PDA

View Full Version : Diary of Jaya Ballard, Taskmage



Pages : [1] 2

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-09-12, 02:11 PM
Running through the Planes of Ravenloft (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=116095)

Day one:


Ok, not actually day one of my journal, but it's the day I arrived in what I suspect is Ravenloft. In the event that I die, I am dedicating this journal to explaining the situation that I find myself in so that this may help whatever other hapless people this forsaken realm has dragged in. (Or, if I survive, a book deal.)

I am Jaya Ballard, Evocation Researcher, PhD, etc, etc. I woke up one morning and found myself in a desert. This was not fun. The sun was hot and the sand was dry and sandy. This presented a special challenge for me, as it was a problem that could not be solved with fire... at least not at first glance.

I proceeded to make shelter by Wind Walling a trench through the sand and using a Lightening Bolt to melt the sides into glass, and took cover in there to think over the situation. Fortunately, I was not alone for long, as a Dwarf warrior (Gladiator) and an somewhat airheaded female of dubious background (Tina) showed up in short order.

The female went off to scout after introductions, while the dwarf froze up and became non-responsive for some odd reason. This left me the only person at the "camp". I proceeded to try and improve it due to the lack of anywhere else to go and spells that provide shelter. After two goddamn hours of digging, I finally managed to make a hole deeper than I was, and struck something at the bottom.

The bottom of the hole then began to crumble. I jumped back and saw that I had revealed a dark pit under the sands. conveinenetly located at the exact spot that I was digging at. A quick casting of Magic Missile lifted the darkness long enough for me to make out a portal at the bottom, the kind that transports people between planes.

Since I had no way of communicating with either of my two acquaintances, I made myself invisible and hopped through the portal. I ended up in a ruined courtyard of a castle, with a shiny blob and two arrow demons (Note, possibly not the right terminology). I divided the enemies in two groups with one Wall of Force across the courtyard.

Tina then popped into existence and took an arrow from the demons. She was then followed by Gladiator. At this point, we could have handled the existing enemies, but a swarm of blood sucking flowers showed up and started to leech life from Gladiator. I made a second wall of Force to keep them out, but they just floated over this one and continued attacking him. I trued to hide us with an illusionary cloud, but not even that worked. Fed up, I launched a Frozen Orb into the middle of them, and iced the buggers, solving the problem once and for all.

Then we engaged the arrow demons in combat (which, apparently, can also summon smaller demons to join them), which resulted in the death of Gladiator as he was turned into a pincushion. I myself was prevented from casting any spells briefly due to an allergic reaction with the flower's pollen. Realizing that the battle was not going my way, I activated a contingent Resilient Sphere and isolated myself for more buffing. (Mirror Image, in this case.)

When I came out, there a dwarf druid of some sort had arrived and was fighting our enemies, so proceeded toss out a Wave of Fatigue and a Ray of Exhaustion, fatiguing both and exhausting one of them, which is fortunate because I then became paralyzed from the flower's poison, which left me with only a crowd of Mirror Images for protection. Thankfully, the paralysis did not last for more than a few seconds, so I was able to start Magic Missiling things again in short order. At this point, the Walls of Force expired, and the glittering ooze advanced on us. It looked dangerous, so I used Scorching Ray to light it on fire. And then I laughed, because fire is good.

After that, the druid and his animal companion finished off the demons and we were able to rest, though Tina was killed in the process. He told me his name was Dok, and found himself mysteriously transported to this place. We got to know each other a bit more, then fell alseep ready to explore the place more thoroughly tomorrow.

The next morning, we found that Gladiator and Tina had returned to life through some strange magic of the realm, appeared in the desert, and simply hopped down the portal to join us. There was much rejoicing.

Our exploration of the castle produced two useless Scrolls of Detect Secret Doors. I say useless because, with their duration, you have to know where the secret door is before casting the spell, which goes against the entire point of having the spell.

During our exploration of the forest, we found ourselves traveling in circles around the castle. I said, "The non-Elucidean geometry of certain planes often results in 'looping', where the curvature of spacetime leads one in a circle despite going in what is perceived to be a straight line. To counter this, I propose that we either find exits in this plane that allow for travel outside of the loop or grab the anti-reality of this non-spacetime and tear it a new one. The first one is likely to be easier." (Awesome quote though it lacks the phrase "nonlinear".)

We proceeded to explore the castle further, and found that there was indeed another portal in the place. Before we could reach a consensus on whether to go through or not, we were pulled in - whether this was a result of the nature of the portal or the act of some intelligent being putting us through a series of trials, I know not.

Day Two

Got dumped into a cave of ice. I had a bad feeling about it. It turned to be the correct assumption as Dok dropped into a pit and a cryohydra came charging out of a pool of ice cold water at us. Fortunately, two castings of Enervation solved that problem quite well.

After we has all reassembled, proto-water elementals came andtried to drown us. I was fortunate to hold my breath in time, but my teammates were not so lucky and water was force into their lungs.

A quick lightening bolt took care of the elementals, but did nothing to stop my teammates from drowning. To make matters worse, the only one who hadn't started to drown (me) got dropped down a trap door. At the bottom, there were stairs that led up, which enabled me to climb back up to the main cavern.

Fortunately, I had taken first aid training along with a CPR course while I was in college, so the first thing I did when I returned was to pump the water out of Dok and Tina. However, in the time it took me to do that Gladiator died again.

He got better in a day or so, though, which is the important thing.

Day Three

We wound up with some priests of Pelor. Don't believe them to be trustworthy, because they allowed us to be killed in our sleep by Shadows. Half the party was taken out, and Gladiator and I survived for a few hours longer while the priests went down into the catacombs to "strengthen their defenses".

We were then attacked briefly by shadows, but a Resilient Sphere protected me. We went to find the priests, but they would not let us in because, and I quote in the words of the head priestss, "We cannot allow Jaya in, as the shadows kept attacking her."

My response was "And how did you know I was just attacked, motherf*cker?"

It was promptly followed by a Lightening Bolt through the door she was hiding behind. Then the shadows got me.

I popped back into existence the next day with Dok and Tina, and we're going to go back to kill everyone and rescue Gladiator. I think my teammates are inclined to kill the head priestess and spare the followers who are likely just controlled by her powers, but I do not believe in taking chances and am going to toast them all with a well placed Chain Lightening.

They had their chance.


Day Four

Part 1

We began the assault by sending Tina in to possibly distract and negotiate with the enemy, with Dok and I following her invisibly.

When we arrived, the battle had started, and we began to lay down the law through the use of a Wall of Force and a Summon Nature's Ally for unicorns, respectively.

Unfortunately, since Gladiator was flying at the time, he was able to bypass the Wall of Force from above and disrupted Dok's attempts to summon reinforcements. Priests directed by Lillian moved around the Wall of Force, so I responded by using Persistent Image to cover the battlefield and cloud their eyes while Dok did the same with a casting of Sleet Storm. As a result of the loss of sight, I was unable to target Gladiator or the priests, though I heard Gladiator attacking Dok and Tina stabbing several priests.

However, I did not get a chance to exercise my formidable arcane might before Gladiator knocked me unconscious. Fortunately I can still remember what happened after.

Dok summoned a protective shell of stone around himself using Sculpt Stone, and proceeded to summon unicorns again. He succeeded in doing so several times, thanks to the cover provided by the stone. They proceeded to heal me and I was able to wake up long enough to attempt to dispel the enchantments on Gladiator, though it seems that fate was not with me; I was only able to dispel 20 or so of the 60 ish spells effective on Gladiator. He then proceeded to knock me out again.

Tina ganked more priests, though she was eventually hit by a Confusion effect and spent several turns either attacking unicorns or babbling incoherently.

While I was out for the second time, the Magic Circle effects of the unicorns finally kicked in and warded Gladiator from possession. As a result, he broke off his attack, which allowed me a reprieve from being constantly assaulted.

I then proceeded to wake up after some more healing and, fed up with the battle, pointed a finger at the priestess and set her on cold. And then I laughed, because cold is good.

She retreated afterwards, deciding that it would be better to "take her chances with the monsters" whatever that means. Good riddance, though not having her dead leave me feeling slightly uneasy. It could mean that she'll still be out there, waiting to poise as another friendly ally.

Well, the battle is over, and it's time to restock my spells. My familiar has been here ever since I died, and I'm sure that between his intel and that of Gladiator's, we should be able to piece out a better understanding of the situation. The priests, assuming they were human, should be back in a few days; I shall recommend that we stay for a bit and wait for them; they could be potential allies and at the very least, we owe them an explanation of what happened.
Part 2
After giving the place a good once-over in search of clues, the gang decided to scout out the crypts because of the danger that Lillian might come back at us with summoned monsters or something of the sort.

We went down the steps and into the catacombs, and found four undead awaiting us. Two were ice-zombies that drained body heat to sustain themselves, while two others were bodaks with deadly gaze attacks.

In a bout of quick thinking, I locked down one of the bodaks with a Resilient Sphere while Dok cast Obscuring Mist over the party, preventing us from being subject to gaze attacks. This made targeting our enemies a bit more difficult than usual, but since I had a decent compliment of area-effect spells, I could compensate with a good listen check - which is exactly what I did. I electrified one ice-zombie with a Lightening Bolt so that it could be more easily beaten down by the others, and froze a bodak so hard that it fell apart.

After that, I dismissed the Resilient Sphere trapping the other bodak and Gladiator proceeded to punch it to death. Meanwhile, Dok and Tina had moved forward to scout for Lillian, but she was not there. The chamber was now empty.

Well, aside from the two ice-zombies who rose again, as we had been hanging around them for a bit after they had died. Fortunately, a few empowered Magic Missiles put them in their place.

The only other thing that we found was a piece of parchment detailing the plane, in an obscure dialect of common. It speaks of this place being a vast maze of sorts, ruled over by a "Dark Lord" imprisoned at the center. Methinks we should meet with this man to discuss our predicament.

Preferably with fire. And lots of it.
Part 3
Ambushed by shadows while resting. Escaped through portal.

-The rest of the text is heavily water damaged -

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-09-12, 02:12 PM
Builds:
Jaya (http://www.thetangledweb.net/forums/profiler/view_char.php?cid=27023)
Gladiator:
12th level Dwarf Monk (Giamonk tank variant style); Lawful Good
STR 24 (15 start, 3 stat gain, +2 size, +4 enhance), DEX 14 (+2 enhance, -2 size), CON 16 (+2 racial), INT 10, WIS 16 (+2 enhance), CHR 6
FEATS: Improved Unarmed Strike, Improved Grapple (Monk bonus feats), Improved Initiative, Combat Reflexes (Monk bonus feat), Weapon Focus/Unarmed Attack, Improved Trip (Monk bonus feat), Improved Natural Attack, Blind-Fight, Stunning Fist (12/day, DC 19)
SPECIAL: Improved Evasion, Slow Fall 60ft, Ki-Magic/Lawful, Purity of Body (immune to Disease), Wholeness of body (24 hits/day), Diamond body (immunity to poison), Abundant Step (Dimension door 1/day). Dwarf racial traits (including 60ft Darkvision).
SKILLS: Move Silently +9 (DEX, 6 ranks, MW item), Hide 0 (DEX, -4 size, MW item), Spot +25 (WIS, 15 ranks, MW item, eyes), Listen +20 (WIS, 15 ranks, MW item), Use Magic Device +5 (CHR, 5 ranks, MW item), Spellcraft +3 (1 rank, MW item), Tumble +14 (DEX, 8 ranks, MW item, synergy), Jump +28 (STR, 5 ranks, MW item, synergy, move).
ITEMS: Masterwork tools for all above skills (450 gp), Masterwork spiked chain, cold iron (650), beads of bless 1/day (600), Pearl of Power, level 1 (1,000), Cloak of Resistance +2 (4000), Lesser Rod of Extend (3,000), 50 Masterwork Shuriken, silvered (410), Eyes of the Eagle (2,500), Belt of Giant Strength +4 (16,000), Amulet of WIS +2 (4,000), Boots of Speed (12,000, usually worn), Slippers of Spider Climb (4,800), Hat of Disguise (1,800), Bracers of AC +1 (1,000), Ring of Protection +1 (2,000), Ring of Spell Storing (18,000; usually with obscuring mist, shield and bless weapon), Permanently enlarged at lvl 16 CL (3,460), Gloves of DEX +2 (4,000)
WAND BUDGET: 8250.
2x Wands of CLW, 1x Wand of lvl 2 Mage Armour, 1x wand of lvl 1 mage armour, 2x wand of shield, 2x Wand of Obscuring Mist, 1x Wand of Bless Weapon.
- For this adventure, I assume there are only 10 charges per wand, as per DMG p. 199 for one-shot adventures. EDIT: just noticed that others also have one-shot items without higher prices and/or less charges. But I guess it does not matter, anyhow.
OTHER EQUIPMENT 20 days of trail rations, backpack, 5 flasks or 1.5 litre water each, explorer's outfit, monk's outfit, bedroll, shoevel, 5 (empty) scrollcases, 2 belt pouches, 2 50ft silk ropes, 5 torches, flint&steel, 10 tindertwigs, 12 gp.
INITIATIVE: +6 (DEX, feat)
MOVE: 60ft (60ft climbing)
AC 18 (WIS, DEX, monk, bracers, deflection, size), 21 with mage armour. Possible boosts: +1 (haste), +4 (shield), +3 (fighting defensively).
Touch AC: 17
HITS 93 (max d8 at first level, CON). Current: 80
SAVES: Fort +13 (+15 vs spells), Refl +12 (+14 vs spells), Will +13 (+15 spells, +17 vs enchantment)
BAB: +9/+9/+9/+4
TRIP: +15 (STR, feat, size) +19 vs opponent trip attemts (dwarf)
GRAPPLE: +24 (+24/+24/+24/+19)
UNARMED ATTACK: +16 (+16/+16/+16/+11); Damage 4d6 +7
SPIKED CHAIN ATTACK: +12 (+12/+7), Damage 2d6+10

3 encounters, 2 respawns
Tina (http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheetview.php?sheetid=137099)
Dok (Sstopppidtallkid)
Dok (http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheetview.php?sheetid=161051) (Olo Demonsbane)

Highlights thus far:

Death toll:
Giacomo: 2 deaths, once in combat, once as a result of drowning due to water creatures. 1 instance of being mind controlled by the enemy.

Dok: 2 deaths, both due to being ambushed by Shadows while sleeping.

Tina: 2 deaths, one in combat, the other after being ambushed by Shadows

Jaya: 1 death, attacked by Shadows in combat.


Kills:

Jaya: One Hydra downed with two enervations, one blood blossom swarm, one glowing living spell, one Moil zombie, one Bodak. (Total 5)
Note: The two Moil zombies we fought came back to life and Jaya put them down. Depending on how you count, that may add two kills to the total.

Gladiator: One zombie, one elemental swarm, one Shadow, one Moil zombie, one bodak. (Total 5)

Dok (factoring in Animal Companion and Summons): Two Arrow Demons, one elemental swarm, 3 priests. (Total 6)

Tina: 2 priests, 1 unicorn. (Total 3)

Note: In cases where two people attack the same target, I count someone as having made a kill if they contribute significantly.

Notable occurrences:

Well, after the RITUAL DESECRATION AND DISMEMBERMENT OF THE ENEMY CORPSES WITH FIRE! FIRE! I think Jaya will rest on the old ramparts.

"I dance on their corpses. This is a sacred dance of my peoples to grant good luck to the victors of battle. I take no joy in this whatsoever. It is purely professional."


Perform: Dance (1d20-1)[1]


Wait, I have rope. And 2 Demons. Craft:Marionette - (1d20+2)[21] Perform:Puppet Show - (1d20-2)[4]

Unless Jaya has something else to do, we set watches and camp for 2 days.


Milil, God of Bards, comes down and smites both you and Jaya. Seriously, that's the worst set of Perform checks I've ever seen.



"Jinkies! We're being attacked!"


"Zoinks! Run for it, Scoob!"


You still need 47 more dispel checks, by the way.


why do YOU HAVE no spoon mr bibblington, all your colour has worn out. I like the chance to fix my frount DOOR to a girls best cupckae.

Keld Denar
2009-09-25, 07:52 PM
However, in the time it took me to do that Gladiator died again.

He got better in a day or so, though, which is the important thing.

LOL!!! Hillarious!

SparkMandriller
2009-09-25, 08:13 PM
It looked dangerous, so I used Scorching Ray to light it on fire. And then I laughed, because fire is good.

I can see you earned that PhD.

(I'm amazed there hasn't been more sniping at Giacomo)

Artanis
2009-09-25, 08:19 PM
Maybe it was a PhD in Arsonology :smalltongue:

Gralamin
2009-09-25, 08:20 PM
Truly, this Diary is of an enlightened individual. It would be good to have it when you find yourself in Ravenloft. I'll be sure to read it.

Olo Demonsbane
2009-09-25, 09:36 PM
And then the dwarf had a personality fracture...

sofawall
2009-09-25, 10:22 PM
This... It amuses me.

Claudius Maximus
2009-09-25, 10:24 PM
I can't wait for her angle on day 3. What with the dying and all.

Flickerdart
2009-09-25, 10:29 PM
I can see you earned that PhD.

(I'm amazed there hasn't been more sniping at Giacomo)
He got shot full of arrows and died, how much more sniping do you want?:smalltongue:

Sir Giacomo
2009-09-26, 03:59 AM
Written in a style worthy of Solo!
While the tale is not complete (for instance, Tina also died on day 1), I eagerly await the sequels...

- Giacomo

Doc Roc
2009-09-26, 11:05 AM
I look forward to Day 4, myself. Failure to continue this will result in great hunting cats being released on your campus, ol' friend.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-09-26, 01:07 PM
Giacomo, you're right, I forgot that Tina died on the first combat from getting attacked by a summon.

Logalmier
2009-09-26, 01:34 PM
Perhaps this diary could be found by other Test of Spite'rs in another game. A bit of dramatic foreshadowing, no?

Just an idea.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-09-26, 03:24 PM
I am compiling highlights of the dungeoncrawl. Please submit your favorite moments to me via PM so that I may put them up in the second post.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-09-29, 02:03 AM
What, do people feel, has been the effect of luck in the the playtest?

PhoenixRivers
2009-09-29, 02:21 AM
Written in a style worthy of Solo!
While the tale is not complete (for instance, Tina also died on day 1), I eagerly await the sequels...

- Giacomo

Solo? Like Han Solo?

It's not THAT good. I bet it can't even make the Kessel run in under 5 parsecs.

jiriku
2009-09-29, 02:32 AM
The elementite swarm trap felt flukey to me. The swarms were positioned so as to immediately be able to attack from hiding, close range and envelop, without the players having a chance to take any actions. Their attack is basically "pass a Con check or you're out of the fight and dying".

That's mild to moderate cheese in the Book of Jiriku, as the players are subjected without warning to an attack that bypasses AC, saving throws, level, and defensive class features. Basically, it comes down to the luck of who happens to be standing where when the swarm is released.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-09-29, 02:34 AM
Well, it comes down to Con, and those who have higher Con do have better defenses against this...

Though I still felt it was... underhanded.

PhoenixRivers
2009-09-29, 02:37 AM
I believe that Ravenloft is like that, though.

jiriku
2009-09-29, 02:58 AM
I believe that Ravenloft is like that, though.

Well, I can see that side of it. Ravenloft doesn't intend to play fair or let the good guy win. That's the whole point of Ravenloft.

But Pharoah asked where luck impacted the contest. I feel this is an attack against which the only real defense was dumb luck.

Aside: Whenever I kill a PC, I want there to be a level of justice to it. The player should think to himself, "My character would probably still be alive if only I hadn't foolishly done X." If the death occurred without regard to the PC's actions, or the action the PC performed seemed wise and safe according to all the information that was reasonably available to the player, then the death wasn't just. There's no way the player could have reasonably avoided the threat.

olentu
2009-09-29, 03:43 AM
Yeah this is ravenloft. It totally has that whole "Suddenly a lich jumps out of a tree." thing going for it.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-10-02, 04:51 PM
So what do people think of the dungeoncrawl and the characters therein?

tyckspoon
2009-10-02, 05:24 PM
So far, luck seems to have been very significant, perhaps too much so; first with the elementites, and then the Shadow attack, both of which effectively came down to whether or not the characters were lucky enough to still be standing when their turns came around so they could try and do something. And now with Gladiator mind-controlled, he seems to be having unusually good luck bypassing miss chances (admittedly I haven't been keeping a close count, but it's hard not to notice when he rolls ten attacks against Tina's Blink and comes up with 9 out of 10 hits.)

For performances, everybody is finding a way to contribute, but the actual results of the fights still seem to swing on the actions of the casters. And Giacomo's "UMD yourself into power" hypothesis does not seem to be bearing up; he's helping out, but he's mostly demonstrating the value of having good reach instead of showing off the power of buying magic.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-10-02, 05:32 PM
My personal opinion of Gladiator is that he has been a bit underwhelming, in that I can't give a good summary of his contributions to the party.

This encounter with the priests will probably be used as evidence on how good the monk is, but let's see....

Started off dominated by the enemy is not points in his favor. He's been hitting pretty hard, but it's against people who have low AC, not the opposition he's supposed to be able to face.

Furthermore, it's against a druid who had a horrible spell list prepared due to Sstoop just not caring anymore (Stonetell, when we know we're going into combat? Really? How about Find the Path?), a rogue who isn't built to optimized standards, and a wizard who barred the two most powerful schools of magic and specialized in the weakest.

Cieyrin
2009-10-02, 11:22 PM
Yeah this is ravenloft. It totally has that whole "Suddenly a lich jumps out of a tree." thing going for it.

lol, I totally want to sig this. Permissions?

olentu
2009-10-03, 01:06 AM
lol, I totally want to sig this. Permissions?

This is fine with me.

Deth Muncher
2009-10-03, 05:13 AM
Solo? Like Han Solo?

It's not THAT good. I bet it can't even make the Kessel run in under 5 parsecs.

Solo is a former poster here on the playground that got banned. He came up with the Sorceror Stratagems guide in my sig.

Kurald Galain
2009-10-03, 05:47 AM
This encounter with the priests will probably be used as evidence on how good the monk is, but let's see....
Well, let me put it like this: I've seen the encounter with the hydra being used as "evidence" on how good the monk is...

mostlyharmful
2009-10-03, 08:44 AM
What, do people feel, has been the effect of luck in the the playtest?

So far it's been the deciding factor a bit too much for anything worth analyzing to have come up, the lack of traps or skill rolls is also something that's bothering me but that's just personal play style versus campaign limitations as this is all set up to not have any of that. meh.

Also, Tina didn't die from a summon in combat 1, she died from being shishkebabbed by arrow demons after she went back to save total strangers, not particularly in character for a scared rogue.

So far what's coming closest to being shown conclusively is the power of casters, such as Jaya sorting encounters on her own and the power of a buffing cleric which knows exactly when and who their buffed minion will be fighting.

Sir Giacomo
2009-10-03, 02:15 PM
My personal opinion of Gladiator is that he has been a bit underwhelming, in that I can't give a good summary of his contributions to the party.

I guess that's difficult for any contribution so far. Probably after 8 encounters I'll try to do a first cautious assessment. Many interesting insights imo so far, though.


This encounter with the priests will probably be used as evidence on how good the monk is, but let's see....

Started off dominated by the enemy is not points in his favor.

Some would call it a monk class weakness to fail a will save that he could have made with 4 or more. But I'd like to see the core tank build (any class) that would have had a better chance in that instance.


He's been hitting pretty hard, but it's against people who have low AC, not the opposition he's supposed to be able to face.

Dok has a good AC (near 30 I think). Tina has blinking up almost constantly which is more powerful than an AC of 25-30 for that level (and that's just defense, not counting the near-guaranteed sneak attacks for offense). And Jaya has an abysmal AC, yes. As I warned you before the test of monkening started.
All are 12th level with full pc wbl each, so they are even more powerful than what kind of opponent (12th level npc for instance) the monk should be able to face.
I guess the reason why Gladiator hit comparatively often was because the recent combat was largely in full concealment - this greatly benefitted him due to
1) high number of attacks due to flurry of blows (yes, that monk ability that allegedly hardly ever comes up in combat) and
2) the blind-fight feat which increases hitting chance from 50% to 75%. (something that only really benefits melee builds).


Furthermore, it's against a druid who had a horrible spell list prepared due to Sstoop just not caring anymore (Stonetell, when we know we're going into combat? Really? How about Find the Path?),

Well, Olo can soon choose better spells learnt for the day, but I did not think stoop's choices were so bad (for instance, the death wards to safeguard against the threat that killed the group before; the spells you mentioned he apparently overlooked to change).


a rogue who isn't built to optimized standards,

strangely, mostlyharmful did not object you in this regard.
I think it is a very powerful core rogue build, focused on skillmonkey role (that is, putting high INT before DEX). The intelligent (i.e. free activation) ring of blinking makes Tina a fearsome opponent imo who damagewise can constantly outdo even Jaya with about 20d6 damage/round.


and a wizard who barred the two most powerful schools of magic and specialized in the weakest.

Now this is quite a surprising comment coming from you. I had warned you before the match that the specialisation choices you made would leave your wizard very vulnerable in some instances.
Anyhow, I do not think that Saph or Tidesinger or anyone would mind if you changed your build more to your liking now.

- Giacomo

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-10-03, 02:44 PM
Some would call it a monk class weakness to fail a will save that he could have made with 4 or more. But I'd like to see the core tank build (any class) that would have had a better chance in that instance.

Barbarian 6/Sorcerer 2/Dragon Disciple 4 would have the Monk beat base save-wise. +9 base will save, I believe. Could afford a nice Cloak of Resistance for some more to the save, with the money that would have gone to wands and the like. Take Iron Will and you're pretty much at +13 to saves, +2 vs spells and SLA.

The monk gets +2 vs enchantment, the Barbarian can cast Protection from Evil on himself.

Also, higher to-hit and damage, plus Enlarge Person, and Protection from Evil for himself.

AC would be higher too. Wearing +1 mithral heavy armor gives +9 AC, having some Dex would be another +1 or +2, and there is the matter of +2 NA from Dragon Disciple. Gives an AC of 22 or 23 in the end. A wand of Shield can be used (without needing to roll UMD) for more armor.

I get base starting stats of Str 16, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 8, Wis 10, Cha 12 with 28 point buy.

Be a dwarf for more Con, less Cha and you're set. Send one stat point into Cha for the ability to cast spells and then pump Con. You also get +4 to Str as a level 4 Dragon Disciple. Should work out pretty well. Lots of HP and AB, decent saves, good strength, and a breath weapon to top it off for special party occasions.


Well, Olo can soon choose better spells learnt for the day, but I did not think stoop's choices were so bad (for instance, the death wards to safeguard against the threat that killed the group before; the spells you mentioned he apparently overlooked to change).
I never complained about the Deathwards.

Can't say if Sstoop overlooked the spells or what, but they're there and that's what matters...


strangely, mostlyharmful did not object you in this regard.
It's not optimized. I do not mean anything negative by saying so, it's not a personal criticism. Just like my wizard isn't optimized.


I think it is a very powerful core rogue build, focused on skillmonkey role
I wouldn't know, since we haven't had many chances to test the skillmonkey part of it out. It's been mostly combat so far, which threw a wrench in mostly's plan to be skill-support.

Power wise, though, it's not as strong as it could be. Cha 14 is less useful than higher dex, for example.


Now this is quite a surprising comment coming from you. I had warned you before the match that the specialisation choices you made would leave your wizard very vulnerable in some instances.
If core is balanced, one choice of specialization should be as powerful as another.

Sliver
2009-10-03, 03:03 PM
I can't say I'm impressed by the last fight.. The monk is hitting hard sure, but he is really buffed and knows pretty much the entire party, as well as the opponent. While the party consists of 3 members and has way less info about what they are facing, compared to their opponents.
If Gia says he manages to hit their high AC, is it luck or buffs? should we look at this as a victory to his monk, instead of the positive effects of buffing?
You are fighting in poor visibility conditions, not being able to coordinate and use healing (such as from summons) in an effective way.. If you count on taking a feat to have an advantage in such a case, being highly buffed and knowing fully who you are going to face, as a victory to the monk and him being just as good as any other class.. I donno.. Doesn't really look to me like "I'm winning because I play my monk well", because I don't really see the monk part really doing something worth talking about here.. I might be missing something..
I fail to see how it is a victory to the monk, as it looks to me more of a victory to the bunch of NPCs.. Most other classes would fare well in such a case..

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-10-03, 03:04 PM
You are fighting in poor visibility conditions, not being able to coordinate and use healing (such as from summons) in an effective way..

Yeah, they're just kinda... standing around for the past turn or so. Dunno what's up with that. Perhaps Saph is just spoilering the healing.

Thrice Dead Cat
2009-10-03, 03:24 PM
I also noticed that some of the movement and distances seemed a little off, but that's probably due to having to work around all of the concealment effects.

At any rate, it's an entertaining and interesting read.

Sir Giacomo
2009-10-03, 03:50 PM
Barbarian 6/Sorcerer 2/Dragon Disciple 4 would have the Monk beat base save-wise. +9 base will save, I believe. Could afford a nice Cloak of Resistance for some more to the save, with the money that would have gone to wands and the like. Take Iron Will and you're pretty much at +13 to saves, +2 vs spells and SLA.

Gladiator has +17 save vs enchantment spells. And by building the tank the way you described, you're leaving other areas weaker.


The monk gets +2 vs enchantment, the Barbarian can cast Protection from Evil on himself.

Protection from evil grants a resistance bonus that does not stack with cloak of resistance.


Also, higher to-hit and damage, plus Enlarge Person, and Protection from Evil for himself.

Higher to-hit, similar damage, lower number of attacks than Gladiator. Different, but not more powerful I think.


AC would be higher too. Wearing +1 mithral heavy armor gives +9 AC, having some Dex would be another +1 or +2, and there is the matter of +2 NA from Dragon Disciple. Gives an AC of 22 or 23 in the end. A wand of Shield can be used (without needing to roll UMD) for more armor.

I get base starting stats of Str 16, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 8, Wis 10, Cha 12 with 28 point buy.

Be a dwarf for more Con, less Cha and you're set. Send one stat point into Cha for the ability to cast spells and then pump Con. You also get +4 to Str as a level 4 Dragon Disciple. Should work out pretty well. Lots of HP and AB, decent saves, good strength, and a breath weapon to top it off for special party occasions.

Maybe you can complete the build so we can judge whether he's clearly better than the straight level 12 monk Gladiator build?


Power wise, though, it's not as strong as it could be. Cha 14 is less useful than higher dex, for example.

That depends imo.


If core is balanced, one choice of specialization should be as powerful as another.

Oh, but it broadly is (also in part depending on personal maxing fu and what spells you take with each specialisation). But you did not appear to like your build any more, so I suggested you took something else.

- Giacomo

mostlyharmful
2009-10-03, 04:10 PM
strangely, mostlyharmful did not object you in this regard.
I think it is a very powerful core rogue build, focused on skillmonkey role (that is, putting high INT before DEX). The intelligent (i.e. free activation) ring of blinking makes Tina a fearsome opponent imo who damagewise can constantly outdo even Jaya with about 20d6 damage/round.

- Giacomo

I didn't object because I'm in agreement, it's not an optimized build in any sense, even inside core. The intelligent blink ring is about the only thing even close to a piece of optimization and that's so simple that it barely counts. If I wanted to Tina'd be throwing touch attack SAs with twice as many attacks per round before I even started to use UMD or Diplomacy or decent strategy. It's not an optimized rogue, it's a bog standerd rogue that hasn't gimped themselves and has been played without any real tactical or strategic awareness.

Sir Giacomo
2009-10-03, 04:24 PM
I didn't object because I'm in agreement, it's not an optimized build in any sense, even inside core. The intelligent blink ring is about the only thing even close to a piece of optimization and that's so simple that it barely counts. If I wanted to Tina'd be throwing touch attack SAs with twice as many attacks per round before I even started to use UMD or Diplomacy or decent strategy. It's not an optimized rogue, it's a bog standerd rogue that hasn't gimped themselves and has been played without any real tactical or strategic awareness.

So basically you and Pharao's fist are now telling me that you did not put much effort into the rogue and wizard for this monkening test? Why?

And would you consider replacing the Tina rogue build with something you consider powerful?

- Giacomo

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-10-03, 04:53 PM
Protection from evil grants a resistance bonus that does not stack with cloak of resistance.


Second, the barrier blocks any attempt to possess the warded creature (by a magic jar attack, for example) or to exercise mental control over the creature (including enchantment (charm) effects and enchantment (compulsion) effects that grant the caster ongoing control over the subject, such as dominate person).

I believe that is the relevant portion. After all, you asked for a build that would prevent being dominated better than the monk, right?


Gladiator has +17 save vs enchantment spells. And by building the tank the way you described, you're leaving other areas weaker.

What other areas? Please, expand on this.


Higher to-hit, similar damage, lower number of attacks than Gladiator. Different, but not more powerful I think.
You asked for someone who could resist Domination more effectively. The other stuff is basically what else would come with the character.


So basically you and Pharaoh's fist are now telling me that you did not put much effort into the rogue and wizard for this monkening test? Why?

I can't speak for mostly, but I went for the stereotypical WotC imagined class, a blaster wizard, in a dungeoncrawl. It's not that we didn't put effort into it, we just put effort into making the characters closer to the type of characters playtested by WotC, the ones that DnD was apparently balanced according to.

mostlyharmful
2009-10-03, 05:04 PM
So basically you and Pharao's fist are now telling me that you did not put much effort into the rogue and wizard for this monkening test? Why?

And would you consider replacing the Tina rogue build with something you consider powerful?

- Giacomo

I didn't say I put no effort into it, I said it's not fully optimized which is a big difference. The point of the thread was to see if the Monk could fill the 'Tank' role of a party not whether they were more powerful than a fully cranked rogue or caster. and no, I don't like to play stuff where the game engine starts breaking down simply because I can by RAW, it's not fun.

Sir Giacomo
2009-10-03, 05:36 PM
I believe that is the relevant portion. After all, you asked for a build that would prevent being dominated better than the monk, right?

(...)
You asked for someone who could resist Domination more effectively.

Do you really think that you can get up a protection from evil up in core in time when hit by a dominate person?
And since it is short-term only it is unlikely you happen to have it already up.
Finally, having low-level spells at your disposal had never been a problem for a Giamonk build.

Otherwise, I have the feeling that when Gladiator should perform well in these tests you and mostlyharmful will simply say that it is only because you both held back in what the other classes could have done.
Which would make the current test somewhat ... futile.

- Giacomo

Kurald Galain
2009-10-03, 05:56 PM
The point of the thread was to see if the Monk could fill the 'Tank' role of a party not whether they were more powerful than a fully cranked rogue or caster.
That means that either the monk should be the Most Valuable Player in all encounters so far (which doesn't seem to match the test results so far), or it proves that monks are underpowered (as it requires a substantially optimized monk to even keep up with a non-optimized party).

Saph
2009-10-03, 05:59 PM
Yeah, they're just kinda... standing around for the past turn or so. Dunno what's up with that. Perhaps Saph is just spoilering the healing.

Actually, observers should know what's up with the unicorns. (Note to those who do; please hold off another combat round or so before telling the players.)

As for the visual conditions, though, you got me. I just figured Pharaoh was doing it to drive me nuts by making the battle as complicated as possible.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-10-03, 06:10 PM
Do you really think that you can get up a protection from evil up in core in time when hit by a dominate person?
Do you think you can buff with Polymorph every time in core before going into a combat encounter?


Otherwise, I have the feeling that when Gladiator should perform well in these tests you and mostlyharmful will simply say that it is only because you both held back in what the other classes could have done.
Which would make the current test somewhat ... futile.

Our holding back will not make you perform better or worse in these tests.

That you couldn't kill Jaya, or other party members was never argued - indeed, for Jaya, the two schools of magic that would offer the most protections against Gladiator were banned. We're testing contributions to the party.

Your performance relative to us would be the issue here. Already, it can be seen that your optimized monk does not contribute to the party as well as a weak wizard.



As for the visual conditions, though, you got me. I just figured Pharaoh was doing it to drive me nuts by making the battle as complicated as possible.

Yes, you have figured out my true purpose, to get back at you for all the trouble you've been giving me in the test. MUHUHAHA!!!



By the way, a draft of the Dragon Disciple (http://www.thetangledweb.net/forums/profiler/view_char.php?cid=30547) is up. If Giacomo wants to analyze it, I advise he make his own thread for it.

Claudius Maximus
2009-10-03, 06:27 PM
By the way, a draft of the Dragon Disciple (http://www.thetangledweb.net/forums/profiler/view_char.php?cid=30547) is up.

Those item prices are very wrong.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-10-03, 07:00 PM
Corrected. Thank you.

Master_Rahl22
2009-10-03, 09:10 PM
I agree with Kurald here. The fact that Jaya and Tina are not optimized to the best of their ability while Gladiator is should mean that Gladiator is the standout in every fight. So far, the only fight he's stood out in rather than die early on or merely pull his weight has been the fight against the rest of the party. I submit that the single largest reason Gladiator has done well in the fight is magic, including his own buffs and those from the priestess. Those from the priestess have been huge, and with Gladiator's CC ranks in UMD, anybody else could have the same or better buffs on themself.

Finally, when Giacomo mentions his Monk features that help him kick butt, I have to point out that anybody can have Blind-Fight, a TWF melee character with full BAB will have more attacks, and Pharaoh already mentioned a character that can be more resistant to dominate, not to mention not needing UMD checks for most of his buffs. To reiterate, everything about Gladiator's success could be duplicated, and in some cases improved upon, by any other class. This to me perfectly conveys the point that Monks, especially in core, are horribly underpowered.

Sir Giacomo
2009-10-04, 11:56 AM
Well,

I have the feeling that there is going to be a problem.
The problem is with two out of the four players saying that their characters are not really optimised, there are two possible outcomes of the monkening test of spite:
1) the monk does not outclass everyone, which means that the monk is underpowered
2) the monk outclasses everyone due to perceived "less maxing" done to rogue and wizard. Then it would still not show that he is as powerful as the other classes.

Looks like a win-win situation for the monk doubting side to me.:smallwink:

Moreover, I do not think that Tina or Jaya are badly optimised - they are simply not focusing all their power on certain combat strenghts, but also on out-of-combat situations (blasting science, skillmonkey).

As such, I renew my suggestion:
Please, Pharao's Fist and mostlyharmful, please redo your characters in such a way that you think that they would really be powerful in combat.
Or if you keep them, accept any good performances of the monk as it is.

Then, on Pharao's Fist alternative tank


By the way, a draft of the Dragon Disciple (http://www.thetangledweb.net/forums/profiler/view_char.php?cid=30547) is up. If Giacomo wants to analyze it, I advise he make his own thread for it.

I do not think a spearate thread is necessary.
Short comments in general:
- It is a multi-class build compared to a full class build. While imo they are broadly balanced, this should not be forgotten when our main issue here is comparing core classes directly, and not multic-class builds.
- the dragon disciple should have higher hp due to the high CON mod. But as I see it he also needs the much higher hp, due to possibly losing 3d6 hp per round in full attacks (vicious chain - imo should be used only once the barbarian gets his damage reduction)
Where the multiclass build is a better tank:
- STR is higher most of the time than that of Gladiator. Thus also damage range per hit is similar or slightly higher (more when rage is up)
- single attack BAB and attack bonus (note though Gladiator option to trip and gain +4)
- more reliable buff casting (less important when party is around). However, this is not the case when the armour is worn due to 25% spell failure risk.
- slightly higher AC (similar when raging; note though that Gladiator has option to trip, resulting in basically +4 AC vs tripped opponent). Flat-footed AC is way higher. Touch AC is way lower.
Where the Gladiator monk build is a better tank:
- better full attack BAB (10/5 of multiclass vs monk's 9/9/9/4)
- more attacks (5 vs 3 of multiclass build) and thus more full round damage
- way better tripping. This means, for instance, that Gladiator can try to protect the group around him in 20ft radius effectively against melee and missile attackers (a core function of a tank). He also has a higher DEX enlarged
- better skills (including tumbling for AoO, listen for pinpointing)
- blind-fighting puts the Gladiator at an advantage in concealment situations (but the multiclass still has a feat slot free).

How the multiclass barbarian would have fared so far in the test of spite:
Encounter 1:
Hard to say. The trip and more AoO of Gladiator were not that effective, but still count. Higher AC and hp of the Multiclass speak in its favour. A close call.
Encounter 2:
The higher CON modifier would have saved the Multiclass.
Encounter 3:
The will save has been lower for the multiclass, so it would have been charmed as well. Overall in the fight with a lot of concealment and full attack situations the Gladiator is better.

Result: Broadly the same, although I think the monk build is done somewhat better and more versatile.


Do you think you can buff with Polymorph every time in core before going into a combat encounter?

No need. There is polymorph any object for 1,200 gp per casting.
And the issue was not whether you can get up a spell before combat, but how you could possibly have up a protection from evil up when all of a sudden a charm effect hits you.

And some more comments, trying to correct misperceptions imo:


I submit that the single largest reason Gladiator has done well in the fight is magic, including his own buffs and those from the priestess. Those from the priestess have been huge, and with Gladiator's CC ranks in UMD, anybody else could have the same or better buffs on themself.

This is not true imo. Only the fly buff of the priestess had (some minor) effect on the combat outcome. The main effect comes from the monk's flurry, ability to pinpoint quite well and trip.
Also, the enlarge buff is great - and not everyone would have been the same or better with that since the size stacks so greatly with unarmed strike damage. Similarly, the boots of speed help a strong melee character.
That's the way the system balances stuff - once you include the wbl into class builds.


Finally, when Giacomo mentions his Monk features that help him kick butt, I have to point out that anybody can have Blind-Fight, a TWF melee character with full BAB will have more attacks,

No, this is not the case.
A full BAB class of 12th level with TWF has the BAB array of:
10/10/5/0 vs the monk's 9/9/9/4. You see? Monk ahead. And the full BAB class even had to spend a feat to get the same number of attacks. Also, the TWF fighting character has to live with only half STR bonus to the off-hand attack.
Any melee character could and should have blind-fight, yes, because total concealment hurts everyone else but benefits them.
And the monk makes this great use out of improved trip as a bonus feat, since he again 1) saves a feat (no expertise prereq.) and 2) can focus on physical stats since he does not need an INT of 13.
This has been repeatedly explained in my guide and a 70-page thread, so I am surprised time and again that it keeps getting misinterpreted.


and Pharaoh already mentioned a character that can be more resistant to dominate, not to mention not needing UMD checks for most of his buffs.

As I have pointed out above, he has a lower save vs dominate and cannot have a protection from evil up more reliably (and the Gladiator with his ring of spell storing can have the same effect btw).
Further, his armour also creates a 25% risk of miscasting.


To reiterate, everything about Gladiator's success could be duplicated, and in some cases improved upon, by any other class. This to me perfectly conveys the point that Monks, especially in core, are horribly underpowered.

No, I do not think this is true. There are many things that
1) either only monks can get (no. of attacks) or
2) they can get much better than others (e.g. improved trip)

The art is to make use of these unique abilities.

- Giacomo

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-10-04, 12:04 PM
Or if you keep them, accept any good performances of the monk as it is.


But it's not good! That's what we're trying to point out!

What has been Gladiator's contribution to the party? Please, do tell.

If you want to talk about your PvParty as good performance, what part of your performance do you want to contribute to your build, what part to being buffed by the priestess and fighting in favorable terrain, and what part due to Sstoop not preparing properly like we had planned on?


No, I do not think this is true. There are many things that
1) either only monks can get (no. of attacks) or
Is number of attacks better than fewer, more solid attacks? All I shall say is that THF wins over TWF for a reason for damage.


2) they can get much better than others (e.g. improved trip)
A fighter may not have the INT for Improved Trip, but he'd likely have higher strength which may make up for the monk's +4 to trip.

mostlyharmful
2009-10-04, 12:13 PM
Well,

I have the feeling that there is going to be a problem.
The problem is with two out of the four players saying that their characters are not really optimised, there are two possible outcomes of the monkening test of spite:
1) the monk does not outclass everyone, which means that the monk is underpowered
2) the monk outclasses everyone due to perceived "less maxing" done to rogue and wizard. Then it would still not show that he is as powerful as the other classes.

Looks like a win-win situation for the monk doubting side to me.:smallwink:

Moreover, I do not think that Tina or Jaya are badly optimised - they are simply not focusing all their power on certain combat strenghts, but also on out-of-combat situations (blasting science, skillmonkey).

As such, I renew my suggestion:
Please, Pharao's Fist and mostlyharmful, please redo your characters in such a way that you think that they would really be powerful in combat.
Or if you keep them, accept any good performances of the monk as it is.

- Giacomo

As both of us have already said in this thread, it's about how good your Monk is at filling the role in the party not the skillmonkey or arcane caster build, your position was that the Monk could do this job and if that is the case it shouldn't need fully optimized team mates.

Powerful in combat isn't what the rogue build should have to be built around, I volunteered to put together a skillmonkey (even though we all knew there'd be little use for a skillmonkey in this dungeon crawl) and the optimization level was never really discussed. I assumed that we were to build them as they were intended by WotC when they started 3.5, basic skillmonkey-ness and not a glasscannon overcranked uberbuild. Both Sstoopidtallkid and Pharoah's Fist seem to have the same thought, if you want to shine the spotlight is available, stop trying to determine how other people play and show us what you've got.

The Monk in this thread doesn't need to overpower everyone, it just needs to fill it's party role.. given how optimized it seems your Monk is it's not surprising that you would want the rest of the team to be as highly specced but that's not what we're here for.

Kurald Galain
2009-10-04, 01:09 PM
So far I haven't seen any class-specific tricks performed by the monk; the main strategy so far appears to be charging forward and full attacking with a reach weapon. While that's a workable battle plan, it is also something that all melee classes can do (and most of them better than the monk).

Doc Roc
2009-10-04, 02:23 PM
My optimization kung-fu is available, as test manager, however, I recommend no character changes at current moment. I feel that there's not that big an issue, and I think we should all just sit down, buckle up, and enjoy the ride.

That said, if a character exhausts its count of respawns, it can then be replaced. Likewise, if Olo wanted to roll up a new druid, as he was shoved into another player's character, I would understand.

Jaya may not be the most optimized build under the sun, but she does what she is designed to do with a great deal of efficacy.
That said, I do sort of question her precise choice of banned schools. I would be willing to allow her to change that, if PF were to specifically and politely ask me, but he expressed a desire to play an evoker. This is no great sin, and so far he has in my fairly neutral view, out-classed the monk considerably. That said, I do not think the monk is doing overwhelmingly poorly. If, however, this is the upper bound of monk performance in core...


On Elementite Swarms:
I'm not sure you really have a lot of ground to stand on. Those suckers are slow, and have almost no HP. They lack the scary set of immunities that the bloodblossom swarm earlier had. The DC for the constitution check is quite low.

Kelpstrand
2009-10-04, 04:57 PM
I do agree with Giamoco that the other parties should be actually optimized to the same degree.

Part of the test is if the Monk can perform the roll.

Part of it is compared to other character options.

I would like to see:

1) Wildshape Druid, since that's the actual type of Druid that exists in the Core rules.

2) An optimized Wizard is fine, specializing in anything, intentional gimping can be pointed to, but should not be as important as performance (which is fine because Jaya has vastly outperformed Gladiator)

3) An actual Rogue optimized for combat and skill monkeying, instead of spending wealth on mostly useless stuff and having an AB that is frankly terrible.

Kurald Galain
2009-10-04, 05:03 PM
I do agree with Giamoco that the other parties should be actually optimized to the same degree.

Part of the test is if the Monk can perform the roll.

Part of it is compared to other character options.
Since the optimized monk is presently having trouble keeping up with the non-optimized party, I fail to see how changing the wizard, druid and rogue to optimized versions is going to accomplish anything except widen the gap.

mostlyharmful
2009-10-04, 05:36 PM
Part of the test is if the Monk can perform the roll.

Part of it is compared to other character options.

what's stopping you comparing the Monk to the other character options? None of the other players are filling his role, none of the other players are trying to prove what their classes can do, the Monk is the one on show here.

Signmaker
2009-10-04, 05:55 PM
Since the optimized monk is presently having trouble keeping up with the non-optimized party, I fail to see how changing the wizard, druid and rogue to optimized versions is going to accomplish anything except widen the gap.

It'd give Saph less AoE concealment/visibility headaches, for one... =P

OracleofWuffing
2009-10-04, 05:57 PM
I'm under the impression that requiring everyone else to optimize creates a win-win scenario for the pro-monk side. If the monk does not perform adequately, one can make the conclusion that "A monk does well if the DM doesn't allow super-optimization cheese," and if the monk does perform adequately, well, there's no argument there as to what conclusion can be reached.

If the monk were to outclass everyone else in the party, we would have seen that by the third encounter. If the monk starts outclassing everyone in the next four or five encounters, that's actually the monk performing well rather than outclassing the nonoptimized folks. At least in the big-picture view.

Kelpstrand
2009-10-04, 06:31 PM
Since the optimized monk is presently having trouble keeping up with the non-optimized party, I fail to see how changing the wizard, druid and rogue to optimized versions is going to accomplish anything except widen the gap.

Since the gap isn't there very much, except in Jaya's case, It would serve to prove a point.

Giamoco made an optimized Monk, if you are allowed to say "well, my character wasn't optimized" Then he can say "Neither was mine, should have had more wands and higher UMD."

We've had that argument already. I want to have the one where people play good characters and we compare them and there is a clear gap.

There isn't in this test. The Druid is about on par, largely due to unfortunate circumstances such as appearing late, falling down a hole, and being the sole target of the first shadow ambush.

The Rogue is just worse than Giamoco.

And Jaya is carrying the party.

That's fine, but if we want to talk about things actually working, let's play with comparable optimization levels.

The Monk has a Str of 24 and a Cha of 6, why does the Rogue have a Dex of 16, a Cha of 14, and an Int of 19? Is your 13th trained skill worth as much as +1 to hit? really? Heck, by PB, that 13th trained skill could have been +1 to hit, +1 AC, +1 Reflex, +1 Fort, +12 HP.

Why can't the optimized monk play against a wildshape Druid and this (http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheetview.php?sheetid=89759) so that he would actually be worse, instead of letting him be better than one of the characters?


what's stopping you comparing the Monk to the other character options? None of the other players are filling his role, none of the other players are trying to prove what their classes can do, the Monk is the one on show here.

The idea of "Roles" is a lie that no one should fall for. We are attempting to prove that the Monk is not a good class. That it in fact does not compete on an equal level with other classes. The way to do that is to have other good classes. The way to do that is not to put him in a bad party with characters that perform worse than him in every conceivable way, such as your Rogue. Or even to put him in a party with characters that are pretty much identical to him except with badgers replacing unarmed strikes.

It's to compare him to rogues that actually get SA ever, or full attack, or hit AC, and Druids that are giant Bears with extra bears nearby who then cast spells while being bears.

Kurald Galain
2009-10-04, 06:40 PM
That's fine, but if we want to talk about things actually working, let's play with comparable optimization levels.
Why? As your post indicates, we've already seen that an optimized monk is about on par with an unoptimized druid with an unresponsive (now replaced) player, and both are behind an unoptimized wizard.

Since it is a given that "unoptimized class X" < "optimized class X", we would learn very little from a test with an optimized wizard; it would most likely show that monk < wizard. On the other hand, a test with an unoptimized wizard, as we have now, is showing that "unoptimized monk < optimized monk < unoptimized wizard < optimized wizard". That's more information than your suggested test would give us.


We are attempting to prove that the Monk is not a good class. ... The way to do that is not to put him in a bad party with characters that perform worse than him in every conceivable way, such as your Rogue.
That is quite the exaggeration. So far the rogue has taken down more enemies than the monk, died less often, and has not been mind controlled by the enemy; so in at least three conceivable ways, it is better than the monk.

Signmaker
2009-10-04, 06:52 PM
That is quite the exaggeration. So far the rogue has taken down more enemies than the monk, died less often, and has not been mind controlled by the enemy; so in at least three conceivable ways, it is better than the monk.


Additionally, hasn't had the chance to 'shine' yet. As noted, there have been very few skillmonkey-related situations and thus Tina has been doing what most skillmonkey rogues do: moderate amounts of damage so that they aren't dead weight in combat. I see no problem with Tina's performance thus far.

Olo Demonsbane
2009-10-04, 07:21 PM
Also, it should be noted that I am not a druid expert like Pharoah is for Wizard (/Sorcerer) and Gia is for Monk. I can make a decent druid, but most of the spells I use are non core...and I didnt even get a chance to pick mine. I dont expect to get that much better once I can pick my own spells (although, having other spells besides "Find the Path" and "Stonetell" would be helpful).

Just sayin.

tyckspoon
2009-10-04, 07:34 PM
Upon review (it's a big thread) I also notice that nobody seems to have taken the expedient option of simply attempting to Dispel Gladiator. Not sure why; could be an in-character thing, with Jaya wanting to save her prepared copies for the buffs she expects Lil..whatever to have, or even OOC consideration of not wanting to unnecessarily risk Gladiator's Enlarge. Stripping him of that would be unlikely, but possible, and while doing it would greatly reduce his current threat it would also remove one of his greatest assets for the rest of the dungeon.

Raewyn
2009-10-04, 08:00 PM
Upon review (it's a big thread) I also notice that nobody seems to have taken the expedient option of simply attempting to Dispel Gladiator. Not sure why; could be an in-character thing, with Jaya wanting to save her prepared copies for the buffs she expects Lil..whatever to have, or even OOC consideration of not wanting to unnecessarily risk Gladiator's Enlarge. Stripping him of that would be unlikely, but possible, and while doing it would greatly reduce his current threat it would also remove one of his greatest assets for the rest of the dungeon.

Maybe they were hoping that the unicairns would snap him oot of it? :smalltongue:

Awesome read, by the way (both the journal and the Test itself). *goes for more popcorn*

Kelpstrand
2009-10-04, 08:40 PM
That is quite the exaggeration. So far the rogue has taken down more enemies than the monk, died less often, and has not been mind controlled by the enemy; so in at least three conceivable ways, it is better than the monk.

In the first fight, an ideal Rogue fight of multiple weak offense enemies with no prevention against SA, she fired one arrow for 20 damage as the sum total of her offensive capability, and didn't even tank as many attacks as Gia. Then she died. Gia did more than 20 damage that fight.

Did absolutely nothing in the second encounter but fly in circles, drowned, and more drowning.

Only survived where Gia failed because Dok choose to save her instead of Gia before he passed out, and because Jaya choose to save Dok first then Tina instead of Gia.

Tina died before acting in the third fight.

In the final battle off, she hadn't hit anyone as of when I stopped reading page 36-37ish.

In effectively four encounters, her entire contribution has been 20 damage to one enemy.

Giamoco beat that in the first fight, and tanked a heck of a lot too. Outside of the fact that he's on the other team, he's done far far more work than Tina in the battle off, and it's not like Tina could make the save for dominate.

Being built and played so that you never contribute and won't contribute for the enemies when they easily dominate you is hardly a compelling argument for being a good character.

Giamoco's not a lot better, but he is better at every single thing.

Doc Roc
2009-10-04, 09:04 PM
Maybe they were hoping that the unicairns would snap him oot of it? :smalltongue:

Awesome read, by the way (both the journal and the Test itself). *goes for more popcorn*

I'm glad you enjoyed it. While I do some administrative stuff, and did some of the initial coordination, I can't emphasize enough how badly this would have gone without Saph.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-10-04, 09:07 PM
As a player, I can emphasise how badly this has gone with Saph...:smalltongue:

sofawall
2009-10-04, 11:30 PM
As an observer, I can emphasize how badly this has gone for Saph.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-10-05, 02:20 AM
So, Olo, if you want a hand with the druid, let me know. I can contact you via IM if you want to give me your screen name for MSN, AIM, or Yahoo.

Kurald Galain
2009-10-05, 04:12 AM
In the final battle off, she hadn't hit anyone as of when I stopped reading page 36-37ish.
Then perhaps you should read on.

You're still exaggerating a lot. I agree that the rogue hasn't been very strong so far, but obviously, neither has the monk, and that doesn't make the latter "better in every single way".

For instance, monks seem to pride themselves on the high damage dice per attack (4d6, in this case), but the rogue does more (7d6). For another example, the monk has three skills at +20 or more, whereas the rogue has eight (plus trapfinding). If a heavily optimized monk is on par with a poorly built rogue, then that is saying a lot about the monk.

Raewyn
2009-10-05, 06:33 AM
In the first fight, an ideal Rogue fight of multiple weak offense enemies with no prevention against SA, she fired one arrow for 20 damage as the sum total of her offensive capability, and didn't even tank as many attacks as Gia. Then she died. Gia did more than 20 damage that fight.
Bear in mind that upon Tina's arrival, she was immediately attacked for... rather a lot of her health. With the tank on the surface playing with his wand and Dok... not existing yet, I think hiding and healing was the clever thing to do. Granted, I might have done a little more healing and a little less hiding, but that's just me. :smallsmile:


Did absolutely nothing in the second encounter but fly in circles, drowned, and more drowning.

Only survived where Gia failed because Dok choose to save her instead of Gia before he passed out, and because Jaya choose to save Dok first then Tina instead of Gia.

Tina died before acting in the third fight.

In the final battle off, she hadn't hit anyone as of when I stopped reading page 36-37ish.

1. Three out of four players contributed about the same amount, given that Jaya essentially soloed the hydra. Three out of four players also began drowning, and all of them only because they rolled horrendously.

2. It sorta makes sense to resuscitate the weakest (Fort save wise) party member first, no?

3. So did Dok. Though I do wonder why the Shadow targets went Dok -> Tina as opposed to Dok -> Jaya. I thought their Strength scores were about equal and I figure the caster would be scarier. Or was Lilian just looking for a scapegoat for the attacks? *shrug* (If anyone feels like letting me in on the secret via PM, that'd be nifty. If not, whatever.)

4. Tina is doing a considerable amount of Pelorian ganking right now. Granted she's not going toe-to-toe with Gladiator, but she's a skillmonkey - that's not really her job.

I can't really argue with you about damage dealt, in that I am muy sleep deprived and the blocks of attack/damage rolls are really hard to parse.

P.S. How does Shelly unlock things with a DC higher than 28? I'm not trying to be a jerk - I'm just curious. Doc Roc did call this a "trap and puzzle" dungeon, so I'd imagine there should be at least one DC 30+ lock in the joint. (EDIT: Maybe even DC 40 - apparently 30 is the DC for a "good" lock, not a "super special awesome" lock.)

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-10-05, 06:36 AM
I have Heroism. Does that answer your question?

Raewyn
2009-10-05, 06:41 AM
I have Heroism. Does that answer your question?

Um... maybe? I confess, I'm not sure what question you're answering. (I'm a little tired/zonked and have been probably playing more Pathfinder than is healthy)

The P.S. was in reference to Kelp's rogue, who only has 1 rank in Open Lock. I knew I should have grabbed a quote for that one.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-10-05, 06:44 AM
Greater Heroism gives +4 to skill checks, so if Shelly can hit DC 28, which I inferred that she could, she'd be able to reach DC 30.

A DC 40 lock would require something more, such as a Shatter spell.

Raewyn
2009-10-05, 06:50 AM
Okay, question answered. Boy do I feel silly.

I admit, I've never played a full prepared spellcaster (closest thing is an CL 11 beguiler), so my knowledge of spells is... lacking. :smallredface:

PhoenixRivers
2009-10-05, 07:41 AM
Okay, question answered. Boy do I feel silly.

I admit, I've never played a full prepared spellcaster (closest thing is an CL 11 beguiler), so my knowledge of spells is... lacking. :smallredface:

www.d20srd.com
www.crystalkeep.com

Great for referencing most things.

Kelpstrand
2009-10-05, 08:22 AM
Bear in mind that upon Tina's arrival, she was immediately attacked for... rather a lot of her health. With the tank on the surface playing with his wand and Dok... not existing yet, I think hiding and healing was the clever thing to do. Granted, I might have done a little more healing and a little less hiding, but that's just me.

Except that as I just mentioned, there is no such thing as a tank really. You need to be prepared for that sort of thing. By for example, having higher AC and more HP, or being able to walk through and kill things.

Hiding and healing is one thing, but she obviously didn't do either very well, and yet, they were at the expense of ever making attacks.


1. Three out of four players contributed about the same amount, given that Jaya essentially soloed the hydra. Three out of four players also began drowning, and all of them only because they rolled horrendously.

2. It sorta makes sense to resuscitate the weakest (Fort save wise) party member first, no?

3. So did Dok. Though I do wonder why the Shadow targets went Dok -> Tina as opposed to Dok -> Jaya. I thought their Strength scores were about equal and I figure the caster would be scarier. Or was Lilian just looking for a scapegoat for the attacks? *shrug* (If anyone feels like letting me in on the secret via PM, that'd be nifty. If not, whatever.)

4. Tina is doing a considerable amount of Pelorian ganking right now. Granted she's not going toe-to-toe with Gladiator, but she's a skillmonkey - that's not really her job.

1) And my point is precisely that. How does the Monk being equal to a Druid and Rogue equate to it being worse?

2) No it doesn't. The Fort save was only whether that person got an action. Fort saves didn't keep people alive at all. The order of saving should be based on who has the highest concentration checks and the highest fort saves, since those are the people who are most likely to have an action to save someone on their turn. Third factor is heal checks.

You'll note that Gia has higher in all three of those.

3) Yes. The Shadow attack was bad in about a billion ways, but it still remains my point that the rogue has never at any point demonstrated more competence than Gia at anything.

4) No she's not a skill monkey. She's a character taking up 1/4th the XP. As such, she's supposed to contribute 1/4th to the party. Granted various arbitrary messed up rulings and incredibly bad playing have vastly screwed up the fight, but the fact remains that she walked in the door, and spent her first round in which she won init moving within Gia's full attack range instead of full attacking Lillian from her position. Which, because of poor AB from the build, probably wouldn't have straight ended the fight, but would have been infinitely more useful than moving within Gladiator's full attack range.


I can't really argue with you about damage dealt, in that I am muy sleep deprived and the blocks of attack/damage rolls are really hard to parse.

P.S. How does Shelly unlock things with a DC higher than 28? I'm not trying to be a jerk - I'm just curious. Doc Roc did call this a "trap and puzzle" dungeon, so I'd imagine there should be at least one DC 30+ lock in the joint. (EDIT: Maybe even DC 40 - apparently 30 is the DC for a "good" lock, not a "super special awesome" lock.)

Who cares? DC 30 or DC 99. All locks are made of materials that are not force, and are breakable. It's a choice between being useful in every situation or being slightly better in the odd situation of a DC 40 lock, but being worse in every other situation (like, every one the group has been in yet). I'll take the former.


You're still exaggerating a lot. I agree that the rogue hasn't been very strong so far, but obviously, neither has the monk, and that doesn't make the latter "better in every single way".

No I'm not exaggerating. 20 damage as the sum total of contribution is terrible. No spells, no battlefield control, no scouting, no social work, nothing but 20 damage.


For instance, monks seem to pride themselves on the high damage dice per attack (4d6, in this case), but the rogue does more (7d6). For another example, the monk has three skills at +20 or more, whereas the rogue has eight (plus trapfinding). If a heavily optimized monk is on par with a poorly built rogue, then that is saying a lot about the monk.

And more attacks, and average damage per round. If only the Rogue actually matched those numbers, like Shelly, then it would be more impressive. But because of the Rogues incredibly low AB, and fewer attacks, her damage is much less than Giamoco's. The least she could have done is showcase how ranged characters are more likely to get full attacks by using a full attack action upon entering the fight, instead of moving withing the melee characters full attack range and not attacking herself.

As for skills. Let's look at that to show exactly what I am talking about:

Giamoco has Spot and Listen. Those have both proven quite useful to him.

Tina has: +22 Bluff (never been rolled even once)
+26 Diplomacy (rolled unsuccessfully on a dominated Gladiator, and used to activate the ring, but a "mere" +17 is all it would take to do that)
+21 disable device (never used)
+30 hide/+25 MS (If the Monk isn't allowed to use his higher move speed to run away from the party and let them die, why is the Rogue allowed to spend actions hiding instead of helping? MS can be useful, such as in the Sleet Cloud, but let's not pretend that this is a huge point in favor of the Rogue.)
+20 Open Lock. (never been rolled)
+21 Search (never been rolled)
+20 Tumble (Since Gladiator has never failed a tumble check, and can tumble as fast as Tina with a higher mod, this isn't a point in favor either)
+24 UMD (Why is this +24 instead of +19? Oh right, because Tina spent tons of wealth on scrolls that she has never used, and won't be worth the cost when she does use them.)

All in all, only 5 of her +20 skills have ever been used at all. And only Hide/MS can even be justified as having mattered that they were over +20.

Master_Rahl22
2009-10-05, 08:44 AM
The main effect comes from the monk's flurry, ability to pinpoint quite well and trip.

You compared TWF to Flurry at level 12, but why on earth would somebody who took TWF not take ITWF? That would give the TWF character +10/+10/+5/+5/+0, which is more attacks than your flurry, with the first two at higher BAB as well. Your ability to pinpoint comes from ranks in Listen and has nothing at all to do with anything specifically Monk. Your ability to trip comes from a feat which anybody can have. One of the best core Fighter builds has Combat Reflexes and Improved Trip by level 2, and he's actually proficient with his Spiked Chain. That same character with your permanent Enlarge Person would be better at tripping that Gladiator due to his higher BAB and proficiency with his weapon.


2) can focus on physical stats since he does not need an INT of 13. This has been repeatedly explained in my guide and a 70-page thread, so I am surprised time and again that it keeps getting misinterpreted

Except you're forgetting that Monks need Wisdom too. That same Fighter I mentioned above can get his 13 Int and then spend all of his remaining points on physical stats. Oh, and he can ignore CHA since his build isn't focused on UMD. He's in the same boat as a Monk, if not better off.

Also, I stopped reading your guide when you mentioned that said cross-class UMD ranks were one of the best features of a Monk.


(and the Gladiator with his ring of spell storing can have the same effect btw).

This continues to amaze me that you treat UMD and magic items as a point in favor of the Monk. As I said previously, any class can have the same ranks in UMD as Gladiator does, and some will be much better at it or not even need the skill at all.


There are many things that
1) either only monks can get (no. of attacks) or
2) they can get much better than others (e.g. improved trip)

Again, why in $Deity's name would anybody take TWF and not the other 2 TWF feats? A full BAB character with all 3 will have +18/+18/+13/+13/+8/+8/+3, 2 more attacks than a Monk gets. In core, Fighters get more feats than there are worthwhile ones to take, and I already mentioned the ability requirement for Combat Expertise. Couple that with the Fighter's full BAB and the spare feat to become proficient with his Spiked Chain and he's going to be a better tripper than a Monk.

I really like the Monk concept. Before I knew much about optimization I used to marvel at all the cool abilities Monks get. The sad fact is that the best way to make a Monk-type (unarmored, unarmed, fast moving) is to take as few levels of Monk as possible.

Kurald Galain
2009-10-05, 08:58 AM
Except that as I just mentioned, there is no such thing as a tank really.
So you mean that the monk is not a viable tank, then?


1) And my point is precisely that. How does the Monk being equal to a Druid and Rogue equate to it being worse?
Because since an optimized monk is "equal" to an unoptimized druid and rogue, that obviously means the class is worse.


No I'm not exaggerating. 20 damage as the sum total of contribution is terrible.
Well, then it is good that all of the characters have clearly made a greater contribution than "20 points of damage".


+20 Open Lock. (never been rolled)
+21 Search (never been rolled)
The test isn't over yet. Searching and opening locks are both obvious situations that are very likely to come up in every campaign, and are also obvious areas where the rogue is better than the monk.

See, the funny thing is, since you claim that "A > B in every conceivable way", then I need to point out only a single way where B < A to disprove your claim - and I've pointed out half a dozen by now.


This continues to amaze me that you treat UMD and magic items as a point in favor of the Monk. As I said previously, any class can have the same ranks in UMD as Gladiator does, and some will be much better at it or not even need the skill at all.
Previous threads on the subject have clearly shown that of all the PHB classes (and most others, including NPC classes), the monk is the single worst UMD user. In essence, this is because everything else has either 1.UMD as a class skill, 2.better charisma synergy, or 3.actual spellcasting. So yeah, "monks are good because they can UMD" is like saying "wizards are good because they can wield a longsword".

Kelpstrand
2009-10-05, 09:09 AM
So you mean that the monk is not a viable tank, then?

No one is a viable tank ever. Because no one has the ability to prevent Arrow Demons from shooting at other people, or to prevent a Hydra from attacking everyone, or to prevent a swarm from attacking everyone, or to prevent shadows from attacking everyone.


Because since an optimized monk is "equal" to an unoptimized druid and rogue, that obviously means the class is worse.

Right, because there is no possible way that Giamoco could claim that the Rogue and Druid are optimized! Oh wait. Yes he already did that. So we still have made no progress. If you want to prove X > Y, you should actually make X > Y. Instead of proving that X < Y, like the current Rogue versus current Monk.


Well, then it is good that all of the characters have clearly made a greater contribution than "20 points of damage".

Not in the first three encounters.

In three encounters, the rogue contributed exactly 20 damage and nothing else of any kind.

That is pathetic.


The test isn't over yet. Searching and opening locks are both obvious situations that are very likely to come up in every campaign, and are also obvious areas where the rogue is better than the monk.

And also areas that are worth a lot less than the ability to actually contribute to any degree in combat.


See, the funny thing is, since you claim that "A > B in every conceivable way", then I need to point out only a single way where B < A to disprove your claim - and I've pointed out half a dozen by now.

A Has been better than B in every conceivable way. Your argument is that B could be better in situations that have no occurred. Mine is that A has been better in every situation so far. Try not to Strawman.

PhoenixRivers
2009-10-05, 10:02 AM
Except that as I just mentioned, there is no such thing as a tank really. You need to be prepared for that sort of thing. By for example, having higher AC and more HP, or being able to walk through and kill things.I'm not so sure I agree with this. There are several effects in game that force attacks, and several others to limit the enemy's options. It may not be a tank in the sense of an MMO, but a character that keeps an enemy in place is effectively tanking. For example: At low to mid levels, let's look at a barbarian grappler that can reliably pin creatures at his CR. He limits the enemy's offense, controls its options, and limits its choice of foes. Those are the hallmarks of tanking. Too many people, IMO, get hung up on this "my game can't have any similarities to an MMO" to realize that those roles exist for a reason. In real life, you have clowns in rodeos that taunt bulls when their rider goes down. Soldiers that lay down suppressing fire to allow their compatriots to move.

Whatever you call it, making the enemy less able to attack allies is the basic definition of tanking.


4) No she's not a skill monkey.I disagree.


Who cares? DC 30 or DC 99. All locks are made of materials that are not force, and are breakable. It's a choice between being useful in every situation or being slightly better in the odd situation of a DC 40 lock, but being worse in every other situation (like, every one the group has been in yet). I'll take the former.Locks can be built into walls. Are you aware, that when you try to bash the lock on a modern safe, it breaks, and the safe is defaulted to a "lock" position? Breaking it doesn't necessarily bypass it.

Not every lock is a loosely hanging padlock.


No I'm not exaggerating. 20 damage as the sum total of contribution is terrible. No spells, no battlefield control, no scouting, no social work, nothing but 20 damage.I believe others farther in have disputed those numbers.


Giamoco has Spot and Listen. Those have both proven quite useful to him.Usually are, in combat focused games.

Tina has: +22 Bluff (never been rolled even once)Because the skill hasn't yet been used does not mean it's useless.

+26 Diplomacy (rolled unsuccessfully on a dominated Gladiator, and used to activate the ring, but a "mere" +17 is all it would take to do that)Again, a social skill. Because it hasn't been used yet does not make it useless. D&D is not 100% hit the enemy/lock/whatever. There is character interaction with NPC's. These skills are useful in those instances.


+21 disable device (never used)I implore Saph to use more traps, to showcase the usefulness of this skill.

+30 hide/+25 MS (If the Monk isn't allowed to use his higher move speed to run away from the party and let them die, why is the Rogue allowed to spend actions hiding instead of helping? MS can be useful, such as in the Sleet Cloud, but let's not pretend that this is a huge point in favor of the Rogue.)Because the rogue doesn't use actions to hide and move silently. They are nonactions, used as a part of movement. Net loss for hide/MS while moving? None, provided the move was occurring anyway.


+20 Open Lock. (never been rolled)Again, because it's not been rolled doesn't mean it's not useful. Not any lock can be smashed, and there's only so many knock spells.

+21 Search (never been rolled)Probably one of the most useful dungeoneering skills in existence. Secret doors? Traps? Well-hidden clues? Spot does not help these. An insinuation that lack of current use implies nothing more or less than the rogue not having an opportunity. It certainly doesn't point to the uselessness of the skill, and the rogue by comparison.

+20 Tumble (Since Gladiator has never failed a tumble check, and can tumble as fast as Tina with a higher mod, this isn't a point in favor either)"Has not failed yet" is much less useful than "can't fail". High Tumble allows for penalties, tumbling through multiple enemies, and the like. Not the most useful skill to skyrocket, but not as neutral as you portray.

+24 UMD (Why is this +24 instead of +19? Oh right, because Tina spent tons of wealth on scrolls that she has never used, and won't be worth the cost when she does use them.)Speculative. Not based on fact.

All in all, only 5 of her +20 skills have ever been used at all. And only Hide/MS can even be justified as having mattered that they were over +20.Again, lack of use doesn't point to a weakness in the skills. It points to an adventure which hasn't supported heavy skill use.

A comprehensive adventure will. When there's a Search DC 25 trap with a strong effect, and a DC 25 disarm, you may be more willing to concede that search and disable device aren't wasted there, and that the rogue can do things that are needed.

Raewyn
2009-10-05, 10:04 AM
A Has been better than B in every conceivable way. Your argument is that B could be better in situations that have no occurred. Mine is that A has been better in every situation so far. Try not to Strawman.

Must... resist urge to quote... Princess Bride... Nyeah!

But seriously, you may want to look over that statement and ponder what 'conceivable' means.

EDIT: Okay, so you're not arguing that A > B in every conceivable way... then why repeat it before going into your actual argument? :smallconfused:

PhoenixRivers
2009-10-05, 10:10 AM
No one is a viable tank ever. Because no one has the ability to prevent Arrow Demons from shooting at other people, or to prevent a Hydra from attacking everyone, or to prevent a swarm from attacking everyone, or to prevent shadows from attacking everyone.
Knock the arrow demon prone (ranged options are rather limited to the prone). Grapple the hydra (attack options are nil to the pinned). Be the only one in the swarm's limited range of vision (it ain't einstein, it's mindless). Use the Stand Still feat on the shadows.

Admittedly, the shadows are harder to tank. But not everything needs to be tankable, for a tank to be able to exist.


Not in the first three encounters.

In three encounters, the rogue contributed exactly 20 damage and nothing else of any kind.

That is pathetic.Rather uncalled for, IMO. And, if I recall, the statement where you first stated this, you also stated that you hadn't read and parsed everything.


A Has been better than B in every conceivable way. Your argument is that B could be better in situations that have no occurred. Mine is that A has been better in every situation so far. Try not to Strawman.

What's the death tolls at, so far? Isn't part of the measure of success in the field not dying?

Raewyn
2009-10-05, 10:20 AM
Death Tolls?
Tina: 2
Jaya: 1
Dok: 1
Gladiator: 2

This looks right, but is is based off some (fuzzy) memory. Anyone who sees something wrong feel free to correct me.

PhoenixRivers
2009-10-05, 10:21 AM
Was one of Tina's deaths at the hands of a fellow party member?

Signmaker
2009-10-05, 10:26 AM
A Has been better than B in every conceivable way. Your argument is that B could be better in situations that have no occurred. Mine is that A has been better in every situation so far. Try not to Strawman.

Your argument...it....but...concievable doesn't MEAN that! :smalleek:




Ahem.
Your first statement contradicts your third. Situations were presented such that your first statement has been rendered null (and they were quite general situations, even), and so you've resorted to blaming your opponent of using a Strawman. I'm finding that to be silly, mainly due to the fact that said situations are typical of standard campaigning, and that as this game has yet to incorporate a relatively broad scope of situations, neither side really has an argument that Gia has been doing well or not.

I'm of the neutral view that Gia has been doing what Gia has thus managed to do. In the latest fight, that happens to be 'be obscenely lucky with concealment rolling, blind-fight aside'. Domination aside (really, three will saves? Gia was the only one with a notable percentage of success, and even THAT sucked), Gia has been efficiently hitting low-AC opponents (/allies).

Kurald Galain
2009-10-05, 10:28 AM
Death Tolls?
Tina: 2
Jaya: 1
Dok: 1
Gladiator: 2
It's worth mentioning that both of Glady's deaths were in combat, whereas Jaya's and Dok's, and one of Tina's, were as a result of being ambushed and insta-killed by previously-unseen shadows.

No offense meant to Saph, as this is a valid part of the adventure; I'm just pointing out that being killed in a fair fight says much more about the capabilities now-dead character than being unexpectedly one-shotted.

Kelpstrand
2009-10-05, 10:33 AM
I'm not so sure I agree with this. There are several effects in game that force attacks, and several others to limit the enemy's options. It may not be a tank in the sense of an MMO, but a character that keeps an enemy in place is effectively tanking. For example: At low to mid levels, let's look at a barbarian grappler that can reliably pin creatures at his CR. He limits the enemy's offense, controls its options, and limits its choice of foes. Those are the hallmarks of tanking. Too many people, IMO, get hung up on this "my game can't have any similarities to an MMO" to realize that those roles exist for a reason. In real life, you have clowns in rodeos that taunt bulls when their rider goes down. Soldiers that lay down suppressing fire to allow their compatriots to move.

So Wizard's are the best tanks? In Core D&D, there are no taunts, and a Barbarian Grappler would be hard pressed to tank against the vast majority of enemies, seeing as they range from better grapple checks to ranged attacks.


Locks can be built into walls. Are you aware, that when you try to bash the lock on a modern safe, it breaks, and the safe is defaulted to a "lock" position? Breaking it doesn't necessarily bypass it.

Walls, with locks in them, being made of non force materials. Are also easily breakable.


I believe others farther in have disputed those numbers.

Others one page further in tell me that on the very next page the Rogue kills a bunch of mooks with SA in the fourth encounter. Meanwhile, in the preceding three encounters, the sum total of contribution was 20 damage and absolutely nothing else of any kind.


Because the skill hasn't yet been used does not mean it's useless.

Actually, it very definitionally means that the skill has been entirely 100% useless of "without use" so far.


Because the rogue doesn't use actions to hide and move silently. They are nonactions, used as a part of movement. Net loss for hide/MS while moving? None, provided the move was occurring anyway.

Except that the Rogue has consistently hidden instead of attacking. As of page 37, the Rogue had not even once in the entire 3 and a half encounters taken a full attack action. This is in part because she was always wasting time and actions hiding for no reason.


"Has not failed yet" is much less useful than "can't fail". High Tumble allows for penalties, tumbling through multiple enemies, and the like. Not the most useful skill to skyrocket, but not as neutral as you portray.

No, not as neutral as I portray. A clear win for the Monk. The Monk can tumble 30ft with a +14 check. The Rogue can tumble 30ft with a +10 check.

Look who wins.


Speculative. Not based on fact.

Not speculative. Based on fact. The Rogue has a +24 UMD for scrolls. 20 skill points were contributed towards this goal. The Rogue owns a large group of scrolls. Those scrolls have not been used. The scrolls are scrolls that are ineffective and inferior to the Wizard casting those spells (and he does prepare the only ones worth casting).

Those are all facts. The wand of Cure Light wounds is the only thing that the Rogue has that UMDing would ever be useful.


A comprehensive adventure will. When there's a Search DC 25 trap with a strong effect, and a DC 25 disarm, you may be more willing to concede that search and disable device aren't wasted there, and that the rogue can do things that are needed.

Look more carefully at my character. Shelly has a +19 in both those skills and can take ten to easily make the checks for anything up to 9th level spell traps. One the other hand, what I do have over Tina is an attack bonus that is 3 points higher when she has items and I don't. If I actually buy items, that will probably be 4 points higher. my character with items would also have higher saves in every category, more HP, and higher AC.

The only thing that I give up is some skill points. And not in any category that matters, since my UMD/Search/Disable/Open Lock/Diplomacy are all sufficient, and my Hide/MS/Tumble are all higher.

Yet my Monk would have contributed more than 20 damage to the first 3 encounters. It would have contributed 38 non sneak attack damage on the first round of the first combat.

Raewyn
2009-10-05, 10:36 AM
Your argument...it....but...concievable doesn't MEAN that! :smalleek:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a319/sarcausticmaster/128889640032558044.jpg

Signmaker
2009-10-05, 10:39 AM
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a319/sarcausticmaster/128889640032558044.jpg

...Thank you.

Kelpstrand
2009-10-05, 10:41 AM
Knock the arrow demon prone (ranged options are rather limited to the prone). Grapple the hydra (attack options are nil to the pinned). Be the only one in the swarm's limited range of vision (it ain't einstein, it's mindless). Use the Stand Still feat on the shadows.

All of which require first eating several attacks, except the swarm, which is not even possible. (And Stand Still, which is not Core.)


Rather uncalled for, IMO. And, if I recall, the statement where you first stated this, you also stated that you hadn't read and parsed everything.

You recall incorrectly. I did parse everything. It was another poster who admitted they were unable to contradict me because they have not done so.

20 damage in 3 encounters. Nothing else at all. Done.



Your argument...it....but...concievable doesn't MEAN that! :smalleek:

Ahem.
Your first statement contradicts your third. Situations were presented such that your first statement has been rendered null (and they were quite general situations, even), and so you've resorted to blaming your opponent of using a Strawman. I'm finding that to be silly, mainly due to the fact that said situations are typical of standard campaigning, and that as this game has yet to incorporate a relatively broad scope of situations, neither side really has an argument that Gia has been doing well or not.

Conceivable does in fact mean that. My statements do not contradict each other.

A Has been better than B in every conceivable way.

Has been. Read the actual words that I am actually typing. By any measurement of success whatsoever, the actual actions that have been taken point to Gladiator being better.

1) Better skills? Gladiator.
2) More damage? Gladiator.
3) Absorbed more attacks that could have been aimed at other party members? Gladiator.
4) Controlled the Battlefield more? Gladiator.
5) Anything at all? Gladiator.

'Has been' are real words that really do affect the meaning of the sentence.

They mean that you cannot point to theoretical actions that have not been taken as proof of anything.

Kurald Galain
2009-10-05, 10:46 AM
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a319/sarcausticmaster/128889640032558044.jpg

Lovely picture. Lovely movie, too. Hm, I need to rent that disc again some time...

(edit) Oh yeah, back on topic. Since we're discussing the Diary of Jaya, does that mean that she will survive and leave the dungeon? Because if not, then how can we be reading this? Or does she have a magical way of getting her notes out (out of Ravenloft, even) even if she might not get out herself?

Raewyn
2009-10-05, 10:57 AM
...Thank you.

You're welcome. I found it more polite (and hilarious) than continuing to argue for or against any (theoretically) terrible characters in the Test of Spite.

Go Jaya!

(In the words of George Carlin - "Front-runner! Goddamn right!") :smallcool:

Kelpstrand
2009-10-05, 12:08 PM
I found it more polite (and hilarious) than continuing to argue for or against any (theoretically) terrible characters in the Test of Spite.

You found it more polite to imply I am an idiot incapable of understanding my own words than to discuss the mechanical failings of a character who was specifically made to be mechanically failable?

Fenix_of_Doom
2009-10-05, 01:09 PM
I think Tina looked prettier throughout the three encounters though.

and no I'm not sure how I was able to conceive that idea.

Sholos
2009-10-05, 01:14 PM
So Wizard's are the best tanks? In Core D&D, there are no taunts, and a Barbarian Grappler would be hard pressed to tank against the vast majority of enemies, seeing as they range from better grapple checks to ranged attacks.
Yes, if we assume that enemies are robots that only take mechanically optimal actions, your statement is true. However, if we try to actually model a real battlefield, tanking becomes possible.


Walls, with locks in them, being made of non force materials. Are also easily breakable.
Let us know the next time you bash into a bank safe, since it's "easily breakable".


...

Actually, it very definitionally means that the skill has been entirely 100% useless of "without use" so far.

"Useless" does not mean "has not been used". It means "has no possibility of being used". So, no, those skills are not useless. Even extending the definition to mean "has no significant likelihood of being used" doesn't make those skills useless, because in a typical campaign those all have a pretty good chance of being used.


Except that the Rogue has consistently hidden instead of attacking. As of page 37, the Rogue had not even once in the entire 3 and a half encounters taken a full attack action. This is in part because she was always wasting time and actions hiding for no reason.
I think if you go back and look at the times when Tina is not hidden, you'll find that she tends to be getting beat up. Seems like a good reason to stay hidden to me.


No, not as neutral as I portray. A clear win for the Monk. The Monk can tumble 30ft with a +14 check. The Rogue can tumble 30ft with a +10 check.

Look who wins.
Wait, what? The monk needs a higher check to move the same distance. How is that a win?


Not speculative. Based on fact. The Rogue has a +24 UMD for scrolls. 20 skill points were contributed towards this goal. The Rogue owns a large group of scrolls. Those scrolls have not been used. The scrolls are scrolls that are ineffective and inferior to the Wizard casting those spells (and he does prepare the only ones worth casting).

Those are all facts. The wand of Cure Light wounds is the only thing that the Rogue has that UMDing would ever be useful.
The bolded portions above are not facts. They are purely judgment calls that can easily and validly be disagreed with.


Look more carefully at my character. Shelly has a +19 in both those skills and can take ten to easily make the checks for anything up to 9th level spell traps. One the other hand, what I do have over Tina is an attack bonus that is 3 points higher when she has items and I don't. If I actually buy items, that will probably be 4 points higher. my character with items would also have higher saves in every category, more HP, and higher AC.
Um, no, you can't. You can take ten to find anything up through 4th level spell traps, as the DC is 25 + Spell level, not 20 + Spell level.

tyckspoon
2009-10-05, 01:26 PM
Let us know the next time you bash into a bank safe, since it's "easily breakable".


I'll get right on that as soon as you find me an adamantium dagger to do it with.

Fishy
2009-10-05, 01:31 PM
I'll get right on that as soon as you find me an adamantium dagger to do it with.

Every single one of my characters that can spare the money gets an adamantium dagger and Sleight of Hand-s it on their person. It just seems like 'a knife that can cut anything' is something you should never be without.

Roland St. Jude
2009-10-05, 01:33 PM
Sheriff of Moddingham: Please keep it civil in here.

Sholos
2009-10-05, 01:42 PM
I'll get right on that as soon as you find me an adamantium dagger to do it with.

Only if I get special materials to make the door out of. Quid pro quo, and all that.

Kelpstrand
2009-10-05, 01:44 PM
Let us know the next time you bash into a bank safe, since it's "easily breakable".

I'll let you know the next time I'm a D&D character. If on the other hand you want to discuss an actual D&D game, it would take Gladiator 2 rounds to break down an iron door. And he's not even particularly good at it. Jaya responded to a locked door by exploding the door.


"Useless" does not mean "has not been used". It means "has no possibility of being used". So, no, those skills are not useless. Even extending the definition to mean "has no significant likelihood of being used" doesn't make those skills useless, because in a typical campaign those all have a pretty good chance of being used.

Actually, the statement that the skills have been useless does in fact mean, have not been useful. So they have in fact been useless.


I think if you go back and look at the times when Tina is not hidden, you'll find that she tends to be getting beat up. Seems like a good reason to stay hidden to me.

I think that if I wanted to give 1/4 my XP to character who hides and doesn't contribute, it would be level 1 commoner. On the other hand, I would expect a level 12 Rogue to use her 50% miss chance and highest AC in the group to survive enemy counter attacks after she attacks and kills them.


Wait, what? The monk needs a higher check to move the same distance. How is that a win?

The Tumble rules are online. You can look them up any time. It's a DC 15 check to Tumble. The Monk moves 30ft with a +14 modifier and has to roll a 1 or higher. IE succeeds 100% of the time on avoiding the first AoO. Tina moves 30ft with a +10 modifier. She succeeds on the first avoid only 80% of the time.

The Monk is a more successful tumbler than the Rogue.


The bolded portions above are not facts. They are purely judgment calls that can easily and validly be disagreed with.

I think you are confused. First of all, it is in fact a fact that scrolls are not as good as a Wizard casting the same spell. Secondly, things are not 'purely a judgement call' which can be 'easily and validly disagreed with'

Erase is never ever ever ever ever worth the money spent on it. Not to mention things like Jump, which doesn't even help at all, and other terrible scroll choices.

If you are going to get into "Everything is a judgment call and nothing in the universe can ever be said to be worse or better than anything else ever" then please just stop entering this discussion. It is explicitly about discussing the mechanical performance of a series of characters and determining if the monk was objectively worse than the others.

All the participants and main discussants freely admit that proving something is objectively better or worse is something that can be done, and it's not a judgment call to carry around a scroll of erase. It is either worse or better. And I'll bet that 90% of them agree it is worse.

tyckspoon
2009-10-05, 01:52 PM
Only if I get special materials to make the door out of. Quid pro quo, and all that.

Sure, but then you're not dealing with standard walls and doors anymore, are you? Even without special materials for your weapons normal wood/stone/metal construction just isn't much of a problem for a modestly leveled D&D character; a two-handed full Power Attack from your Fighter/Barbarian/other Strength-inclined character will get you through mundane material reliably, if not as rapidly as doing it with adamantium. And then there's Shatter, Passwall, teleportation effects, Greater Open (er.. Disintegrate), Rusting Grasp, Stone Shape, buffing Strength checks to outright Break stuff.. it's really quite difficult to stop a D&D party from taking whatever route they want to take (although with the number of spells I listed, it's a lot easier if they don't have any standard spellcasters.)

PhoenixRivers
2009-10-05, 02:03 PM
So Wizard's are the best tanks? In Core D&D, there are no taunts, and a Barbarian Grappler would be hard pressed to tank against the vast majority of enemies, seeing as they range from better grapple checks to ranged attacks.In core? I can have a Barbarian at level 1 pushing a +18 with Level 1 caster assistance, +13 without. Rather easily.

Grapple doesn't get outpaced until mid levels, around 12-15.


Walls, with locks in them, being made of non force materials. Are also easily breakable.Yup. And while you spend 8 rounds bashing that door in, everything within 300 feet of you hears the banging, and removes the objective. In many cases, Hulk smash is not the best way.


Others one page further in tell me that on the very next page the Rogue kills a bunch of mooks with SA in the fourth encounter. Meanwhile, in the preceding three encounters, the sum total of contribution was 20 damage and absolutely nothing else of any kind.But the rogue did contribute in the 4th? Convenient that your assessment stops at 3.


Actually, it very definitionally means that the skill has been entirely 100% useless of "without use" so far.But "not usable yet" does not equal "not useful". Important distinction. There is eventually a time when you don't want to let things 5 rooms over know that you just got in the front door. There is a time when those skills are needed.

To illustrate, it's raining outside. I'm not outside. This cruddy umbrella is useless. It's not doing anything in my living room.

Now, when my dog starts whining to go out, should I leave behind my umbrella, since it's useless?


Except that the Rogue has consistently hidden instead of attacking. As of page 37, the Rogue had not even once in the entire 3 and a half encounters taken a full attack action. This is in part because she was always wasting time and actions hiding for no reason.So, are you complaining about the rogue's tactics, and using it to justify the argument for a mechanical balance? Even if there is inferior play tactics, that doesn't mean that the monk is good. It just means that the monk performed better than a poorly played character. Is that the point you're making?


No, not as neutral as I portray. A clear win for the Monk. The Monk can tumble 30ft with a +14 check. The Rogue can tumble 30ft with a +10 check.And what about the rogue moving 15? Sneaking is not always about speed. You're applying situational modifiers, and calling it a clear win. Situational modifiers are just that. Situational.


Not speculative. Based on fact. The Rogue has a +24 UMD for scrolls. 20 skill points were contributed towards this goal. The Rogue owns a large group of scrolls. Those scrolls have not been used. The scrolls are scrolls that are ineffective and inferior to the Wizard casting those spells (and he does prepare the only ones worth casting).All facts (possible exception, ineffective). And yet, it doesn't prove the point. Yes, they are not as good as the wizard doing it. You don't always need increased durations. The best argument you've got is that the rogue is built badly (which I neither agree nor disagree with). That doesn't make the monk viable. It means that you're trying to compare yourself to the least effective party member, while acknowledging critical design flaws in said character.

That's not setting your sights high.


Those are all facts. The wand of Cure Light wounds is the only thing that the Rogue has that UMDing would ever be useful.In your opinion.


Look more carefully at my character. Shelly has a +19 in both those skills and can take ten to easily make the checks for anything up to 9th level spell traps. One the other hand, what I do have over Tina is an attack bonus that is 3 points higher when she has items and I don't. If I actually buy items, that will probably be 4 points higher. my character with items would also have higher saves in every category, more HP, and higher AC.And you can locate traps with a DC higher than 20? Rogues can. That means that with your +19, you have a 100% chance to locate a DC 20 trap... and a 0% chance to find a DC 21.


The only thing that I give up is some skill points. And not in any category that matters, since my UMD/Search/Disable/Open Lock/Diplomacy are all sufficient, and my Hide/MS/Tumble are all higher.Except you can't locate traps with a DC higher than 20.


Yet my Monk would have contributed more than 20 damage to the first 3 encounters. It would have contributed 38 non sneak attack damage on the first round of the first combat.Individual encounters do not make for balanced analysis. A wide range of appropriate challenges should yield testing information, when characters are built and optimized to a even playing field. If you're claiming that the rogue is not built that way, then you're invalidating the entire comparison.

Fenix_of_Doom
2009-10-05, 02:10 PM
And you can locate traps with a DC higher than 20? Rogues can. That means that with your +19, you have a 100% chance to locate a DC 20 trap... and a 0% chance to find a DC 21.
Except you can't locate traps with a DC higher than 20.


His Shelly character is a rogue, I don't have any idea why he is bringing it up either.

PhoenixRivers
2009-10-05, 02:16 PM
His Shelly character is a rogue, I don't have any idea why he is bringing it up either.

All it sounds like is bagging on someone's build. Kinda not cool, IMO.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-10-05, 02:18 PM
Again, why in $Deity's name would anybody take TWF and not the other 2 TWF feats? A full BAB character with all 3 will have +18/+18/+13/+13/+8/+8/+3, 2 more attacks than a Monk gets. In core, Fighters get more feats than there are worthwhile ones to take, and I already mentioned the ability requirement for Combat Expertise. Couple that with the Fighter's full BAB and the spare feat to become proficient with his Spiked Chain and he's going to be a better tripper than a Monk.


Just curious, but what can the expected damage per attack of such a fighter be? Assuming Weapon Specialization was taken, Enlarge Person is active, and etc.


I'll get right on that as soon as you find me an adamantium dagger to do it with.

You could do it with an acetylene torch as well. You just better hope it's gold inside the safe instead of paper money...


(edit) Oh yeah, back on topic. Since we're discussing the Diary of Jaya, does that mean that she will survive and leave the dungeon? Because if not, then how can we be reading this? Or does she have a magical way of getting her notes out (out of Ravenloft, even) even if she might not get out herself?

A wizard did it.

Fenix_of_Doom
2009-10-05, 02:30 PM
One the other hand, what I do have over Tina is an attack bonus that is 3 points higher when she has items and I don't. If I actually buy items, that will probably be 4 points higher. my character with items would also have higher saves in every category, more HP, and higher AC.


actually right now your character misses weapon finesse, so your attack right now is 1 point lower than Tina's neither of you use magic weapons at this point.

But seriously what are you trying to prove? that if you optimise on in combat effectiveness that you'll be more effective in combat?

Kelpstrand
2009-10-05, 02:34 PM
Grapple doesn't get outpaced until mid levels, around 12-15.

Grapple get's outpaced rather sooner than that. Level 8-10 for a heavily grapple focused character.


Yup. And while you spend 8 rounds bashing that door in, everything within 300 feet of you hears the banging, and removes the objective. In many cases, Hulk smash is not the best way.

It takes two rounds for the Monk not designed for it to take down an Iron Door. A Power Attacking Fighter/Barbarian can take any door down in one round, and it's only a DC -10 listen check, + distance and intervening object penalties, that get's pretty high pretty quick.


But the rogue did contribute in the 4th? Convenient that your assessment stops at 3.

I've only read the first 5 rounds of the 4th combat. During that time, no contribution of any kind was made. Supposedly after I stopped reading, the Rogue magically turned into a new person and actually contributed for the first time in the challenge.


But "not usable yet" does not equal "not useful". Important distinction. There is eventually a time when you don't want to let things 5 rooms over know that you just got in the front door. There is a time when those skills are needed.

"Not usable yet" does in fact mean that it has been useless.


So, are you complaining about the rogue's tactics, and using it to justify the argument for a mechanical balance? Even if there is inferior play tactics, that doesn't mean that the monk is good. It just means that the monk performed better than a poorly played character. Is that the point you're making?

The point I'm making is that Giamoco can always claim that the Rogue wasn't poorly built or poorly played, but he can't claim that it wasn't more useful than him if it was. So having a good Rogue who handily beats the Monk at everything would be much better.


And what about the rogue moving 15? Sneaking is not always about speed. You're applying situational modifiers, and calling it a clear win. Situational modifiers are just that. Situational.

Um? You want to stealthily tumble to avoid and AoO? An AoO from what? A Deaf Mute?


All facts (possible exception, ineffective). And yet, it doesn't prove the point. Yes, they are not as good as the wizard doing it. You don't always need increased durations. The best argument you've got is that the rogue is built badly (which I neither agree nor disagree with). That doesn't make the monk viable. It means that you're trying to compare yourself to the least effective party member, while acknowledging critical design flaws in said character.

It does prove the point. It proves that the Rogue has brought absolutely nothing to the table even on par with the Monk. Much less better. It proves the Monk can keep up with this Rogue and in fact easily surpass her. If that is the case, then we are failing to demonstrate the point of the exercise.

Also, I'd advice you to read the name next to this post, then go compare it against the name of the Monk player.


And you can locate traps with a DC higher than 20? Rogues can. That means that with your +19, you have a 100% chance to locate a DC 20 trap... and a 0% chance to find a DC 21.
Except you can't locate traps with a DC higher than 20.

Being a well built Rogue. The character can in fact locate traps with DCs higher than 20.


Individual encounters do not make for balanced analysis. A wide range of appropriate challenges should yield testing information, when characters are built and optimized to a even playing field. If you're claiming that the rogue is not built that way, then you're invalidating the entire comparison.

Yes, that is exactly my point. The entire comparison is invalidated by a poorly built Rogue. If there were a competently built Rogue, then the test could actually be conclusive.

But proving that poorly built Rogues are not as useful as Well built Monks proves nothing at all and is a waste of our time.

That is why I have consistently called for a comparison with non nerfed Wizards/Druids/Rogues against the Monk.

Kelpstrand
2009-10-05, 02:37 PM
actually right now your character misses weapon finesse, so your attack right now is 1 point lower than Tina's neither of you use magic weapons at this point.

But seriously what are you trying to prove? that if you optimise on in combat effectiveness that you'll be more effective in combat?

Actually, my character uses thrown weapons, and therefore uses Dex, and get's a +1 racial to thrown, so is in fact +3 higher than Tina with items, without items.

You'll notice Tina also has a +1 Bow. And also uses Dex for ranged attacks, which are the staple of a blink Rogue.

My point is that a Rogue that is worse than a Monk is not proof that Monks are worse than Rogues.

Signmaker
2009-10-05, 02:42 PM
Patience. The day is not yet done, neither is the test.

Fenix_of_Doom
2009-10-05, 02:48 PM
Actually, my character uses thrown weapons, and therefore uses Dex, and get's a +1 racial to thrown, so is in fact +3 higher than Tina with items, without items.


Makes sense, it is however rather challenging to deduce that out of a character sheet without any equipment listed.

PhoenixRivers
2009-10-05, 02:53 PM
Grapple get's outpaced rather sooner than that. Level 8-10 for a heavily grapple focused character.So you admit that from levels 1-7, grapple is a way to limit a foes options, force it to specific actions, and redirect attacks to a target able to take it? Sounds like we have a tank.


It takes two rounds for the Monk not designed for it to take down an Iron Door. A Power Attacking Fighter/Barbarian can take any door down in one round, and it's only a DC -10 listen check, + distance and intervening object penalties, that get's pretty high pretty quick.Sounds of combat are DC -10. Let's look at 50 feet, and 2 doors. DC 5. So, now everything down the hall and in adjacent rooms? Yeah. Listen doesn't go up that quickly.


I've only read the first 5 rounds of the 4th combat. During that time, no contribution of any kind was made. Supposedly after I stopped reading, the Rogue magically turned into a new person and actually contributed for the first time in the challenge.While you're perfectly entitled to deride a character, I'm not going to continue discussing with you if you continue in such a confrontational manner.


"Not usable yet" does in fact mean that it has been useless.
Like many people, I own a winter coat. For the last 6 months, it's been in my closet. Unused. I suppose it's useless.

However, when December comes around, it will have a very valid and effective use.

Just because the coat hasn't been used, does not mean it doesn't have a valid and useful purpose. Just that the purpose has not been encountered.


The point I'm making is that Giamoco can always claim that the Rogue wasn't poorly built or poorly played, but he can't claim that it wasn't more useful than him if it was. So having a good Rogue who handily beats the Monk at everything would be much better.And you've devoted how many pages to this? Fine. I will concede that nobody can use the rogue as a baseline comparison of the monk. Instead, we should compare to the most effective. Jaya.

Is that your goal?


Um? You want to stealthily tumble to avoid and AoO? An AoO from what? A Deaf Mute?Half movement. You don't need 30 move all the time. And again, I would appreciate less sarcastic and confrontational comments. If they continue, I won't.


It does prove the point. It proves...snip


But proving that poorly built Rogues are not as useful as Well built Monks proves nothing at all and is a waste of our time.You reverse your position in the same post. What is it you're trying to say? Because I am not seeing the message. We are proving something when I say we're not. We aren't proving something when I claim we are. Is this just an attempt at being contrary? Please, clarify your post, so that I may understand your message better.

Sliver
2009-10-05, 02:58 PM
While I am not impressed with the monk in this challange, I do agree that no matter how he well he will fare compared to any other character, it can always be countered with "they were self-gimping. Making an optimized build that is on-par with un-optimized/poorly-played characters proves nothing/is admiting its under-powered/ect". It isn't really giving the Monk a real chance to prove himself, if you can always, in case the results aren't on your side, claim that the results prove nothing, due to the monk being compared to weaker builds, while itself is pretty optimized.

Again, looking at the monk on his own, I wasn't impressed. But the test doesn't really give a monk a fair chance to actualy prove himself.

The bashing of the rogue tho, is really uncalled for. It was pretty much stated that it was built as a skill monkey. Saying "in this test, his skills were useless" isn't really saying much, as he took skills like DD and search, skills that are always needed, if the campaing has any number of real traps (not just ambushes). Saying that the monk is better then the rogue doesn't acomplish much, and won't.

Kelpstrand
2009-10-05, 03:25 PM
So you admit that from levels 1-7, grapple is a way to limit a foes options, force it to specific actions, and redirect attacks to a target able to take it? Sounds like we have a tank.

No, I do not agree that grappling limits foes, or redirects attacks. It does force specific actions, if you can close with them. Grappling is either not effective, or a no save/die from melee range. But Barbarian Charges tend to be no save dies at the same levels.

The problem is getting to that point against the ones who want to avoid it. Once you get there and establish it, you are basically just killing them slowly.

However, it's not effective against most enemies.


Sounds of combat are DC -10. Let's look at 50 feet, and 2 doors. DC 5. So, now everything down the hall and in adjacent rooms? Yeah. Listen doesn't go up that quickly.

Hmm... That doesn't sound like 300ft and the entire dungeon like I was hearing claimed?


Half movement. You don't need 30 move all the time. And again, I would appreciate less sarcastic and confrontational comments. If they continue, I won't.

The Monk has an Obscene success rate for tumbling 30ft. He also has an Obscene success rate in 15ft. The Rogue only has the obscene rate at 15ft, and not 30ft. That sounds like a win for the Monk.


You reverse your position in the same post. What is it you're trying to say? Because I am not seeing the message. We are proving something when I say we're not. We aren't proving something when I claim we are. Is this just an attempt at being contrary? Please, clarify your post, so that I may understand your message better.

I am saying that from the information we have, we can prove:

"The Monk has outperformed the Rogue in this challenge."

But the fact that the optimized Monk has outperformed the unoptimized Rogue does not help prove either:

"Monks are better than Rogues." or "Rogues are better than Monks."

I consider this a problem, since we are doing a test to supposedly determine how Monks relate to other classes in D&D.

PhoenixRivers
2009-10-05, 03:48 PM
No, I do not agree that grappling limits foes, or redirects attacks. It does force specific actions, if you can close with them. Grappling is either not effective, or a no save/die from melee range. But Barbarian Charges tend to be no save dies at the same levels.Can a grappled foe move? Not if you control the grapple. Can a pinned foe attack your buddy, who's adjacent? No.

That's "limiting what it can do". Anything it does must be focused on you, because it has to get away or through you to get to them. That's tanking.

Can someone charge and hurt it? Yes. Can someone grapple it and deny it dex for touch spells and sneak attacks? Yes. Different strokes. The 100% most effective method to kill a foe in 6.28 seconds isn't always the one that needs to be used. Variety and the spice of life, and all that.

The point is that it can be done. That a different tactic, like charge power attack, can also be done? Irrelevant. Not to mention that grapple is easy against high AC foes, as it's a touch attack. Power attack? Not so much.


The problem is getting to that point against the ones who want to avoid it. Once you get there and establish it, you are basically just killing them slowly.
Or tying them up until the party can kill them quickly, with you.

However, it's not effective against most enemies.CR 1-7. For every one you can show me that it's not effective, I can show you 3 that are.


Hmm... That doesn't sound like 300ft and the entire dungeon like I was hearing claimed?That it was an exaggeration doesn't diminish the fact. People can hear it 2-3 rooms away, with ease. Things that hear well? Much farther.


The Monk has an Obscene success rate for tumbling 30ft. He also has an Obscene success rate in 15ft. The Rogue only has the obscene rate at 15ft, and not 30ft. That sounds like a win for the Monk.Who's more obscene at 15 feet? At 20? Thank you.


I am saying that from the information we have, we can prove:

"The Monk has outperformed the Rogue in this challenge."which I stated proved nothing. And you contradicted.

But the fact that the optimized Monk has outperformed the unoptimized Rogue does not help prove either:

"Monks are better than Rogues." or "Rogues are better than Monks."And now you support.


I consider this a problem, since we are doing a test to supposedly determine how Monks relate to other classes in D&D.
Is it really a big deal? I mean, let's look at it on the scale of "paying my rent", "feeding my kids", "passing my college exams" and "determining monk balance in D&D".

If not all of us have that kind of time to ensure that everything is perfectly even, then please, indulge us. I, and I suspect several others, have many other concerns, and frankly, don't consider this to be worthy of all this hate and discontent.

Perhaps a thought exercise. But if it's not perfect, we're not gonna sweat it.

Not everything has to be the single most efficient way, or it sucks. Not perfect is good too.

Kelpstrand
2009-10-05, 04:08 PM
Can a grappled foe move? Not if you control the grapple. Can a pinned foe attack your buddy, who's adjacent? No.

That's "limiting what it can do". Anything it does must be focused on you, because it has to get away or through you to get to them. That's tanking.

Can someone charge and hurt it? Yes. Can someone grapple it and deny it dex for touch spells and sneak attacks? Yes. Different strokes. The 100% most effective method to kill a foe in 6.28 seconds isn't always the one that needs to be used. Variety and the spice of life, and all that.

The point is that it can be done. That a different tactic, like charge power attack, can also be done? Irrelevant. Not to mention that grapple is easy against high AC foes, as it's a touch attack. Power attack? Not so much.

Grapple is a kill that uses your standard actions if they cannot escape. If they can escape, it is not very good. If 'Tanking' does the exact same thing as "Doing damage" or "Controlling" or "Debuffing" then it's not actually a different thing.


Or tying them up until the party can kill them quickly, with you.
CR 1-7. For every one you can show me that it's not effective, I can show you 3 that are.

How about, since you think it goes all the way to 12 as a viable tactic, I'll just list only CR 7 ones that it fail against, and you list only CR 7 ones that it does work against. And you have to do 3 per one of mine.

First step, Grapple check of a Core Barbarian 7. Probably Orc, not caster support, since the caster could have crippled a CR 7 opponent with that action.

So, Str 23 before items and Rage. Not sure how to calculate Rage, since supposedly 4 encounters. I'm good with just assuming +2 Str from Rages, as rage for half fights.


Who's more obscene at 15 feet? At 20? Thank you.

Who's more Obscene at 15? I don't know. 100% and 100% seem very similar. At 20? The Monk of course, the Rogue isn't even Obscene at 20ft, and is looking at failure.


which I stated proved nothing. And you contradicted.And now you support.

No, you stated that it doesn't prove that. I stated that it does.


Is it really a big deal? I mean, let's look at it on the scale of "paying my rent", "feeding my kids", "passing my college exams" and "determining monk balance in D&D".

If not all of us have that kind of time to ensure that everything is perfectly even, then please, indulge us. I, and I suspect several others, have many other concerns, and frankly, don't consider this to be worthy of all this hate and discontent.

Perhaps a thought exercise. But if it's not perfect, we're not gonna sweat it.

Not everything has to be the single most efficient way, or it sucks. Not perfect is good too.

If you don't think it's worth spending any time on, then why are we taking the time to actually test this? I assume the many hour commitment being made by the various participants is indicative of them caring about the answer.

If everyone but you cares about the answer and wants it to actually provide evidence and not just be "a thought experiment" perhaps you shouldn't be decrying everyone who is discussing this under the pretext that it means something.

PhoenixRivers
2009-10-05, 04:23 PM
How about, since you think it goes all the way to 12 as a viable tactic, I'll just list only CR 7 ones that it fail against, and you list only CR 7 ones that it does work against. And you have to do 3 per one of mine.Because CR 1-7 is the range we both agree grapple hasn't outpaced.


No, you stated that it doesn't prove that. I stated that it does.
You try to correct me on what I said? I'm sorry, I believe that of the two of us, I am eminently more qualified to know the points I was attempting to make than you.


If you don't think it's worth spending any time on, then why are we taking the time to actually test this? I assume the many hour commitment being made by the various participants is indicative of them caring about the answer.I didn't say is wasn't worth any time. Please. Less with the straw man arguments, and more with debating what I actually say. I said is wasn't worth as much as you're doing here. All this consternation, and pages and pages of nit picking. It's not worth THAT. And so, I think that'll be it for now. If you would like to continue to find people to disagree with, be my guest.

I've had enough of someone else trying to tell me what my views are.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-10-05, 04:26 PM
The bashing of the rogue tho, is really uncalled for. It was pretty much stated that it was built as a skill monkey. Saying "in this test, his skills were useless" isn't really saying much, as he took skills like DD and search, skills that are always needed, if the campaing has any number of real traps (not just ambushes). Saying that the monk is better then the rogue doesn't acomplish much, and won't.
Thank you, kind sir!

Seriously, Mostly had no way of knowing how combat focused the dungeoncrawl would be, and it seemed reasonable at the time to have someone cover skills for the party.



Again, looking at the monk on his own, I wasn't impressed. But the test doesn't really give a monk a fair chance to actualy prove himself.

The original point of the test, if I remember correctly, was about Monks vs Druids. I would say that the Druid is done well (though I was only playing him briefly) so the monk has had a fair chance to prove himself imho.

Alex112524
2009-10-05, 04:32 PM
I've been lurking around this thread and the actual game that goes with it and I just think that this argument is getting a little out of hand, so I have a question. Kelpstrand, is the only thing you've been trying to say this whole time (becides specific optimization points) is that you think a rogue/rest of the party more optimized for combat/in general would be a more conclusive test of the monk build? If so i think this argument has spiraled down into something that has nothing to do with the original point trying to be made due to misunderstandings.

Kelpstrand
2009-10-05, 04:35 PM
Because CR 1-7 is the range we both agree grapple hasn't outpaced.

And I am proposing a specific level in that range. This is because I do not want to deal with seven different grapple checks to be compared against, and an assortment of monsters hundreds strong.

I'd like to pick one specific level, so that I can compare a single grapple check against only 50 or so monsters.

If you don't think you can find 3 monsters of CR 7 that are grapplable for every 1 that isn't, you can just say admit that level 7 is not a level in which grappling is viable. Or you can distinguish it as an anomaly, and explain how you could do it at level 8.

If your game plan is when I name 30 CR 7 monsters that can't be grappled to then name 90 CR 1 and 2 monsters that can be grappled, you certainly aren't providing any evidence at all that grappling is viable at level 7.


You try to correct me on what I said? I'm sorry, I believe that of the two of us, I am eminently more qualified to know the points I was attempting to make than you.

I think I am eminently more qualified to read what you actually said, and not assume you meant something you did not say based on the fact that it is what you meant.

If you want to point to what you actually said, and what I actually said...

(Hey, weren't you just telling me what I did and didn't disagree with in your last post? Maybe I know what I said and meant better than you? Oh, I guess it only works one way.)


Kelpstrand, is the only thing you've been trying to say this whole time (becides specific optimization points) is that you think a rogue/rest of the party more optimized for combat/in general would be a more conclusive test of the monk build?

Roughly. I would say "Conclusive at all."

But I don't think it degenerated so much as people refuse to believe this is the case.

Also, Phoenix mistook me for Giamoco and then decided he must contradict me on every possible point.

Alex112524
2009-10-05, 04:46 PM
Roughly. I would say "Conclusive at all."

But I don't think it degenerated so much as people refuse to believe this is the case.

Also, Phoenix mistook me for Giamoco and then decided he must contradict me on every possible point.

Alright then, I just thought it would be good to get this out in the open, people tend to overlook or miss the while point of something when specifics get debated, and I have to admit it did seem to me like you were trying to advocate Giamoco's position when you were trying to account for what his reactions could be to the test, until it was clarified further down.

Doc Roc
2009-10-05, 04:49 PM
Roughly. I would say "Conclusive at all."

But I don't think it degenerated so much as people refuse to believe this is the case.

Also, Phoenix mistook me for Giamoco and then decided he must contradict me on every possible point.

I will be happy to play in a test that you run. If you run a test, I will support it to the utmost of my ability. I think anyone here would.

There is, I think, no reason to savage people for "refusing to believe." This isn't the X-files. The truth isn't out there. The test was never intended to be particularly conclusive, to be entirely blunt. Conclusive would be the extensive same game testing that's been done. Conclusive would be the huge bulk of statistical analysis that's been applied. Conclusive would be the almost monolithic opinion of the entire Char-Op community that monks are somewhere between weak and painfully weak.

That wasn't compelling. So instead we offer a dungeon-crawl complete with interesting party dynamics and relatively neat characters, run by a highly competent GM. This is a group that is, frankly, pretty close to the stereotypical party. It provides a sense of sequence and setting and an opportunity to look at what a Monk brings to a party. That's all. I don't know why everything needs to be cast in a dire and negative light, why disagreement needs to be magnified into some sort of deeply partisan argument. This is awful, and I, for one, am ashamed.

Kelpstrand
2009-10-05, 05:02 PM
Well since I offered up a test quite some time ago when discussing the various issues I have with the characters in this test, and not a single person expressed any desire to aid in the test in any way shape or form... I'm going to go out on a limb and say that "anyone here would" is pretty much entirely 100% incorrect.

But I do not see anything as a great partisan disagreement. Some people have advocated that the Monk outperforming the Rogue proves that Monk is an inferior class. I would argue otherwise. Others have argued that the Monk has not outperformed the Rogue. I would argue otherwise.

I do not see where the great partisan disagreements come in, but I could easily be missing something.

Kurald Galain
2009-10-05, 05:02 PM
is the only thing you've been trying to say this whole time (becides specific optimization points) is that you think a rogue/rest of the party more optimized for combat/in general would be a more conclusive test of the monk build?
But the thing is, in comparing the monk to the rogue, people are neglecting to compare the monk to the druid or the wizard. That is, the monk who is heavily optimized is nevertheless being upstaged by the druid and wizard that are not optimized. What conclusions can be drawn from that?

Alex112524
2009-10-05, 05:07 PM
I don't know why everything needs to be cast in a dire and negative light, why disagreement needs to be magnified into some sort of deeply partisan argument. This is awful, and I, for one, am ashamed.

Disagreement doesn't need to be magnified, and most people don't do it on purpose, it grows of it's own accord. As we try to support our arguments, more of our beliefs come into view, and someone will invariably disagree, fueling the argument. Such side arguments can create side arguments of their own, until what it was that was originally disagreed upon is forgotten, this is how feuds and grudges start, so I think is important that we never lose sight of the reason the discussion/debate/argument started, lest they grow out of control.


But the thing is, in comparing the monk to the rogue, people are neglecting to compare the monk to the druid or the wizard. That is, the monk who is heavily optimized is nevertheless being upstaged by the druid and wizard that are not optimized. What conclusions can be drawn from that?

Again, you're losing sight of the base premise of the argument, he's not specifically saying that this is the only and best way to look at it, only that it could be potentially looked at it this way by someone, as support for his initial position, that he belives comparing an optimized monk to unoptimized characters wont prove anything about this monk build.

Kurald Galain
2009-10-05, 05:18 PM
it could be potentially looked at it this way by someone, as support for his initial position, that he belives comparing an optimized monk to unoptimized characters wont prove anything about this monk build.
This being the internet, anything could be used by someone as support for his initial position, so I wouldn't worry about that.

It strikes me as obvious that if optimized-X is weaker than unoptimized-Y, then that proves that X is (far) weaker than Y. Elementary, my dear Watson.

Kelpstrand
2009-10-05, 05:26 PM
This being the internet, anything could be used by someone as support for his initial position, so I wouldn't worry about that.

It strikes me as obvious that if optimized-X is weaker than unoptimized-Y, then that proves that X is (far) weaker than Y. Elementary, my dear Watson.

You keep ignoring that optimized X is stronger than unoptimized Y.

mostlyharmful
2009-10-05, 05:34 PM
Seriously, Mostly had no way of knowing how combat focused the dungeoncrawl would be, and it seemed reasonable at the time to have someone cover skills for the party.

Actually I had some fairly serious evidence in reading the prior test of spite fights on how combat focussed this crawl would be. I made the rogue in question as an unoptimized organic character that might well turn up on any given table without any real impetous towards optimization KNOWING how much a skill focussed monkey with 14 in Cha and 12 in Con would suck ass. I built a bog standerd rogue, my aim was to build a bog standerd rogue, if I had it around again I'd still build what I consider a bog standerd seventeen times around the block rogue with sucky tactics in order to create the opertunity of letting a Monk do whatever they want. The original argument (as Fist says) was about full caster vs Monk, the monkey just being along for the ride, NOT whether I could or could not cream CR appropriate critters on my lonesome.

Had I wanted to I could have built this rogue for a far more combat orientated campaign, I could have contested any number of rulings, I could have pulled any number of Optimization tricks, I could have pulled any number of dubious ploys, I could have yanked out Candles and Dust and I could have made baloon animals of any damn thing I pleased..... what would that have told us about the Monk class?

what would that have brought to the table other than wang comparison over who can build the most broken build within a given set of restrictions (incidentilly, I didn#t get any so I guessed at the level of the campaign). Me and Sstoop and Fist all had the same idea it seems. we implemented it to different degrees but whatever. lets let the Monk show us what he's got. Fist built an evoker that banned Conj and Trans, Sstoop built a non-shifting druid and I did my best to create a rogue that could convincingly have walked in from any given game on any given 3.5 table.

None of the three of us are interested in how rogues or wizards or druids can do, neither is Gia I believe. Neither is Saph or Doc Roc or frankly anyone with the original idea in mind it seems to me. Lets let the Monk do what he does and then judge him on it.

Oh, and to the question of used and unused skills, my bill was to create a skillmonkey for a dungeon crawl, I'm not trying to guess what skills will be needed, how many of them will be needed or what else the party wants I'm just filling the role I was given (the fact it's not needed is about the campaign not the character).



I think Tina looked prettier throughout the three encounters though.

and no I'm not sure how I was able to conceive that idea.

~That'd be because you're a man of wealth and taste honey, you can butter my oyster any day of the week.

Kelpstrand
2009-10-05, 05:40 PM
None of the three of us are interested in how rogues or wizards or druids can do, neither is Gia I believe. Neither is Saph or Doc Roc or frankly anyone with the original idea in mind it seems to me. Lets let the Monk do what he does and then judge him on it.

It is 100% impossible to evaluate the Monk without making reference to the other options one might have. IE Rogues/Druids/Wizards.

If the purpose was to see what a Monk can do, why not just generate a stat block and not compare it to anything?

Kurald Galain
2009-10-05, 05:44 PM
Oh, and to the question of used and unused skills, my bill was to create a skillmonkey for a dungeon crawl, I'm not trying to guess what skills will be needed, how many of them will be needed or what else the party wants I'm just filling the role I was given (the fact it's not needed is about the campaign not the character).
MH, you did a good job and continue to do a good job.

/thread

mostlyharmful
2009-10-05, 05:46 PM
It is 100% impossible to evaluate the Monk without making reference to the other options one might have. IE Rogues/Druids/Wizards.

If the purpose was to see what a Monk can do, why not just generate a stat block and not compare it to anything?

because of the endless quibbling about what they would do if X or how they would face Y or if Z other support from the party would be available. In game play you expect your party to be there nine times out of ten so it seems reasonable to test the monk in a social atmosphere with some level of support (obviously not at the moment when he's trying to force my rogues kdneys out through her nose but meh). Stat blocks aren't conclusive in the way performance in an unpredictable environment surrounded by actual independent decision making agencies is.


MH, you did a good job and continue to do a good job.

/thread

I continue to do a crappy job but to be fair it is an intentionally crappy job in a crappy role. and thanks, that means a bit from you.

/huuuuuug.

Sir Giacomo
2009-10-05, 06:18 PM
Wow, massive thread growth!

Way back imo Doc Roc made a good comment:


I think we should all just sit down, buckle up, and enjoy the ride.


This is what we should do right now. Let's wait for some more encounters before we can do a more comprehensive assessment.

What we shouldn't imo:


But the thing is, in comparing the monk to the rogue, people are neglecting to compare the monk to the druid or the wizard. That is, the monk who is heavily optimized is nevertheless being upstaged by the druid and wizard that are not optimized. What conclusions can be drawn from that?

I mentioned the problem of this approach already above, and my opinion was already echoed by AncientRealms.

Please either admit that the current rogue, wizard and druid are up to good optimisation (hey, it could theoretically be better, the builds could be better done - but that is also true of the monk).
Or redo them.
But then do not backpedal again saying "aww, monk may have done OK, but that was only because the others were not optimised enough." Which imo is tantamount to saying the whole excercise was no use at all - and this by no means does justice to Doc Roc/Tidesinger's work he put into the test design and Saph's efforts to DM it all. Not to mention our own time we devote to playing that.

Having said that, there are some other issues I'd like to raise which should in my view be taken into consideration for analysing what is happening in the test:

1. Thanks to Kelpstrand for bringing up some obvious observations. While I would not go so far to say that the rogue is useless or badly optimised (there was simply no big opportunity yet for her to shine), the rogue's performance cannot be construed so far in any way that it illustrates a monk's weakness. Definitely not.

2. When counting the number of respawns, please consider the following dimensions for fairness:
a. Two respawned twice (rogue and monk), two respawned once (druid and wizard). It makes no sense at all to go "oh, but the shadow attack was no combat" (what the heck was it? A skill check? And it would have been survivable if STR had not been a "dump stat" for both), and at the same time call a truly only CON check (the swarm effect) of encounter 2 as "showing the monk sucks in combat". Really.
b. Thus, the respawns are so close that you can't draw ANY conclusions yet from it.
Especially when you consider the circumstances that, for instance, the druid had to suffer through only half the first encounter, and only survived the second (after falling into a trap) due to a "Deus ex Saphina" (apparently reluctant to risk a second near-TPK) who allowed an animal companion (!) and later an intelligent item (!!!!) to provide assistance in various attempts of healing checks. Don't get me wrong: I thought the scene one of the best in the game so far fluffwise, but in no way should it be forgotten that this is no basis for assessing class weaknesses and performance.
Meanwhile, the wizard in encounter 1 ended up basically helpless, sickened in a force sphere that could have been crossed in the blink of an eye by the dimensiondooring archer demons - but Saph opted to have them search for Tina instead and let the druid arrive just in time. In encounter 2, again bigtime luck for Jaya when the hydra chose to breathe 30d6 cold damage on Gladiator (who shrugged it off true tank-style with improved evasion), and not her after she had hit the monster with a powerful enervation.
Again, nothing against that fluffwise - as a DM I would have handled it in a similar way. But this is no basis to judge the number of respawns for those less lucky.

3. Then, consider the roles of the party. Gladiator is a tank, while all others are ranged combatants (OK, Dog being Dok's extension as secondary melee fighter). What does a tank do? He protects the others and tries to draw the enemy attacks.
This he has done well so far imo. And it normally means that with more attacks coming his way, he'll also die more often/or get in danger more often. Others can afford to turn invisible and cease attacks, run away or hide in a stone shelter. Gladiator? Not so much (as long there is someone still out of the group that is under pressure and not built for melee).
The situation would be VASTLY different in case the Giamonk had the scout role, I can assure you. Then the monk's survivability would come more to the fore - but at the expense of attacking power and area control.

4. On this mind control monk vs group thing: That is really unfortunate. There is hardly a tank build that could have ended up with higher enchantment save in core, but still Gladiator succumbed to Lilian's charms ...:smallbiggrin: (That, and some ... let us say fluffwise interesting events since that may have also gone differently ... :smallbiggrin:)
While I think a lot can be learnt from the way that almost group-internal combat went, I sincerely hope we will return to normal group teamwork and 4-party-member-vs-encounter scenarios soon.

5. Something minor: the druid's solid optimisation results are augmented by
- a non-core item (SRD/psionics staff of parrying- a monk could then also get the psychic warrior prestige class and/or a gauntlet of titans for +8 to grapple),
- by cumstom items (normally banned in the tests of spite, though only simple ones like 2 stat boosters in one amulet)
- and, most importantly, by non-core alternate class features to replace the banned wildshape. I am not quite sure about what these "aspect" things do. Where is that from? What are the advantages?
Currently, for instance, I think the druid has up the options of 24/7 boosts to CON and DEX of +4 each that cannot be dispelled or taken away, and entirely stackable with enhancement bonuses from core items (meaning basically a +8 bonus to a stat is possible for that level, something in core usually not available at all below level 21- i.e. epic level effect).
At first sight this appears immensely powerful, also because apparently those abilities can be swapped at will for other things (like swim speed and other ability boosters?).
I am feeling a bit baffled in that it makes hardly sense imo to ban a powerful effect for all (wildshape/polymorph) and then only provide one with a similarly powerful ability for free as a replacement that amounts to something like 100,000 gp in extra items in terms of usability.
But maybe I'm imagining things here - could someone tell me what the druid can do with this aspect stuff?

6. Finally, do not underestimate the power of bad luck with rolls that really count. I mean, what is the big deal with getting some more hits with blind-fight than expected (and I feel that with the high number of full attacks, Gladiator has rolled completely average in encounter 3b)?
For instance, Jaya and Tina both rolled abysmal will saves at the beginning of encounter 2. What if that had been dominations or suggestions (even from only low-level sorcerers it would have been effective)? I.e. if those had similar impact on the story as Gladiator's rolled "3" vs a the enchantment attack (he needed a 4 or better to save)? As it was, the absysmal will save rolls (both Jaya and Tina have way lower will saves than Gladiator) had NO result (yet :smallbiggrin:).
Again my recommendation: let us have a look at more encounters before we can discern any trend here.

That's about it for now.

- Giacomo

tyckspoon
2009-10-05, 06:34 PM
5. Something minor: the druid's solid optimisation results are augmented by
- a non-core item (SRD/psionics staff of parrying- a monk could then also get the psychic warrior prestige class and/or a gauntlet of titans for +8 to grapple),
- by cumstom items (normally banned in the tests of spite, though only simple ones like 2 stat boosters in one amulet)
- and, most importantly, by non-core alternate class features to replace the banned wildshape. I am not quite sure about what these "aspect" things do. Where is that from? What are the advantages?
Currently, for instance, I think the druid has up the options of 24/7 boosts to CON and DEX of +4 each that cannot be dispelled or taken away, and entirely stackable with enhancement bonuses from core items (meaning basically a +8 bonus to a stat is possible for that level, something in core usually not available at all below level 21- i.e. epic level effect).
At first sight this appears immensely powerful, also because apparently those abilities can be swapped at will for other things (like swim speed and other ability boosters?).
I am feeling a bit baffled in that it makes hardly sense imo to ban a powerful effect for all (wildshape/polymorph) and then only provide one with a similarly powerful ability for free as a replacement that amounts to something like 100,000 gp in extra items in terms of usability.
But maybe I'm imagining things here - could someone tell me what the druid can do with this aspect stuff?


You could at least try to find out this stuff- it's the Aspect of Nature (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/classFeatureVariants.htm#wildShapeVariantAspectOfN ature) variant in the SRD-released Unearthed Arcana. In short: It's a number of buffs the Druid can pick from. They activate as a standard action and last one minute per level. As the Druid levels, he gains access to more of them (at the same time a normal Wildshape Druid would get Plant/Elemental/larger size categories) and can activate more at one time. However, each activation uses a Wild Shape use, so if the Druid decides to use two at once, he is out two daily uses of the Aspect ability.

If it has seemed so far like Dok's Aspect bonuses are on 24/7, I suspect it is only because the environment so far has allowed for significant prep of the "we don't know what we're gonna fight, everybody get your short-term stuff up" variety.. since you guys presumably have pattern recognition capability, you know that when you take a new portal you're probably going to have to fight something not too long after.

PhoenixRivers
2009-10-05, 06:49 PM
A point on this:

2. When counting the number of respawns, please consider the following dimensions for fairness:
a. Two respawned twice (rogue and monk), two respawned once (druid and wizard). It makes no sense at all to go "oh, but the shadow attack was no combat" (what the heck was it? A skill check? And it would have been survivable if STR had not been a "dump stat" for both), and at the same time call a truly only CON check (the swarm effect) of encounter 2 as "showing the monk sucks in combat". Really.


There are some creatures in the MM that are tough to CR. Shadows, for instance. Allips. There ae others.

Why? Because one ECL 3 party may roll a shadow.

Another may have serious issues, due to unusual defensive methods.

Shadows further get utter silence (obviates listen), and the ability to move within walls (opportunity to obviate spot).

What this creates is a creature designed to set the terms of combat. And those terms are invariably melee.

Defensively, a monk would likely last longer than most. More easy sources to boost touch AC. Arcanists have options, though, with Mage Armor (long term, good AC boost)

Offensively, an arcane caster has the easiest time hitting, with the opportunity for no-roll-no-miss attacks (magic missile).

Second, a Cleric (with turn undead, which obviates an attack roll), or (spiritual weapon, which bypasses incorporeal).

After that, any melee or ranged with a magic weapon comes in.

So, what's this mean? Shadows will likely get a surprise round. In that, if several are attacking, they're attacking a much more finite resource than HP. The attack bonus isn't stellar, but it's against touch.

With 3-4 shadows, it's likely even a high strength character can be weakened to the point of ineffectiveness, if not death.

So yes, it's a combat. But it's a combat with a common factor. Massive party death.

That points less to class strengths and weaknesses, and more to party issues. Perhaps a bad combination. Perhaps bad tactics. Perhaps bad luck.

But the first rule of trend finding is that you throw out the extreme results. Fights that are pathetically easy aren't a good measure. Fights that are TPK's, or nearly so, are also not a good measure. It's the challenging fights that are overcome with multiple party members doing their thing. That's what will give the info.

This is why the shadow information is circumspect. Not necessarily meaningless, but the lethality of the encounter speaks for itself. When one player goes down quick, it's a build flaw. When 3 members do? It's looking like more than a class weakness.

I'd be happy to evaluate the monk's deaths as well, given time or easily accessed information.

Doc Roc
2009-10-05, 07:34 PM
Roll a thread for your test, Kelp. Will you run it?

Kelpstrand
2009-10-05, 08:58 PM
@Gia. The Druid gets it's class feature because it lost a class feature. You also got to spend money on other things. Polymorph is not a class feature of Monks, you don't get to insist that you be compensated for your inability to polymorph be receiving the money you would otherwise have spent, but the druid not get anything to replace a large class feature being banned.

As for the actual class feature, it's quite bad. It's only +4 to a stat, +8 comes with a -4 to another. And the abilities have absurdly short durations, such that if you ever encountered a fight that you won without dieing, and continued on to another fight, the Druid would be deprived of the bonuses, as compared to Wildshape, which provides larger stat bonuses, Natural armor, a few other things, and actually does last all day.


Roll a thread for your test, Kelp. Will you run it?

I think you misunderstand. The first thing that would happen is it would not be using Test of Spite rules. It would be using Core rules. I of course will run it if players actually want it to be run. I will happily make the encounters, run the encounters, designate someone else to make the encounters, or designate someone else to run the encounters whichever present themselves as the best options.

But I do pretty much insist on setting the initial rules, and making judgment calls regarding things such as tripping flying/pin point rules other stuff when it comes up.

I will happily run it, but without an actual party of people willing to run it, that doesn't mean anything.

sofawall
2009-10-05, 09:26 PM
I would gladly participate in a test. Likely as a Druid.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-10-05, 09:36 PM
I have a spare wizard (http://www.thetangledweb.net/forums/profiler/view_char.php?cid=30608).

Doc Roc
2009-10-05, 09:42 PM
I think you misunderstand. The first thing that would happen is it would not be using Test of Spite rules. It would be using Core rules. I of course will run it if players actually want it to be run. I will happily make the encounters, run the encounters, designate someone else to make the encounters, or designate someone else to run the encounters whichever present themselves as the best options.

But I do pretty much insist on setting the initial rules, and making judgment calls regarding things such as tripping flying/pin point rules other stuff when it comes up.

I will happily run it, but without an actual party of people willing to run it, that doesn't mean anything.

I know, and I'm willing to play.

Kelpstrand
2009-10-05, 09:47 PM
Well, if Doc is willing to go Rogue, we only miss our Monk.

That said, if we want to open up the field of characters to other options besides mirror parties, I'm willing to hear it.

I'm not going to create a new thread until I get confirmation from Giamoco as being on board. After that, we'll get to a new thread to discuss rules/whether everyone is okay with me designing encounters/possible changes in level/circumstance, ect.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-10-05, 09:48 PM
Giacomo likely won't have the time. Perhaps we could ask LordKhaine or Ericgrau?

Tidesinger is also a fan of the concept of monks, so I'm sure he'd oblige use as well should we need one.

Claudius Maximus
2009-10-05, 09:49 PM
I really have no investment in this argument, but I'm willing to play a character in this as a relatively unbiased participant, if there's still room.

sofawall
2009-10-05, 09:54 PM
Sure, we have a Druid and a Wizard, you and Doc Roc can figure out the rest between you.

Kelpstrand
2009-10-05, 10:01 PM
Sure, we have a Druid and a Wizard, you and Doc Roc can figure out the rest between you.

Well, I was kinda hoping to see Giamoco as the Monk, if he is willing. I wouldn't write him off until after he declines. It is his golden rule set, Core only with no stipulations.

(Okay, one Stipulation. No Planar Binding or Candles of Invocation.)

sofawall
2009-10-05, 10:29 PM
(Okay, one Stipulation. No Planar Binding or Candles of Invocation.)

Curses! Foiled again!

What level are we looking at, here?

Kelpstrand
2009-10-05, 10:34 PM
Curses! Foiled again!

What level are we looking at, here?

I was thinking 13.

Claudius Maximus
2009-10-05, 10:43 PM
We have decided that if Sir Giacomo does not opt to participate, Doc Roc will play the Monk and I the Rogue.

PhoenixRivers
2009-10-05, 11:15 PM
I would be willing to create a monk. I'm fairly well versed in charop, I'm told.

Sir Giacomo
2009-10-06, 01:39 AM
Well, I was kinda hoping to see Giamoco as the Monk, if he is willing. I wouldn't write him off until after he declines. It is his golden rule set, Core only with no stipulations.

(Okay, one Stipulation. No Planar Binding or Candles of Invocation.)

But polymorph and wildshape is in?:smallsmile:
Anyhow, would like to try it - the more empirical observations, the better. What is the level? The size of the party? (and btw my posing name is Giacomo, not Giamoco).

@Phoenixrivers: you described well how powerful shadows are. Now have a look at watery swarm blobs that will just move near you and make you drown with a CON check, without any fort save, AC or significant AoO involved.

@tyckspoon. Thanks for the link. The unearthed arcane aspects sound mightily different to the impression that I got.

- Giacomo

PhoenixRivers
2009-10-06, 01:51 AM
@Phoenixrivers: you described well how powerful shadows are. Now have a look at watery swarm blobs that will just move near you and make you drown with a CON check, without any fort save, AC or significant AoO involved.


I'm not aware of an entry for "watery swarm blobs", though I will point out that swarms, like incorporeal, are difficult to directly fight back. Swarms typically auto-hit their targets, no issue there. Then there's usually a save vs negative effect.

No AoO and AC irrelevant are typical features of swarm fights. Lack of a save is atypical, however.

Water combat, in general, is rather deadly. Players usually aren't optimized for water movement. This amplifies the threat from many creatures that are. This is why I generally connect the lead swimmer to a land based creature or terrain feature, via rope, when possible. It allows for pulling out in an emergency. (Use Rope ftw)

However, with a stat block for the enemy you list, I would be more than happy to assess the capabilities.

Sliver
2009-10-06, 01:58 AM
@Phoenixrivers: you described well how powerful shadows are. Now have a look at watery swarm blobs that will just move near you and make you drown with a CON check, without any fort save, AC or significant AoO involved.


You could have made an AoO, decided not to. I think it was due to being unable to trip the swarm, but you could have attacked for half damage. Also, as I understood it, its AC and the CON check were pretty low.

But about the respawns.. The Druid's one doesn't count, and even noted as such. Unless you could have survived being ganked in your sleep by shadows.. Also, if not for story reasons, the shadows would have attacked you and not retreat for you to be later dominated.. And as I recall, there were a lot of shadows there..

PhoenixRivers
2009-10-06, 02:17 AM
You could have made an AoO, decided not to. I think it was due to being unable to trip the swarm, but you could have attacked for half damage. Also, as I understood it, its AC and the CON check were pretty low.

But about the respawns.. The Druid's one doesn't count, and even noted as such. Unless you could have survived being ganked in your sleep by shadows.. Also, if not for story reasons, the shadows would have attacked you and not retreat for you to be later dominated.. And as I recall, there were a lot of shadows there..

As I pointed out, and Giacomo agreed to. The results of the shadow fight have extenuating circumstances that likely limit the usefulness of the statistics that it provides.

A large number of shadows invalidates the argument that deaths were a result of Str being a dump stat. So, this is all information that we've more or less hashed over, albeit without the specifics.

Sliver
2009-10-06, 02:31 AM
My comment about the shadows was more to Gia's about the respawns not beaing a measure for anything due to everyone having almost the same amount of deaths..

The rogue died in the first encounter due to returning injured. This had little effect, wasn't IC and tacticly sound. Second death to the shadows.

The evoker died to the shadows.

Same with the Druid.

The monk died as a pincushion first, then due to not being treated so he won't drown like the other half of the party.

Basicly, only the first 2 deaths (monk and rogue) really counted, and the rogue could have survived with the same effect on the combat..

Nothing can be really used here to support any conclusion, so much of the debate was really pointless (especially for the monk that can't prove that he can contribute as much as other classes).

I support the idea for a new test. If all characters would be built with the same amount of optimization so everybody can agree later that the monk's contribution to the party isn't due to other's not being optimized, then the test could get some results..

PhoenixRivers
2009-10-06, 03:17 AM
My comment about the shadows was more to Gia's about the respawns not beaing a measure for anything due to everyone having almost the same amount of deaths..

The rogue died in the first encounter due to returning injured. This had little effect, wasn't IC and tacticly sound. Second death to the shadows.

The evoker died to the shadows.

Same with the Druid.

The monk died as a pincushion first, then due to not being treated so he won't drown like the other half of the party.

Basicly, only the first 2 deaths (monk and rogue) really counted, and the rogue could have survived with the same effect on the combat..

Nothing can be really used here to support any conclusion, so much of the debate was really pointless (especially for the monk that can't prove that he can contribute as much as other classes).

I support the idea for a new test. If all characters would be built with the same amount of optimization so everybody can agree later that the monk's contribution to the party isn't due to other's not being optimized, then the test could get some results..

Criticizing the work of others as insufficient when you have placed no effort into it yourself is a bit circumspect.

Kelpstrand
2009-10-06, 08:32 AM
Claudius, Pharaoh, sofawall, Doc Roc, Giacomo.

Thread here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7065987#post7065987).

Everyone else is welcome to read along, once IC thread get's started.

mostlyharmful
2009-10-06, 01:08 PM
Please either admit that the current rogue, wizard and druid are up to good optimisation (hey, it could theoretically be better, the builds could be better done - but that is also true of the monk).
Or redo them.

No. Your Monk is the one on show here, you can't expect other people to play at any particular optimization level in a real game and it wouldn't have any effect on how good or otherwise your Monk is what level they are. We've been playing for a while now and you've had no trouble up until now being in a team with these builds, nothing has changed. A Monk is part of a team, the team is there and is built to perfectly normal standerds, your Monk should be able to be a fully functional member of that team and not dependant on them or overshadowed by them. So get on with it.


But then do not backpedal again saying "aww, monk may have done OK, but that was only because the others were not optimised enough." Which imo is tantamount to saying the whole excercise was no use at all - and this by no means does justice to Doc Roc/Tidesinger's work he put into the test design and Saph's efforts to DM it all. Not to mention our own time we devote to playing that.

Speaking purely for myself here but please do not put words in my mouth, that goes double for crass ones. Also, please do not jump to conclusions about what my position is in regards to your Monk or what the test shows.


For instance, Jaya and Tina both rolled abysmal will saves at the beginning of encounter 2. What if that had been dominations or suggestions (even from only low-level sorcerers it would have been effective)? I.e. if those had similar impact on the story as Gladiator's rolled "3" vs a the enchantment attack (he needed a 4 or better to save)? As it was, the absysmal will save rolls (both Jaya and Tina have way lower will saves than Gladiator) had NO result (yet :smallbiggrin:).
- Giacomo

I suspect the will saves were linked to the shadows in the next encounter, given they knew exactly where Dok was and they focussed almost exclusively on Tina and Jaya afterwards my hunch is the Will save was to avoid being tagged with Shadow hate pheremone or somesuch. Just a theory.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-10-06, 02:35 PM
Interesting reading:

Polymorph, Wildshape, Shapechange, oh my (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=3479.0;topicseen)

mostlyharmful
2009-10-06, 02:41 PM
Just dug out the original thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=112900&page=32) that kicked this test off, have a read of post 955 by Fist. We knew the levels of at least one participant before we began and we still started.

Yukitsu
2009-10-06, 03:59 PM
Blast, I'm always a touch too late to join in on these. Must be time zones. :smallsigh:

Sir Giacomo
2009-10-06, 04:47 PM
Hey, mostlyharmful,

I think there were some misunderstandings


No. Your Monk is the one on show here, you can't expect other people to play at any particular optimization level in a real game and it wouldn't have any effect on how good or otherwise your Monk is what level they are. We've been playing for a while now and you've had no trouble up until now being in a team with these builds, nothing has changed. A Monk is part of a team, the team is there and is built to perfectly normal standerds, your Monk should be able to be a fully functional member of that team and not dependant on them or overshadowed by them. So get on with it.

Note: It was not me who brought up the notion that the optimisation level is uneven.
What I did was point out that it makes no sense to say that the monk companions are not really optimised and, as such, whatever the monk shows of course does not tell much about the strength of the class.
I never doubted that the monk is part of the team.
Now that you bring it up I do think that this particular team still can improve on its teamwork. But it's only the 3rd encounter!


Speaking purely for myself here but please do not put words in my mouth, that goes double for crass ones. Also, please do not jump to conclusions about what my position is in regards to your Monk or what the test shows.

Sorry, that was not meant for you - in case you do not think that the optimisation level is uneven and that it matters -as you pointed out above.


I suspect the will saves were linked to the shadows in the next encounter, given they knew exactly where Dok was and they focussed almost exclusively on Tina and Jaya afterwards my hunch is the Will save was to avoid being tagged with Shadow hate pheremone or somesuch. Just a theory.

Hm - could make sense. But what's the priestess role in this, then?
Well, may be we'll find out.


Just dug out the original thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=112900&page=32) that kicked this test off, have a read of post 955 by Fist. We knew the levels of at least one participant before we began and we still started.

Thank you for providing this link - It illustrates imo nicely the change of viewpoint on what was considered appropriate for the test and how it is perceived now.

- Giacomo

mostlyharmful
2009-10-06, 05:24 PM
Hey, mostlyharmful,

Hey dude.


Note: It was not me who brought up the notion that the optimisation level is uneven.
What I did was point out that it makes no sense to say that the monk companions are not really optimised and, as such, whatever the monk shows of course does not tell much about the strength of the class.

why not? The Monks performance has nothing to do with it's companions, we're trying to see what a well played monk brings to the table not what a wizard or a rogue that really wants to crank it can do, there's plenty of that in the other test of spite runs or any of the other bajillion online games. I really don't see the desperate need for the team to be optimized to a certain preset level before it can be used to see what the Monk can do. Also, if we wanted to sort the level out before the game fine but we're in the middle of the test now, let it play out and then we'll see.



I never doubted that the monk is part of the team.
Now that you bring it up I do think that this particular team still can improve on its teamwork. But it's only the 3rd encounter!

I disagree. In order to improve on it's teamwork it needs some actual teamwork to begin with and lets face it, we stink so far (although you're mindganked and I'm probably about to be the same so this maybe isnt' the time to start working on group think).


Sorry, that was not meant for you

In that case I appologize. You can see how I'd come to that conclusion I trust. anywho, on to the actual discussion.


Hm - could make sense. But what's the priestess role in this, then?
Well, may be we'll find out.

I hadn't worked in the priestess, you're assuming they're related which I'm still not convinced is the case. As a hypothesis it needs some work but I can't believe Saph'd have us roll for a save just to frak with our minds... actually now that I think about it......


Thank you for providing this link - It illustrates imo nicely the change of viewpoint on what was considered appropriate for the test and how it is perceived now.

- Giacomo

What do you mean by that? I don't see that it's changed for those of us involved but what's your take on it?

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-10-09, 10:56 AM
As a result of a dispel attempt, I have learned that Gladiator had about 60 spells and effects active on him. Probably including magic items and the like.

Kurald Galain
2009-10-09, 11:06 AM
As a result of a dispel attempt, I have learned that Gladiator had about 60 spells and effects active on him, as it turns out.
Whuh?

Okay, I suppose that answers the question of how much of Glady's prowess was because of being buffed :smallbiggrin:

PhoenixRivers
2009-10-09, 11:19 AM
Magic items are not included in a targeted dispel. Only spells and effects on the target.

Eldariel
2009-10-09, 11:20 AM
Kurald: You know, you can just check the spoilers and see which spells are in effect since you aren't a participant. :smalltongue:

Sliver
2009-10-09, 11:25 AM
As a result of a dispel attempt, I have learned that Gladiator had about 60 spells and effects active on him. Probably including magic items and the like.

That moment was just AWESOME!

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-10-09, 11:32 AM
So, basically, Gladiator had 60 buffs on him.

Sir Giacomo
2009-10-09, 12:28 PM
please, everyone, do not jump to conclusions.
I have said it already, and I'll say it again: the "buffs" have a negligible impact on Glasiator's performance.
More after that encounter.

- Giacomo

Raewyn
2009-10-09, 01:05 PM
Here's the link to all of Gladiator's buffs for all the people who don't feel like tracking it down.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6842492&postcount=871

Naturally, players (save Gia) should not click the link.

Tavar
2009-10-09, 01:38 PM
Oh. Oh wow. I don't think those count as negligible impact.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-10-09, 02:09 PM
please, everyone, do not jump to conclusions.
I have said it already, and I'll say it again: the "buffs" have a negligible impact on Glasiator's performance.
More after that encounter.

- Giacomo

Oh. Oh wow. I don't think those count as negligible impact.

Either you two define negligible differently or...

The Glyphstone
2009-10-09, 02:17 PM
I wouldn't count


the extra 19 instances of Charm Monster+Suggestion


as 'buffs' for this purpose, but the

+3 deflection AC, +2 to saves, SR 21, Freedom of Movement, Death Ward, Magic Circle vs. Good, Bless, +4 Armor bonus to AC, and +4 Shield bonus to AC

EDIT: And the reinforced Fly spells that Kelp pointed out

Is a pretty impressive list of bonuses.

Without opening the spoilers...I gotta say we're just a teeny bit unfair to Gia, since 40+ of the sixty 'buffs' that people have mentioned didn't affect his combat ability at all. That still leaves 20 actual buffs though, which is more than enough to have a major impact.

Kelpstrand
2009-10-09, 02:19 PM
but the

+3 deflection AC, +2 to saves, SR 21, Freedom of Movement, Death Ward, Magic Circle vs. Good, Bless, +4 Armor bonus to AC, and +4 Shield bonus to AC

Is a pretty impressive list of bonuses.

Don't forget the fly, without which Gladiator would be completely incapable of contributing anything to this fight, by the Wall of Force.

The Glyphstone
2009-10-09, 02:20 PM
I missed that one - yeah, that's extremely potent.

tyckspoon
2009-10-09, 02:20 PM
Oh. Oh wow. I don't think those count as negligible impact.

Depends on the situation. Gladiator's self-cast buffs, for example, are mostly useful in the event that he runs into an opponent who tries to beat him down physically; he's much more vulnerable without the Mage Armor and Shield in place. Dispelling them weakens him in general, but Jaya and Dok mostly don't care about it (it does make it easier for Tina to Sneak Attack his kidneys out, if she wasn't currently Confused and if the party decided to adopt a more forceful approach to dealing with Gladiator.) Lilliana's buffs.. I don't think I can say much about without risking spoiling the fight.

Edit: Ah, why not.

Note that most of the buffs are defensive additions that protect against things nobody has attempted on Gladiator. They mostly provide no increase to his offensive power. So yeah, they're mostly negligible. Death Ward- or current lack thereof- may become relevant, however, same as above regarding Tina and the AC buffs; it re-opened a potential avenue of attack for Jaya.

Tavar
2009-10-09, 02:20 PM
I wouldn't count


the extra 19 instances of Charm Monster+Suggestion


as 'buffs' for this purpose, but the

+3 deflection AC, +2 to saves, SR 21, Freedom of Movement, Death Ward, Magic Circle vs. Good, Bless, +4 Armor bonus to AC, and +4 Shield bonus to AC

Is a pretty impressive list of bonuses.

Those kinda are, though, from the perspective that if it was easy to dispel the magics then Gladiator would change sides.

Kurald Galain
2009-10-09, 02:28 PM
Either you two define negligible differently or...
...or we can now conclude that Glady has made a neglegible contribution to the current combat :smallbiggrin:

Say, what happened to the animal companion, anyway?

mostlyharmful
2009-10-09, 02:30 PM
That still leaves 20 actual buffs though, which is more than enough to have a major impact.

20 actual buffs from a mid level buff focussed cleric is still pretty awesome, even discounting whatever the other fourty (seriously Saph?) spell effects might be he's still significantly above what he would be otherwise.

tyckspoon
2009-10-09, 02:31 PM
...or we can now conclude that Glady has made a neglegible contribution to the current combat :smallbiggrin:

Say, what happened to the animal companion, anyway?

He was guarding one of the approaches to Dok's little bunker, IIRC. Or shredding one of the mook priests. Either way, with both Gladiator and Lili flying Dog doesn't really have any method to help fight right now.

Saph
2009-10-09, 02:40 PM
20 actual buffs from a mid level buff focussed cleric is still pretty awesome, even discounting whatever the other fourty (seriously Saph?) spell effects might be he's still significantly above what he would be otherwise.

I make it about thirteen buffs, actually, of which nine were from an external source.

But if you remember, one of the things that got argued about all the time in monk threads was whether the monk would or wouldn't get buffs from allies, so I thought it would be entertaining to try out. :P

Kelpstrand
2009-10-09, 03:29 PM
But if you remember, one of the things that got argued about all the time in monk threads was whether the monk would or wouldn't get buffs from allies, so I thought it would be entertaining to try out. :P

Well, PCs rarely find that they know to the second when their opponents will arrive, and therefore there is usually an action cost associated with those 13 buffs.

IE, 13 standard actions. IE, oh wait, that's not likely to ever happen.

mostlyharmful
2009-10-09, 03:33 PM
Well, PCs rarely find that they know to the second when their opponents will arrive, and therefore there is usually an action cost associated with those 13 buffs.

IE, 13 standard actions. IE, oh wait, that's not likely to ever happen.

A bit more than just an action cost to blowing 13 spell slots on a perfectly targetted suite of buffs at a perfectly timed interval.

Saph
2009-10-09, 04:09 PM
IE, 13 standard actions. IE, oh wait, that's not likely to ever happen.

Hey, I once had a BBEG cleric cast 20 standard-action spells one after another. While in the middle of a combat, no less.

After that he'd ran out of spells, so he closed the range and the last ten rounds or so were melee combat. The 30 rounds of combat took about 4 straight hours to play, if I remember right.

Mushroom Ninja
2009-10-09, 04:12 PM
The 30 rounds of combat took about 4 straight hours to play, if I remember right.

Wow, you're group's fast. My group has spent 4 straight hours on 10 round combats.

Tavar
2009-10-09, 04:13 PM
Hey, I once had a BBEG cleric cast 20 standard-action spells one after another. While in the middle of a combat, no less.

After that he'd ran out of spells, so he closed the range and the last ten rounds or so were melee combat. The 30 rounds of combat took about 4 straight hours to play, if I remember right.

Were the Pc's attacking during this time, or did he have Minnions? Cause, if he took 20 full actions from a 4 person party, I'm not sure how hard they were trying.

Saph
2009-10-09, 04:16 PM
Were the Pc's attacking during this time, or did he have Minnions? Cause, if he took 20 full actions from a 4 person party, I'm not sure how hard they were trying.

Minions. More to the point, regenerating minions whose regeneration could only be bypassed by something the PCs didn't have. :P Full story here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=94243&page=12).

tyckspoon
2009-10-09, 04:19 PM
Were the Pc's attacking during this time, or did he have Minnions? Cause, if he took 20 full actions from a 4 person party, I'm not sure how hard they were trying.

It was one of the end fights of Red Hand of Doom, IIRC. So minions are present. I don't recall just how the party managed to let him go on casting for 20 rounds, tho.

Edit: Oh, right. It involved a party stuffed with full casters all deciding that Dispel Magic was somebody else's job. Mass fail followed.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-10-09, 04:23 PM
Edit: Oh, right. It involved a party stuffed with full casters all deciding that Dispel Magic was somebody else's job. Mass fail followed.

On a related note, DAMN YOU SSTOOP FOR FLOPPING ON SPELL PREPARATIONS!

Arakune
2009-10-09, 04:25 PM
Dispell magic is somebody else job? Oh boy...

mostlyharmful
2009-10-09, 06:19 PM
Not mine. Not Gia's either.

Kurald Galain
2009-10-09, 06:27 PM
Hey, I once had a BBEG cleric cast 20 standard-action spells one after another. While in the middle of a combat, no less.
20 standard actions after each other in a combat I find very plausible.

20 standard action buffs before combat I find unusual.

OracleofWuffing
2009-10-09, 08:12 PM
You still need 47 more dispel checks, by the way.
If that doesn't get into "Notable occurances," I want it in my sig.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-10-09, 08:40 PM
Added to the logs.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-10-09, 09:11 PM
The Wall of Force has been removed. I wonder how that happened; the only things that can do it are Disintegrate, Rods of Cancellation, Sphere of Annihilation, or Disjunction.


I make it about thirteen buffs, actually, of which nine were from an external source.

But if you remember, one of the things that got argued about all the time in monk threads was whether the monk would or wouldn't get buffs from allies, so I thought it would be entertaining to try out. :P

Buffing seems unrealistic and a tad excessive, based on my personal experiences of PCs having fewer than 20 buffs active at any one time.

Sir Giacomo
2009-10-10, 09:39 AM
I wouldn't count


the extra 19 instances of Charm Monster+Suggestion


as 'buffs' for this purpose, but the

+3 deflection AC, +2 to saves, SR 21, Freedom of Movement, Death Ward, Magic Circle vs. Good, Bless, +4 Armor bonus to AC, and +4 Shield bonus to AC

EDIT: And the reinforced Fly spells that Kelp pointed out

Is a pretty impressive list of bonuses.

Without opening the spoilers...I gotta say we're just a teeny bit unfair to Gia, since 40+ of the sixty 'buffs' that people have mentioned didn't affect his combat ability at all. That still leaves 20 actual buffs though, which is more than enough to have a major impact.

On those buff things, including fly for non-players only:


Well, let's go through the "major impact" buffs for a while ...

1) +3 deflection to AC. Does not stack with the ring of protection Gladiator already has, so +2 net effect. But no impact in this combat so far because hardly anyone of the group even attacked Gladiator with weapons or ray spells. Also, the +2 AC is not much considering the rest of his own he has that provided him with AC 28 (not counting fighting defensively)

2) SR 21: so far no impact.

3) FoM: so far no impact

4) Death Ward: so far no impact (would have helped vs Jaya's enervation, but hey- the party was also buffed with it, so what?)

5) Magic Circle vs Good - some impact, in that the summoned creatures were summoned elsewhere and could not attack Gladiator. However, against Gladiator's AC they would not have mattered much. And of course, the +2 to saves and +2 to AC did not stack with what Gladiator already had.

6) Bless was from a priest, but could as easily have been from Gladiator's own bead of bless. Also, I forgot it all the time to include in my attacking bonus. Stupid me!:smallwink:

7) Mage armour is from Gladiator's wands and also a long-lasting buff.

8) Ditto the shield.

9) Fly did not matter much. It provides a +1 attacking bonus for higher ground. But Gladiator would have been able to bypass the wall of force with dimension door or simply squeezed through the opening of the wall of force and still reach the others due to his high movement.

So, the non-Gladiator buffs hardly provided him with any extra support Potentially some might have been highly useful, but 95% of his performance so far came from his class abilities like flurry, high unarmed damage and improved trip which really synergised nicely with blind-fight and his enlarged form.

What the buffing orgy imo also showcased, (now many buffs did the others have up again? :smallsmile:) is how highly useful it is for casters in the party to buff their non-casting comrades. But that's one the oldest points I made, which even caused me to come up with this whole UMD idea to
a) get buffs more reliably since allegedly non-casters in the group should not "leech" off caster power and
b) to get good self-only buffs (divine power, shield etc.)

But now, back to the game ...


- Giacomo

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-10-10, 01:22 PM
On those buff things, including fly for non-players only:


Well, let's go through the "major impact" buffs for a while ...

1) +3 deflection to AC. Does not stack with the ring of protection Gladiator already has, so +2 net effect. But no impact in this combat so far because hardly anyone of the group even attacked Gladiator with weapons or ray spells. Also, the +2 AC is not much considering the rest of his own he has that provided him with AC 28 (not counting fighting defensively)

2) SR 21: so far no impact.

3) FoM: so far no impact

4) Death Ward: so far no impact (would have helped vs Jaya's enervation, but hey- the party was also buffed with it, so what?)

5) Magic Circle vs Good - some impact, in that the summoned creatures were summoned elsewhere and could not attack Gladiator. However, against Gladiator's AC they would not have mattered much. And of course, the +2 to saves and +2 to AC did not stack with what Gladiator already had.

6) Bless was from a priest, but could as easily have been from Gladiator's own bead of bless. Also, I forgot it all the time to include in my attacking bonus. Stupid me!:smallwink:

7) Mage armour is from Gladiator's wands and also a long-lasting buff.

8) Ditto the shield.

9) Fly did not matter much. It provides a +1 attacking bonus for higher ground. But Gladiator would have been able to bypass the wall of force with dimension door or simply squeezed through the opening of the wall of force and still reach the others due to his high movement.

So, the non-Gladiator buffs hardly provided him with any extra support Potentially some might have been highly useful, but 95% of his performance so far came from his class abilities like flurry, high unarmed damage and improved trip which really synergised nicely with blind-fight and his enlarged form.

What the buffing orgy imo also showcased, (now many buffs did the others have up again? :smallsmile:) is how highly useful it is for casters in the party to buff their non-casting comrades. But that's one the oldest points I made, which even caused me to come up with this whole UMD idea to
a) get buffs more reliably since allegedly non-casters in the group should not "leech" off caster power and
b) to get good self-only buffs (divine power, shield etc.)

But now, back to the game ...


- Giacomo

Speaking as a neutral 3rd party observer:

Spoilered for rebutting spoilered text

Past results do not guarantee future results. FoM and Death Ward are Immunity to Win Buttons. They are there to discourage people from using Enervation/Death effects and No Save Screwed stuff like Solid Fog, or other "Save or Effectively Loose" spells like Slow, Hold Person, and the like. Just because you *haven't* run into it yet, doesn't mean you will *never* run into it, and you will want it up BEFORE the effect lands, not AFTER you realize you need it.

Fly... wow, I will have to very strongly disagree with you. Fly gives you all kinds of tactical options, including *immunity to melee beasts*, if you so desire. It also gives you immunity to pits (which, as I recall, happened a couple of times), and lets you threaten flying opponents, who would otherwise slaughter Gladiator with relative immunity. Fly is one of the best buffs you can get for a melee guy, failure to do so = loose in many situations.

However, I will have to agree with SR 21 not being very useful, unless you are fighting lower-level casters. Shield of Faith doesn't provide as much bonus to you, although without the ring you would see better results. Circle of Protection vs Good, as you said, can be useful to keep summoned critters off of you, but the bonuses don't stack with Shield of Faith, so mostly pointless, and bless is minor

Starbuck_II
2009-10-10, 01:26 PM
Speaking as a neutral 3rd party observer:

Spoilered for rebutting spoilered text

Past results do not guarantee future results. FoM and Death Ward are Immunity to Win Buttons. They are there to discourage people from using Enervation/Death effects and No Save Screwed stuff like Solid Fog, or other "Save or Effectively Loose" spells like Slow, Hold Person, and the like. Just because you *haven't* run into it yet, doesn't mean you will *never* run into it, and you will want it up BEFORE the effect lands, not AFTER you realize you need it.

Fly... wow, I will have to very strongly disagree with you. Fly gives you all kinds of tactical options, including *immunity to melee beasts*, if you so desire. It also gives you immunity to pits (which, as I recall, happened a couple of times), and lets you threaten flying opponents, who would otherwise slaughter Gladiator with relative immunity. Fly is one of the best buffs you can get for a melee guy, failure to do so = loose in many situations.

However, I will have to agree with SR 21 not being very useful, unless you are fighting lower-level casters. Shield of Faith doesn't provide as much bonus to you, although without the ring you would see better results. Circle of Protection vs Good, as you said, can be useful to keep summoned critters off of you, but the bonuses don't stack with Shield of Faith, so mostly pointless, and bless is minor

Actually:

Circles Primary benefit is the immunity to being dominated I thought. Although, I'll admit since he has dominate already on him that helps grant partial protection from further dominates (Cha checks make it iffy though).

Although, I'm curious what suggestion x20 does: what is it the same suggestion? How does that work (suggestion not to do something?)?

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-10-10, 01:29 PM
I wish I knew what was going on in my own thread...

Eldariel
2009-10-10, 01:32 PM
Actually:

Circles Primary benefit is the immunity to being dominated I thought. Although, I'll admit since he has dominate already on him that helps grant partial protection from further dominates (Cha checks make it iffy though).

Although, I'm curious what suggestion x20 does: what is it the same suggestion? How does that work (suggestion not to do something?)?


We'll only find out what the Suggestion is if the Dominate runs out. But yeah, like the Charm, it's the same Suggestion. The creature has Charm & Suggestion at will so it's stacked them to ensure that even if Dominate gets dispelled, Gladiator won't at least be hostile to her.

Tavar
2009-10-10, 01:33 PM
Actually:

Circles Primary benefit is the immunity to being dominated I thought. Although, I'll admit since he has dominate already on him that helps grant partial protection from further dominates (Cha checks make it iffy though).

Although, I'm curious what suggestion x20 does: what is it the same suggestion? How does that work (suggestion not to do something?)?


Wait, wouldn't the circle supress the dominate/charm effects for it's duration? Or am I missing something?

Eldariel
2009-10-10, 01:36 PM
Wait, wouldn't the circle supress the dominate/charm effects for it's duration? Or am I missing something?

It's a specifically modified version that does not block Lilian's control. It seems Lilian has some abilities to spontaneously generate divine spells or something.

Grynning
2009-10-10, 01:38 PM
Actually:

Circles Primary benefit is the immunity to being dominated I thought. Although, I'll admit since he has dominate already on him that helps grant partial protection from further dominates (Cha checks make it iffy though).

Although, I'm curious what suggestion x20 does: what is it the same suggestion? How does that work (suggestion not to do something?)?


More spoilerz to screw with Pharoah's Fist! j/k...really you're not missing much, it's just discussion of the buffs on Gladiator, which have been demonstrated to be having a pretty small impact on his performance, with the exception of the flight.


I asked Saph about the Circle in a PM, and it's a slightly houseruled version of the spell that she's using, that does not have the mental control protections, it was just there to help keep the summons away from the evil priests. It's been broken/dispelled at this point in the fight already, I believe. She stated earlier in this thread that the extra suggestions and charms are there simply to frustrate dispelling attempts.

Edit: Wow, super-ninja'd

Sir Giacomo
2009-10-10, 01:56 PM
Speaking as a neutral 3rd party observer:

Spoilered for rebutting spoilered text

Past results do not guarantee future results. FoM and Death Ward are Immunity to Win Buttons. They are there to discourage people from using Enervation/Death effects and No Save Screwed stuff like Solid Fog, or other "Save or Effectively Loose" spells like Slow, Hold Person, and the like. Just because you *haven't* run into it yet, doesn't mean you will *never* run into it, and you will want it up BEFORE the effect lands, not AFTER you realize you need it.

Fly... wow, I will have to very strongly disagree with you. Fly gives you all kinds of tactical options, including *immunity to melee beasts*, if you so desire. It also gives you immunity to pits (which, as I recall, happened a couple of times), and lets you threaten flying opponents, who would otherwise slaughter Gladiator with relative immunity. Fly is one of the best buffs you can get for a melee guy, failure to do so = loose in many situations.

However, I will have to agree with SR 21 not being very useful, unless you are fighting lower-level casters. Shield of Faith doesn't provide as much bonus to you, although without the ring you would see better results. Circle of Protection vs Good, as you said, can be useful to keep summoned critters off of you, but the bonuses don't stack with Shield of Faith, so mostly pointless, and bless is minor

rebutting rebutting ...


First of all, I did not doubt that these buffs were not good. Only that they SO FAR (and likely also for the remainder of the encounter) did not matter much. People wondered how Gladiator could neutralise 3 (!) level 12 characters so clearly and jumped to the conclusion that it must have been those 40+ buffs. Which I showed is not the case.
Also for fly, a buff that is truly powerful - but in this case simply not necessary.
And also for SR 21 which is VERY powerful when up (just like the monk's ability from level 13). In this combat it simply did not play a role.

The major reason: total concealment was up which thwarts most spellcasting (again something which I said time and again... now well proven I guess).

Now deathward and FoM are powerful - but in no way are they going to matter that much, since
1) the opponent spellcasters usually (as in this case, too) do not know these spells are up. Thus they are not "discouraged" by that spell being up.
2) even without these spells, the typical "win spells" could be overcome by Gladiator. Example: solid fog? Just 4x move out (or dimension door out). Black tentacles? Just win grapple check or dimension door out. Hold Monster? Will save +17. Enervation? Take the penalites and smash down own the caster who relied on that to win the day. And so on ... and so on.



Talking about buffs ... replying somewhat delayed to this comment ...


@Gia. The Druid gets it's class feature because it lost a class feature. You also got to spend money on other things. Polymorph is not a class feature of Monks, you don't get to insist that you be compensated for your inability to polymorph be receiving the money you would otherwise have spent, but the druid not get anything to replace a large class feature being banned.

As for the actual class feature, it's quite bad. It's only +4 to a stat, +8 comes with a -4 to another. And the abilities have absurdly short durations, such that if you ever encountered a fight that you won without dieing, and continued on to another fight, the Druid would be deprived of the bonuses, as compared to Wildshape, which provides larger stat bonuses, Natural armor, a few other things, and actually does last all day.


Edit: got the alternate class feature aspect of nature for the druid wrong: I thought the +8 stat bonuses would be hours/lvl, but they have a duration of 1min/lvl only. Useful, but not as powerful as wildshape (and should also not influence significantly the test of spite monkening test). Edit end.


Finally, taking a bit longer as well to reply to this:



why not? The Monks performance has nothing to do with it's companions, we're trying to see what a well played monk brings to the table not what a wizard or a rogue that really wants to crank it can do, there's plenty of that in the other test of spite runs or any of the other bajillion online games. I really don't see the desperate need for the team to be optimized to a certain preset level before it can be used to see what the Monk can do. Also, if we wanted to sort the level out before the game fine but we're in the middle of the test now, let it play out and then we'll see.

Agreed! They only thing I wanted to prevent is in case of a good monk performance that it would have been attributed only to weak(ly optimised) team members. Again: I do not think that the team members are badly optimised - only they are not completely focused on combat.


I disagree. In order to improve on it's teamwork it needs some actual teamwork to begin with and lets face it, we stink so far (although you're mindganked and I'm probably about to be the same so this maybe isnt' the time to start working on group think).

No need to disagree. That's also my view, although I'd not be as severe - there HAS been some teamwork, but this needs to be improved. Otherwise we'll continue to see several respawns per encounter.


In that case I appologize. You can see how I'd come to that conclusion I trust. anywho, on to the actual discussion.

OK


I hadn't worked in the priestess, you're assuming they're related which I'm still not convinced is the case. As a hypothesis it needs some work but I can't believe Saph'd have us roll for a save just to frak with our minds... actually now that I think about it......

Would Saph do that ... :smallamused:


What do you mean by that? I don't see that it's changed for those of us involved but what's your take on it?

Ah, I thought that the link provided to Pharao's post indicated that there was no problem at all with his character from his side - that it would be OK for the test. And then he brought up in this thread that the wizard was not optimised enough and thus the monk needed to perform much better to show anything.
This I objected to.:smallsmile:

I guess that's about it.

- Giacomo

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-10-10, 02:04 PM
You see, I finally got to look up the alternate class feature and I must say that it can be considered as powerful or even more powerful as the wildshape.
+8 unnamed bonus (better than the epic enhancement bonus since it stacks with enhancement bonuses) to DEX or STR for hours/level from level 8? Or am I wrong?
There is nothing to stop a druid from either focusing on DEX and casting with a halfling/elf druid and getting DEX 32 (18 start, 2 stat gains, 2 enhance from item, 2 race, 8 aspect) or a combat-oriented orc druid getting STR 34 and outclassing even the barbarian in that respect. Reach and another +2 STR he can easily get with enlarge person. EPIC BONUSES AT LEVEL EIGHT!
-4 STR or -4 DEX respectively to buy that is negligible.
That, plus having up another aspect making him faster, flying, CON+4 or swimming as needed.
Plus, saving a feat that would have been necessary for casting in animal form.
You seem to have left out, or overlooked, the fact that the duration of these boosts is short, and they can only be used very few times per day.



But I'll accept it for now for the monkening test of spite, in case noone else sees my point in this.
No one ever seems to see things from your point of view. I wonder why.

Sir Giacomo
2009-10-10, 02:11 PM
You seem to have left out, or overlooked, the fact that the duration of these boosts is short, and they can only be used very few times per day.

Then I am sorry. Where is that description of the duration of the boosts? As I read it, it replaces the wildshape ability which is hours/lvl.


No one ever seems to see things from your point of view. I wonder why.

I'd say that this is quite an exagerration. Luckily, we have tests going oin right now which help shed light on several issues at once.

- Giacomo

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-10-10, 02:12 PM
Then I am sorry. Where is that description of the duration of the boosts? As I read it, it replaces the wildshape ability which is hours/lvl.

It is all given in the description.


Multiple versions of the same aspect don't stack. Taking on one or more aspects is a standard action (which does not provoke attacks of opportunity), and the effect lasts for 1 minute per druid level.



A druid may take on one aspect per day for every daily use of wild shape she is entitled to. For instance, a 5th-level druid could normally use wild shape once per day, so she could assume an aspect once per day. A 10th-level druid could take on four aspects per day and can choose to take on two aspects simultaneously (which would use up two of the druid's daily uses).

Sliver
2009-10-10, 02:17 PM
I'd say that this is quite an exagerration. Luckily, we have tests going oin right now which help shed light on several issues at once.

Luckily, we could always deny the tests, saying they were far too situational or that the monk did well, compared to weaker builds, or w/e we can think about. It's not like its hard to do such..

Sir Giacomo
2009-10-10, 02:52 PM
It is all given in the description.

Thanks - now I also saw it. Then at least, that's clarified. Sorry about my misinterpretation.

- Giacomo

Kelpstrand
2009-10-10, 03:19 PM
You see, I finally got to look up the alternate class feature and I must say that it can be considered as powerful or even more powerful as the wildshape.
+8 unnamed bonus (better than the epic enhancement bonus since it stacks with enhancement bonuses) to DEX or STR for hours/level from level 8? Or am I wrong? :smallamused:
There is nothing to stop a druid from either focusing on DEX and casting with a halfling/elf druid and getting DEX 32 (18 start, 2 stat gains, 2 enhance from item, 2 race, 8 aspect) or a combat-oriented orc druid getting STR 34 and outclassing even the barbarian in that respect.

1) As Pharaoh already addressed, it is one minute per Druid level, and thus, incredibly poor, since a level 12 Druid has only 4 uses a day, a mere 48 minutes of buff. Not even a single hour. Compared to the 48 hours per day of buffing granted by Wildshape at this level.

2) An 18 in a non Con non Wisdom stat for a Druid? We are talking about spending 16 points out of 28 on such a stat. That would leave a Con of 14 and Wis 14, and Cha + Int + the non 32 stat as an 8. -4 penalty to that is going to be a four.

So yes, a Druid using these rules could have a stat array before enhancement items of

32
4
14
6
15
6

for 48 minutes each day.

In the mean time, a Wildshape Druid could have a stat array of:

30
10
21 (16 for the purposes of HP)
14
21
6
All day long. And even have more attacks per round than the Barbarian (And much much better than an Aspect Druid). And +7 Natural Armor.

Which one of those is really better?

Not to mention things like flying/or losing some Str and gaining some Dex and getting pounce, something not available to anyone except Druids in Core.

Losing Wildshape for Aspect of Nature is a giagantic nerf to Druids, and for you to characterize it as 'as powerful or even more powerful' is demonstrative of your unwillingness or inability to look at this objectively at all.

mostlyharmful
2009-10-10, 06:41 PM
I wish I knew what was going on in my own thread...

Right there with you dude. This is like the death of a thousand cuts.


Agreed! They only thing I wanted to prevent is in case of a good monk performance that it would have been attributed only to weak(ly optimised) team members. Again: I do not think that the team members are badly optimised - only they are not completely focused on combat.

Whether someone complains about the shared level of optimization is something I just can't do anything about, sorry. That being said they really shouldn't, your Monk being it's own seperate part of the team.. all I can say is you're a long way ahead of where I thought you'd be, I've changed my mind somewhat about the comparitive weakness of the Monk during this test, it's still subpar by a long way but not as bad with decent tactical planning. Definiatly not for the newbies though.



No need to disagree. That's also my view, although I'd not be as severe - there HAS been some teamwork, but this needs to be improved. Otherwise we'll continue to see several respawns per encounter.

You are an optimist aren't you?


Would Saph do that ... :smallamused:

Yes. Yes. Hell Yes. would you like a little more. Heeeeeellllllllll yesssssss.


Ah, I thought that the link provided to Pharao's post indicated that there was no problem at all with his character from his side - that it would be OK for the test. And then he brought up in this thread that the wizard was not optimised enough and thus the monk needed to perform much better to show anything.
This I objected to.:smallsmile:

I guess that's about it.

- Giacomo

No problem and optimized are two differnt kettles of fish.

Godskook
2009-10-10, 06:55 PM
I wish I knew what was going on in my own thread...

Pharaoh's Fist and mostlyharmful only:
Does it help if we start our own spoilered conversation?

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-10-10, 07:11 PM
Pharaoh's Fist and mostlyharmful only:
Does it help if we start our own spoilered conversation?

It's just not the same.

Kelpstrand
2009-10-10, 07:12 PM
A brief Mostly harmful intermission:

Giamoco, as I see it there are two questions asked in this thread:

1) How optimized are the various characters as compared to the Monk?
2) Can the Monk's contribution be evaluated completely 100% independently of comparing him to the party he is adventuring with?

Mostly harmful is answering that second question differently than everyone else in the thread.

So when MF evaluates your performance, he apparently is holding you to some standard that isn't represented in the game, IE beating up on nerfed PCs doesn't mean anything.

Of course, I personally think that not only is it possible to judge without comparing to the rest of the party, mostly harmful is also doing it, and wouldn't actually say you had done anything impressive at all, if it weren't for this specific fight where you beat up on a bunch of gimps.

mostlyharmful
2009-10-10, 07:19 PM
Pharaoh's Fist and mostlyharmful only:
Does it help if we start our own spoilered conversation?

no. not really. :smallfrown::smallfrown:

mostlyharmful
2009-10-10, 07:23 PM
A brief Mostly harmful intermission:

Giamoco, as I see it there are two questions asked in this thread:

1) How optimized are the various characters as compared to the Monk?
2) Can the Monk's contribution be evaluated completely 100% independently of comparing him to the party he is adventuring with?

Mostly harmful is answering that second question differently than everyone else in the thread.

So when MF evaluates your performance, he apparently is holding you to some standard that isn't represented in the game, IE beating up on nerfed PCs doesn't mean anything.

Of course, I personally think that not only is it possible to judge without comparing to the rest of the party, mostly harmful is also doing it, and wouldn't actually say you had done anything impressive at all, if it weren't for this specific fight where you beat up on a bunch of gimps.

You act as though there's some other way of comparing classes. As though there's some specific level everyone can shoot for and if we all know what page we're on it'll all fall into place..... hmmm.....

On the record this is a reasonably well put together Monk with a strong focus on damage dealling and toughness to fit into the Tank role, it's not too bad at that and I here by state that I have changed my position on the basis of this test. Irrespective of the specific fight we are in the midst of at the moment.

Kelpstrand
2009-10-10, 07:35 PM
You act as though there's some other way of comparing classes. As though there's some specific level everyone can shoot for and if we all know what page we're on it'll all fall into place..... hmmm.....

No, you are the one claiming there is some specific level of comparison. I am saying comparing against other characters is the only realistic method.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-10-13, 03:14 PM
I still would like to know how the Wall of Force was destroyed after the current encounter is over.

Starbuck_II
2009-10-13, 03:22 PM
I find Giacomo's Monkey King idea funny on that one thread.

Which thread is wall of Force?

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-10-13, 03:23 PM
The one Jaya is in.

Starbuck_II
2009-10-13, 04:08 PM
Maybe duration expired on Wall of Force?
Only lasts 1 rd/level usually.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-10-13, 04:09 PM
12 rounds did not go by, unless I miscounted.

Kurald Galain
2009-10-13, 06:47 PM
I still would like to know how the Wall of Force was destroyed after the current encounter is over.
A possibility is that the priestess you're fighting has the same domain as :redcloak:.

(I'm just saying that because people cast disintegrate all the time in OOTS; this is not taken from spoiler blocks in the battle thread)

Starbuck_II
2009-10-13, 06:49 PM
Wouldn't someone see the disintegrate spell? Spellcraft or something

Kurald Galain
2009-10-13, 06:56 PM
Wouldn't someone see the disintegrate spell? Spellcraft or something

As I recall, the party was in illusory darkness under a blizzard behind a smoke cloud while unconscious, so that would be a "no" :smallbiggrin:

Kelpstrand
2009-10-13, 07:19 PM
As I recall, the party was in illusory darkness under a blizzard behind a smoke cloud while unconscious, so that would be a "no" :smallbiggrin:

They might still hear said result, since Dok has never been unconscious at all, and has the best listen check in the party, and so would probably hear her casting, were she casting a spell.

BenTheJester
2009-10-13, 09:10 PM
It looked dangerous, so I used Scorching Ray to light it on fire. And then I laughed, because fire is good.

One of the best quote I've heard in a long time. I truly laughed out loud, congratulations.

sofawall
2009-10-13, 10:50 PM
The Wall of Force seems to have disappeared at post 1120, for those interested.

PhoenixRivers
2009-10-13, 11:27 PM
@Saph/Giacomo/Nonparticipants:The Magic Circles from the OpFor casters are houseruled, but the ones from the Unicorns should be standard, and thus, block control.

Further, the Dominate/Charm/Suggestion suite seems to be geared around the BBEG's reinforced suggestion that the party are the ones twisting and controlling the enemy.

As such, if effects from the party's own summons protects against the very ability that the party is purported to be using, and one that Giacomo has not been protected against thus far, it would make every ounce of sense for Giacomo (Gladiator) to hijack that effect and use the party's own summons to thwart the party's purported goals.

So my question is: Why is Gladiator resisting nonharmful buffs (Magic Circle) that protect versus the very ability that he's been warned about? (being controlled by the party)

This really seems to be a case where the BBEG's own lies and rhetoric work against her.

Kelpstrand
2009-10-14, 12:46 AM
[QUOTE=PhoenixRivers;7118118]@Saph/Giacomo/Nonparticipants:{Scrubbed}

PhoenixRivers
2009-10-14, 01:20 AM
Same people
Long story short. Saph already threw out the actual rules of the game a long time ago to make sure this fight happened. No little thing like Common sense is going to become involved at this point. Saph thinks that Giamoco is unwilling to accept helpful buffs, that killing his teammates is in his nature, that resisting buffs is in his nature, and that valid use of the suggestion spell is "Repeatedly murder your best friends over and over again." Common sense and rules aren't involved at any point at all, just DM vs Player and a demand that the PCs kill each other, desire to not do so be damned.

It's good to know that the ability is just houseruled non existent not possible within the rules stuff for the soul purpose of forcing confrontation too, because that's exactly the kind of crap that people rightly object to, when suddenly every spell has six things it does that aren't anywhere in the rules, even though pretty much the entire party can make the spellcraft checks for the spell, so they should know all the things it is capable of.

The Magic Circle Saph is using is qualitatively identical to Saph saying "Roll spellcraft: You succeed. It's Fireball. Oh yeah, Fireball is a buff that gives DR 4000/Epic to the caster. Personal Range. But I only tell you that after the fight is over."

@Same people:In that case, it invalidates the exercise. If valid and legal defenses are not allowed, it makes spell selection irrelevant.

A great deal of a caster's power isn't in the individual spells, but how they're used. A well placed low level spell can stop a high level one. In this instance, a creature was chosen based on an ability that the creature had. This was an excellent choice, incidentally. This is an ability that does not impose any restrictions or negative effects on any who receive it, makes it harder to hit the buffed, helps the recipients resist spells better, and it applies to allies and enemies alike.

The only way to logically rule that accepting such a buff is not in his nature is stupidity. ESPECIALLY when the effect protects against the effect he was warned about.

Kurald Galain
2009-10-14, 02:36 AM
Kelp, I find that was completely uncalled for and totally unfair to a great and hard-working DM like Saph.

PhoenixRivers
2009-10-14, 02:40 AM
@Nonparticipants/Saph/Giacomo:While I agree that it's a bit harsh, I think that it's important to show when Core RAW is deviated from. One of the big points Gia uses is that monk is balanced in Core. If we deviate from the rules of the game, we interfere with any balance that may or may not exist.

Kelpstrand
2009-10-14, 03:39 AM
@Nonparticipants/Saph/Giacomo:While I agree that it's a bit harsh, I think that it's important to show when Core RAW is deviated from. One of the big points Gia uses is that monk is balanced in Core. If we deviate from the rules of the game, we interfere with any balance that may or may not exist.

It's not just the deviation that's the issue. Although for example, the Dominate deviation is a huge deal and basically makes this entire thing meaningless, but it's the part where there are multiple deviations occurring that effect not just the enemies having something the players don't know, but spells working fundamentally differently then the actual players think they do, agreed to, built their characters around, and based their actions on.

How on earth is Dok supposed to know that Gia is under the effect of magic circle against good spell when it is physically impossible by the actual rules for him to be under it and simultaneously dominated? He can't. This is effectively the same as me walking outside and falling upward suddenly because gravity reversed itself. How am I supposed to predict that?

Same of Giamoco making saving throws against buffs. If Shadows showed up, and Dok attempted a Deathward (And Gladiator wasn't already under it), would dominated Giamoco have to make a save against it because Lillian wants him dead? And he still wouldn't get a saving throw for being against his nature, even though accepting a Deathward from someone he has a close personal attachment with when shadows appear is clearly a major part of his nature?

sofawall
2009-10-14, 03:44 AM
He no longer has Deathward

PhoenixRivers
2009-10-14, 03:48 AM
@Kelp/etc/etc:Rules allow for spell creation. If the BBEG has a personalized spell, that's in DM purview, even in core. It should not identify as Magic Circle, however, and a spellcraft check to identify the spell should reveal the function of the new spell.

And the original spell should function by RAW.

Kelpstrand
2009-10-14, 04:20 AM
@Kelp/etc/etc:Rules allow for spell creation. If the BBEG has a personalized spell, that's in DM purview, even in core. It should not identify as Magic Circle, however, and a spellcraft check to identify the spell should reveal the function of the new spell.

And the original spell should function by RAW.

UsualAnd the DM should explicitly tell the players that custom spells are involved, and the players should be able to make as many custom spells as they want and this should be agreed on beforehand, and the use of such spells should completely invalidate any and all claims to judging the balance of anything, since the DM could easily rule that a level 1 spell with a duration of 24 hours exists called "Monk's calling" which adds untyped +400 bonuses to all six stats of any Monk that it is cast on, but only works on Monks.

A custom spell made up by the DM for the specific purpose of messing over the PCs tactic that the players have absolutely no knowledge of the existence of even though by the actual rules their characters have a 100% chance of knowing this spell exists is exactly like a fireball spell that gives the caster DR 4000/Epic.

PhoenixRivers
2009-10-14, 05:35 AM
UsualAnd the DM should explicitly tell the players that custom spells are involved, and the players should be able to make as many custom spells as they want and this should be agreed on beforehand, and the use of such spells should completely invalidate any and all claims to judging the balance of anything, since the DM could easily rule that a level 1 spell with a duration of 24 hours exists called "Monk's calling" which adds untyped +400 bonuses to all six stats of any Monk that it is cast on, but only works on Monks.

A custom spell made up by the DM for the specific purpose of messing over the PCs tactic that the players have absolutely no knowledge of the existence of even though by the actual rules their characters have a 100% chance of knowing this spell exists is exactly like a fireball spell that gives the caster DR 4000/Epic.

@Usual:I could not disagree more, on all counts. Spell creation is a core rule. It is not an optional. In Core only, ability to spell create is the rule, not the exception that requires notification. Players were within their rights to use WBL to do so, working with the DM, per the rules, to establish the balance of the spell.

Your melodramatic "Monk's Calling" hardly portrays the current situation, since the modification Saph used REMOVES functions and protections from a spell. It would have been more accurate to make a spell called "Miniature Missile", that behaves like Magic missile, except that it's 1d4+1 for every 3 levels, not 2. It's hard to argue that when she nerfed one of her spells, that it's a possibly game breaking imbalance.

This was not a custom spell "specifically to mess over tactics". It's a controller character, that wanted the benefits of Magic Circle, without interfering with her own control effects. So she makes a Magic Circle, same level, same everything, except that it doesn't protect versus control. In this case, weakening the spell works to her advantage, but it in no way is an overpowered spell. In fact, it removed what is quite possibly considered the single best effect of the spell.

This isn't a spell specifically to mess with players. It's the kind of spell I would develop for a mindbender type character, and is an excellent example of how sometimes, less is more.

Saph
2009-10-14, 05:37 AM
Observers/nonparticipants:

The Magic Circles from the Unicorns should be standard, and thus, block control.

They are and they do. But Magic Circle against Evil is Will Negates (harmless).


It should not identify as Magic Circle, however, and a spellcraft check to identify the spell should reveal the function of the new spell.

It hasn't identified as Magic Circle to the spellcasters. I've been using Magic Circle as a description to save time. A spellcraft check would indeed reveal the function of the spell. No-one's made one yet, and it's now irrelevant since the spell has broken.


So my question is: Why is Gladiator resisting nonharmful buffs (Magic Circle) that protect versus the very ability that he's been warned about? (being controlled by the party)

He got a flat order to resist their spells, which is within the capability of Dominate Person, being neither (in my judgement) an action against the subject's nature nor a self-destructive act.

Hopefully this answers your questions. :)

Kelp:
If you actually want me to answer any of your points, phrase your questions politely and drop the hostility. I've got a responsibility to the players, as they're playing in my game. And I've got a responsibility to Doc Roc, as the Test of Spite is his. But I sure as hell don't have any responsibility to you, and unless you act with a minimal level of courtesy I'll just ignore you.

PhoenixRivers
2009-10-14, 05:44 AM
Observers/nonparticipants:

They are and they do. But Magic Circle against Evil is Will Negates (harmless).

It hasn't identified as Magic Circle to the spellcasters. I've been using Magic Circle as a description to save time. A spellcraft check would indeed reveal the function of the spell. No-one's made one yet, and it's now irrelevant since the spell has broken.

He got a flat order to resist their spells, which is within the capability of Dominate Person, being neither (in my judgement) an action against the subject's nature nor a self-destructive act.

Hopefully this answers your questions. :)


Many of those lines weren't so much questions, as points brought up in your defense. I've already worked over the Magic Circle issue, and the spellcraft issue. Note the lack of any claim of wrongdoing in those two.

However, in one point... The order to resist the party's spells. In this instance, it's not "their spell". It's an effect generated by a creature that is not identified as one of the characters he was instructed to resist. There is certainly enough wiggle room in this for a character who is being controlled against his will (which is the case) to follow the letter of the instruction, and resist their spells, but not other spells, such as the Unicorn's Magic Circle Effect.

Saph
2009-10-14, 05:48 AM
Observers:

However, in one point... The order to resist the party's spells. In this instance, it's not "their spell". It's an effect generated by a creature that is not identified as one of the characters he was instructed to resist. There is certainly enough wiggle room in this for a character who is being controlled against his will (which is the case) to follow the letter of the instruction, and resist their spells, but not spells that were brought into place by allies of the party that are not actually the ones instructed to resist.

That's a very legalistic, but on the whole, quite valid distinction. If Gia used that as an argument as to why he shouldn't have to make the save, I'd allow it. :)

Edit: Oh, wait, no. The exact wording I used was "opposing forces". So it wouldn't work. Good idea, though.

sofawall
2009-10-14, 05:54 AM
Saph: Why is the Wall of Force gone? You never posted any spoilered action for Lillian, and Giacomo has the round count at 10, so where did it go?

Saph
2009-10-14, 05:56 AM
Observers:
That's my secret, just like the Will saves for the cryohydra fight. I always keep a few things to myself. :)

PhoenixRivers
2009-10-14, 05:58 AM
Observers:


That's a very legalistic, but on the whole, quite valid distinction. If Gia used that as an argument as to why he shouldn't have to make the save, I'd allow it. :)

Edit: Oh, wait, no. The exact wording I used was "opposing forces". So it wouldn't work. Good idea, though.

@non-participants:So then, the wording's more or less safe unless the party surrenders?

As for legalistic? I'm currently preparing a campaign revolving around Asmodeus and the other lords of the nine. The letter of the law can be very important in dealings with the devils.

Saph
2009-10-14, 07:17 AM
So then, the wording's more or less safe unless the party surrenders?

Could be. If Gia can come up with a good loophole I'd let him get out of it.

Kelpstrand
2009-10-14, 08:35 AM
If you actually want me to answer any of your points, phrase your questions politely and drop the hostility. I've got a responsibility to the players, as they're playing in my game. And I've got a responsibility to Doc Roc, as the Test of Spite is his. But I sure as hell don't have any responsibility to you, and unless you act with a minimal level of courtesy I'll just ignore you.

{Scrubbed}

@Pheonix: Response coming regarding said rules coreness and legitimacy.

Starbuck_II
2009-10-14, 10:10 AM
{scrubbed}

@Pheonix: Response coming regarding said rules coreness and legitimacy.

Kelp:

I'll admit I find the suggestion idea not very likely to work. It should sound reasonable. Like a pool of acid is a water and taking dip would be relaxing.

How is killing them (the party) reasonable? I'd like to know the exact wording, but that sounds hard to understand.

Kelpstrand
2009-10-14, 10:16 AM
@Usual:I could not disagree more, on all counts. Spell creation is a core rule. It is not an optional. In Core only, ability to spell create is the rule, not the exception that requires notification. Players were within their rights to use WBL to do so, working with the DM, per the rules, to establish the balance of the spell.

Your melodramatic "Monk's Calling" hardly portrays the current situation, since the modification Saph used REMOVES functions and protections from a spell. It would have been more accurate to make a spell called "Miniature Missile", that behaves like Magic missile, except that it's 1d4+1 for every 3 levels, not 2. It's hard to argue that when she nerfed one of her spells, that it's a possibly game breaking imbalance.

This was not a custom spell "specifically to mess over tactics". It's a controller character, that wanted the benefits of Magic Circle, without interfering with her own control effects. So she makes a Magic Circle, same level, same everything, except that it doesn't protect versus control. In this case, weakening the spell works to her advantage, but it in no way is an overpowered spell. In fact, it removed what is quite possibly considered the single best effect of the spell.

This isn't a spell specifically to mess with players. It's the kind of spell I would develop for a mindbender type character, and is an excellent example of how sometimes, less is more.

Spell creation is a core rule like rule zero is a core rule, in that all the things you can do with it are not core rules. The players were never given a chance to create spells, they never had that option. Even if they specifically asked, it would have been denied as whatever they came up with not being part of the core rules. It is a DM only option for the DM to make the players life miserable. No mention was made of spell changes even being an option, much less what spells might be created, even though the PCs, Dok and Jaya at least, would know with 100% accuracy what all existing spells of up to past level 9, they were not told of the existence of custom spells.

The spell was picked out specifically by Saph in order to counter a tactic that had not yet been used, but was discussed by the PCs outside of her possible knowledge, and then the NPC used her magic super DM powered foresight to develop a spell that counters only one tactic out of thousands, and that one tactic just happens to be the ones had just decided to use.

This isn't an enchanter developing a spell for enchanting, it's a DM making up an ability after the players have come up with a strategy. That's not alltogether completely unreasonable in all situations, but it is when the enemy used time travel to go back in time to research the spell.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-10-14, 10:16 AM
I hate you all.

Saph
2009-10-14, 10:16 AM
There are no questions to be had as far as I am concerned. I asked you, very politely in fact, about many issues previously, and you decided to not provide any answers.

Oh, good grief. You think you're owed answers to any question you want to ask me? You think that if you have a problem with my game, I'm obliged to justify it to you? Your level of outrage over a game that you didn't plan, didn't run, and aren't playing in is ridiculous. If you don't like the way I run my games, don't read them, and quit wasting my time.

Kelpstrand
2009-10-14, 10:20 AM
Oh, good grief. You think you're owed answers to any question you want to ask me? You think that if you have a problem with my game, I'm obliged to justify it to you? Your level of outrage over a game that you didn't plan, didn't run, and aren't playing in is ridiculous. If you don't like the way I run my games, don't read them, and quit wasting my time.

I never claimed you owed any answers. I asked, you didn't answer. It didn't concern me because it would eventually come out. It has since come out. And no point have I demanded any answers from you, and for you to keep diverting the discussion to whether I "deserve" answers, when no one but you is talking about that at all, and I'm not even asking any questions is a silly waste of my time.

Freelance Henchman
2009-10-14, 10:28 AM
I just want to tell you good luck. We're all counting on you.

Er, just wanted to say I've been following this and enjoying a lot, keep up the entertaining thread. :smallsmile: