's because they're kept alive by other party members.  Other party members are therefore forced to put up with a character that is a drain on resources unless they either tell the player to 'make a real character' or ditch the useless character in game.  Either way, it'd be better to address it in game.  

A basketweaver is a character that brings no useful skills to the game.  They are a drain on the party's resources and do not contribute anything meaningful to the team.  If they are tolerated it is to be sensitive to the player, not to his character - and thus is inherently metagame driven.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;590670I disagree.  We're absolutely talking about characters that don't meet the minimum requirements to contribute to the party's success.

Defined by who?  TGD or GITP Forums? The other players at the table, who?

Quote from: deadDMwalking;590670In a standard D&D adventure, it means that they don't bring basic skills to survive.

Like...what.  Show me a list of the 3.5 skills that every character must have maxed within the rules to survive.  Enough hyperbolic bullshit, list what the hell you mean.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;590670Whether they're fun to play or not becomes irrelevant - if they survive, it's because they're kept alive by other party members.  Other party members are therefore forced to put up with a character that is a drain on resources unless they either tell the player to 'make a real character' or ditch the useless character in game.  Either way, it'd be better to address it in game.

Yes, yes, quoted word from word from 100 fucking TGD threads.  You DO realize you're dropping back and forth between player and character in the same sentence, right?  If it's best handled in game, that means by characters not by players.  You do realize that's the definition of in-game, right?

Quote from: deadDMwalking;590670A basketweaver is a character that brings no useful skills to the game.  They are a drain on the party's resources and do not contribute anything meaningful to the team.

Is it even possible for you to recognize regurgitated hyperbole at this point in your life?

How about you show us an example of a 1st level 3.5 character, any type, that you consider to be a perfect example of this "basket-weaving" character that is a threat to all you hold dear.  Then show us a 5th level Rogue who meets the minimum requirements for inclusion in the non-basketweaver club.

Just once, in three accursed wasted months, fucking prove something with all your supposed rules knowledge.

Quote from: StormBringer;590653Speaking of:


Because Frank and K's Tomes are all about writing up a lengthy, detailed background and not about optimizing at all.

And thankfully, I am not particularly good at optimizing.  It's because I have social skills and get along with people instead of always trying to beat them in imaginary contests like 'who can make the better D&D character?'

Classic basket weaver argument. Apparently having social skills makes you bad at gaming. Wait, what?

Tomes try to be about optimizing but they totally epic fail because the writers don't have an idea what optimization is (hint: it isn't jacking offense, which is already high way up and leaving defense in its current low state).

And to everyone, not just this clown: You do realize TGD was neither the first nor the best at saying that your characters should step it up or step on out right?

Quote from: Mr. GC;590676And to everyone, not just this clown: You do realize TGD was neither the first nor the best at saying that your characters should step it up or step on out right?

WTH is TGD? I think that's a quote from New Kids on the Block.

Quote from: Mr. GC;590676Apparently having social skills makes you bad at gaming.

Well, best make sure you never spend any proficiency slots on those.

Quote from: Mr. GC;590676Classic basket weaver argument. Apparently having social skills makes you bad at gaming. Wait, what?

No, not having social skills makes you bad at gaming.  That's why you utterly suck at gaming and life.

QuoteTomes try to be about optimizing but they totally epic fail because the writers don't have an idea what optimization is (hint: it isn't jacking offense, which is already high way up and leaving defense in its current low state).

Uh huh.  Considering how completely and wholly clueless you are at game design, I will go ahead and continue to not take you seriously.

QuoteAnd to everyone, not just this clown: You do realize TGD was neither the first nor the best at saying that your characters should step it up or step on out right?

IBM wasn't the first to make a computer, or even a personal computer,  yet they dominated the industry for almost two decades.  First to market isn't a guarantee of success; later companies can take your idea and run with it, leaving you in the dust.

In other words:  whoop-de-shit.  Your sentence up there is meaningless.

Quote from: TristramEvans;590681WTH is TGD? I think that's a quote from New Kids on the Block.

The Gaming Den.  And like The New Kids on the Block, most of them tend get things right almost by accident.

Quote from: StormBringer;590684The Gaming Den.  And like The New Kids on the Block, most of them tend get things right almost by accident.

Is the Gamning Den seriously full of people of....similar theories on gaming as GC?

Quote from: TristramEvans;590689Is the Gamning Den seriously full of people of....similar theories on gaming as GC?

Not really, no. Like every forum out there in internet-land (including this one) it isn't made up of an homogeneous soup.

Quote from: TristramEvans;590689Is the Gamning Den seriously full of people of....similar theories on gaming as GC?

Quote from: One Horse Town;590691Not really, no. Like every forum out there in internet-land (including this one) it isn't made up of an homogeneous soup.

That's true.  I was referring to the contingent that has similar ideas; they tend to be right almost by accident.  Lots of other people over there aren't really any different than most of us over here.

Quote from: Elfdart;590654Like Mother Nature, I let the world cull out the weak, the stupid and the unprepared. It's not a sure thing that a party with no spellcasters will get a TPK, but that where I'd place my bet.

A game like DnD should be able to handle a spellcasterless team. That much is a personal preference of mine.

Quote from: jibbajibba;590661Interesting debate. I do have to pity Mr CG a fair bit because of the blinding arrogance enough to make even Pundit banche.

Honestly to me it sounds like the same "my playstyle is the bestest" stuff that jeff laid down in the fighter v wiz thread.

I agree with a lot of CRKrueger's points I too would prefer to die in character that gimp for meta game reasons now to me that also includes making the new guy play the healer because you need a healer then all the PCs meet randomly in a tavern or find themselves serving as galley slaves at the start of the campaign. [/quote]I really hate the "need a healer" paradigm that D&D often runs on. Again, his is a personally thing but the idea of a group of people thinking a certain assortment of classes is necessary just to survive an expected day in the game is something I don't really like. I'd prefer the game if it could survive having all fighters, all clerics, all druids, etc and have each and everyone in he party be unique and capable enough to handle what they need to in the game. I sincerely would like a game that could handle people deciding o play a group of dwarf fighters out on their own trying to quest for their clan.

QuoteEveryone plays what they play and that is what you have now if you were playing in a game where the PCs were all agents of the king or a Delta force team then I would expect a degree of 'team rolls' need to be filled. It does indeed stand to reason that a special ops team, either for Uncle Sam or King Celeborn is going to cover the necessary skills but how many games actually run that way from first level?

I can also agree with you here. Not every game is going to be with a spec ops team. Different characters from different walks of life with different skill sets should be an expectation for the game.

QuoteNow I work in a big corporation, the idea that clueless people get found out and cream rises is bollocks the truth is political people rise and their rivals get dumped on.

I'd suspect that the landscape and actions in a DnD game is quite a bit different than political or business world maneuvering.

QuoteIn a party of five the leader may well end up being a crappy basket weaving fighter who's player has the political control of the group not the most powerful or charismatic PC in the group.

I can understand and agree with that. Some people have enough clout or charisma to make shitty decisions or make a shitty character at generation and can get away with it because they are "that player" that the group enjoys. However this is no reason to not encourage other people, who may lack the creativity, charismatic clout in the group, or the willingness to make the hard sacrifices to give their character flavor. None of this is a reason why Craft: Woven Basket should cost the same as Diplomacy.

Quotef So you play a basket weaver who on paper is crap but in play is Caesar and Napolenon rolled into one.....

Not many players can do the "tactics" thing. Believe me on this one. I've played at least enough games to temper my experiences as a Gm. It is not just just with newer players either. Without going into too much detail I can say that there is a certain amount of player skill that goes into reading your GM. I'm sure the person in your description wasn't just taking a stab in the dark when he played his I suppose "gimped" character (though as a person who favors Diplomancing I'd hardly refer to a charismatic character as gimped) that he knew what he was getting himself into and had a good idea about how much he could conceivably get away with at that table.

Good players are a god send, a rarity. You never know when you're going to get'em or when you're going to lose'em. However I have a good idea at what the average gamer does. I have seen a lot of different playstyles and I understand that some people will want to "challenge" themselves with weaker PCs. But that's a rarity and is far from what your average gamer wants to do. I've nothing against having a weaker character if everyone at the table knows what they are getting themselves into and feels that they are comfortable with it. However this is a group activity and (this is personal opinion) I feel that it is everyone's responsibility to aid in everyone having a good time. There is no reason at all to just drop an inappropriate character on everybody for no reason with no warning. There is no excuse.

Quote from: CRKrueger;590672Defined by who?  TGD or GITP Forums? The other players at the table, who?

You know that this thread's title is Define "basket weaver" right? You also should know that I've explained what I'm referring to when I say basket weaver as well. I do not feel it is helpful to debate any subject unless clear definitions exist and I think that I've been pretty explicit in saying that I'm referring to a character that has little to no relevant skills. As dead observed you don't make a professional chef for a game about heroes.

QuoteLike...what.  Show me a list of the 3.5 skills that every character must have maxed within the rules to survive.  Enough hyperbolic bullshit, list what the hell you mean.

You misunderstand. There is no one skill or even a set of skills you 100% need on your character to survive. There are skills that are WAY more applicable to most situations than others.
I'm going to list the 3.5 skill list here and give a ranking from 0 to 3 for the usefulness of the skills where 0 means that the skill starts off with very narrow usage and becomes pointless at higher levels and 3 is when a skill scales well through all levels. Now keep in mind this is for 3rd edition and assuming a regular adventure where you're going around being an active force in the world with changing locales and the group having reasonable access to various abilities and resources in game.

Appraise = 1
Balance = 2
Bluff = 3
Climb = 1
Concentration = 2
Craft = 0
Decipher Script = 0
Diplomacy = 3
Disable Device = 2
Disguise = 1
Escape Artist = 1
Forgery = 0
Gather Information = 1
Handle Animal = 1
Heal = 2
Hide = 3
Intimidate = 2
Jump = 1
Knowledge = 1
Listen = 3
Move Silently = 3
Open Lock = 1
Perform = 0
Profession = 0
Ride = 2
Search = 1
Sense Motive = 3
Sleight Of Hand = 1
Speak Language = 1
Spellcraft = 3
Spot = 3
Survival = 1
Swim = 2
Tumble = 1
Use Magic Device = 3
Use Rope = 0

The 3s are skills that will always scale well. There will generally be tons of situations where the skill will be usable, useful, without relying on the plot or group to bend or hold back on the uses of their various abilities and expected power levels to make them viable.

2s are the skills that scale pretty well and if the group is missing certain ability types to straight up bypass their use they can be pretty damn useful.

1s are skills that start off pretty good and well worth having but later on become, in all practical ways, useless or redundant.

0s are skills that are narrow in scope and aren't very useful at all past opening levels. They are skills that merely buy you plot coupons at best.

QuoteYes, yes, quoted word from word from 100 fucking TGD threads.  You DO realize you're dropping back and forth between player and character in the same sentence, right?  If it's best handled in game, that means by characters not by players.  You do realize that's the definition of in-game, right?

And not once have you stated why it is best to wait
until the character is in the game for the group to reject them. Why is it better to wait until you're playing the game to tell the other players and the GM that you're going to play a character that none of them want in the game? You're going to have to submit some justification for that as I have already stated why that is a bad thing to do.

QuoteIs it even possible for you to recognize regurgitated hyperbole at this point in your life?

How about you show us an example of a 1st level 3.5 character, any type, that you consider to be a perfect example of this "basket-weaving" character that is a threat to all you hold dear.  Then show us a 5th level Rogue who meets the minimum requirements for inclusion in the non-basketweaver club.

Just once, in three accursed wasted months, fucking prove something with all your supposed rules knowledge.

Well all you had to do was ask.

1st Level Commoner. Professional Basket Weaver. Average stats (10 across). 2 Skills. Craft: Weaving, Profession: Merchant. 4 HP (going to at least give him that). Feats: Skill Focus: Craft: Weaving, Skill Focus: Profession: Merchant. Proficient with a Dagger. +0 to everything (saves, attack bonus, etc) except Craft and Profession which have a +7 bonus in both fields (in weaving and being a merchant).

Asking for a 5th level rogue that meets an imaginary minimum is impossible for me to fathom. Your rogue abilities at low level are already determined and are not completely unrelated to adventuring. By virtue of not being an NPC class you set yourself up to not be a basket weaver. What's more the rogue gets enough skill points that as long as he is trying to get the relevant skills at all he's going to have skill points left over. If he can get hide/move silently and listen/spot then he already has useful skills maxed out. On top of that he can get shitty skills like Craft: Weaving AND Profession: Merchant, max them out and still have 2 (+ Intelligence Bonus) skill points they can use on more interesting skills that you can use as both a rogue and merchant (Buff/Diplomacy).

Mguy thanks for answering, but I was arguing Dead's points, not yours specifically.  You listed a good list of useful vs. useless skills.  So at what point is a character a "basket-weaver"?  How many 0's must I have?  If I have any 3's maxed am I still a "basket-weaver"?  According to Dead and GC, it's a pretty clear and obvious line there, do you see it?

As far as the commoner class layout, funny, but that's not even remotely what is being claimed by Dead and GC.  They're talking about adventuring PC classes being "basket-weavers" due to non-optimized character choices.

Rogues are skill monkeys, so unless I just don't pick any Rogue skills at all, I won't be a "basket-weaver"?

Ok, how about a Wizard or Cleric.  Having spells can they gimp themselves through non-optimized Feat or Skill selection enough to be a "basket-weaver"?

Quote from: MGuy;590726A game like DnD should be able to handle a spellcasterless team. That much is a personal preference of mine.

It can, it's just a very different style of game.  It's like Rainbow Six on Hard level; you can't just go charging into rooms anymore, you really have to pick your fights and draw the enemies onto your ground.

 

QuoteCraft = 0
Decipher Script = 0
Forgery = 0
Perform = 0
Profession = 0
Use Rope = 0

0s are skills that are narrow in scope and aren't very useful at all past opening levels. They are skills that merely buy you plot coupons at best.

I'm curious about a couple of these.  Obviously, Craft is the definitional 'basket-weaver' skill, and of course Perform and Profession are highly situational, not only within a given session, but in regards to the campaign overall.  The ones I was wondering about are Forgery, Use Rope and to a lesser extent Decipher Script.  Are you saying they don't scale well because the DCs quickly become too high for the skill to reliably work, or they are just too specialized for most tables to make use of them?

Quote from: CRKrueger;590729Ok, how about a Wizard or Cleric.  Having spells can they gimp themselves through non-optimized Feat or Skill selection enough to be a "basket-weaver"?

I'm fairly sure Dead isn't for games with only optimized people and nothing for everyone else. GC would be but I'd just suggest you put him on ignore.

A wizard can purposefully gimp them self because a Cleric gets his entire list every day and can always drop a spell for heals.

So what happens when a wizard gets nothing but largely useless spells and only prepared them. Same thing for a Sorcerer. As a wizard you can work to change it easy. As a Sorcerer you're screwed with your choices for life. I will say that that is not good at all. That's not good and it is one of the major draw backs of 3.5 is you could do that kind of thing by accident without even meaning to.

I've seen it happen and if I'm running or playing I will ask that player what they really want to do and attempt to help their characters be good at it. Usually no one wants to make a wizard/sorcerer/etc that can't actually do something helpful and so I would work with them to make their characters effective.

Edit: Forgot to answer your other question. To qualify for the kind of basket weaving I laid out you can't just have all 0s though ahving mostly 0s puts you close. Your character has to be specifically not geared towards doing what your party is doing. A Rogue is a skill tank. A Wizard can have horrible skills and good spell selection and still be functional. Its more about whether or not your character can handle adventuring. A rogue is likely to pick up things the team needs even accidentally so a Rogue is almost never going to be a basket weaver unless they are actively trying to. A Wizard however can do it by accident (as mentioned before) because the spells can be kind of tricky to understand but it is unlikely that someone at the table won't point them in a better direction. To be a basket weaver, at least in the fashion that most people are against, you'd basically have to "try" to build an inappropriate character.A basket weaver is someone who purposefully makes a character bad. Being unoptimized is not a big deal (as evidenced by the fact that people do it all the time) and there are ways around that that don't involve disrupting the game.

First of all, look very closely at MGuy's list. Do you see it? He listed Heal (a skill generally only available to those that can cast curative magic, and that does not do very much even if you entirely lack curative magic) as higher than Tumble (which, while narrow works very well in the "walk briskly away" defense that is standard for shutting down melee in a RAW game).

So yeah, safe to not take him very seriously.

Quote from: CRKrueger;590729Mguy thanks for answering, but I was arguing Dead's points, not yours specifically.  You listed a good list of useful vs. useless skills.  So at what point is a character a "basket-weaver"?  How many 0's must I have?  If I have any 3's maxed am I still a "basket-weaver"?  According to Dead and GC, it's a pretty clear and obvious line there, do you see it?

There is a clear and obvious line... but it has nothing to do with skills as most of them are entirely useless and even the few that do something aren't that big a deal. Skills are practically a different resource pool than the stuff that actually makes you effective, so the only way you could be a basket weaver regarding skills is to use some resources from your more important pools on skills. Taking a Skill Focus, for example.

Most of the other examples are also clear cut... they're 14 Str melee that think they bring something useful to the table (other than mobile monster chow) and insist this makes them a better roleplayer than if they could actually kill things before they kill them.

QuoteRogues are skill monkeys, so unless I just don't pick any Rogue skills at all, I won't be a "basket-weaver"?

Rogues are automatically basket weavers because a non basket weaver would pick a better class. Any will do, even Monk.

QuoteOk, how about a Wizard or Cleric.  Having spells can they gimp themselves through non-optimized Feat or Skill selection enough to be a "basket-weaver"?

Actually, quite easily. Healbot or Fireball spammers = basket weaver, regardless of other choices.

You know, all you're really doing is showing how 3.x is a shit system that should be avoided like the plague.  It very well may not be, but all of your posts are arguing about how it is.

Congrats on that.