PDA

View Full Version : On sanity and options



ScionoftheVoid
2010-02-16, 03:43 PM
I would like to ask the Playground to stop writing things such as "no sane DM would allow..." and "any DM with half a brain would ban...". It is very frustrating being indirectly insulted whilst reading a thread. There are DM's who allow such things and implying that they are insane or stupid is discriminatory against them, whether this is intentional or not may vary.

This thread may be used for the discussion of such options and for the justification of the above implications if anyone cares to attempt it. Thank you.
If this thread falls under vigilante modding sorry, may it please be locked/deleted.

Edit: Removed "rude", that was uncalled for. This is not meant to seem "outraged" so much as "irked and posted whilst outraged for unrelated reasons".

Ravens_cry
2010-02-16, 03:48 PM
Well, if you do though, you gotta be careful. Because of the complex interactions between rules, there are ways to get builds that prevent any form of challenge for the player, outside of the task of making these combinations. And with the Internet, even that challenge is gone. You're not a fool to allow them, but you are playing with fire.

Flickerdart
2010-02-16, 03:49 PM
No sane DM would allow StP Erudite with the interpretation that grants unique powers/class level.

ScionoftheVoid
2010-02-16, 03:55 PM
Well, if you do though, you gotta be careful. Because of the complex interactions between rules, there are ways to get builds that prevent any form of challenge for the player, outside of the task of making these combinations. And with the Internet, even that challenge is gone. You're not a fool to allow them, but you are playing with fire.

Thank you. This is a meaningful, helpful response.


No sane DM would allow StP Erudite with the interpretation that grants unique powers/class level.

This is not. A DM is not inherently insane for allowing this interpretation. Please do not insist without evidence or justification that it is so anyway.

I understand that some things are very difficult to deal with if allowed. Nevertheless the person who allows them retains their intelligence and sanity.

The Demented One
2010-02-16, 03:57 PM
Hyperbole, dude. When people say "No sane DM," what they mean is "No sane DM who is well-versed in the system and has a good understanding of the mechanics at play would allow this, in my opinion." It's a convenient shorthand, not a personal attack.

BRC
2010-02-16, 03:59 PM
I would like to ask the Playground to stop writing things such as "no sane DM would allow..." and "any DM with half a brain would ban...". It is very frustrating being indirectly insulted whilst reading a thread. There are DM's who allow such things and implying that they are insane or stupid is both discriminatory and generally rude.

This thread may be used for the discussion of such options and for the justification of the above implications if anyone cares to attempt it. Thank you.
If this thread falls under vigilante modding sorry, may it please be locked/deleted.
As somebody who has thrown these phrases around before, I feel obliged to defend them somewhat.

Is the phrase "no sane DM would allow" insulting to DM's that allow it, yes it is. Now, the point of the phrase isn't to say "DM's that allow this are insane", it's usually used to say "Though this is rules-legal, don't count on being able to use it", and we have to have some way of saying that, because it's an important fact of the game. It's hyperbole, but I don't know how much saying "We didn't mean it, we were just exaggerating" works as an excuse.

If we said "You're DM shouldn't let you use this build", is that any better? If we say "You're DM probably won't let you use the build", we're assuming we know more about the DM than the player does. If we say "Most DM's won't allow this build" we're implying that we've done research, also, if we say "Most DM's" the point isn't as strong, because the person may think "Well, Mine will".


Anyway, the term is not used to literally mean "If a DM allows this, they should be sent to a mental institution". Have you ever looked at something overpriced and said "We would have to be crazy to pay that much", and then when somebody buys it, call up the police and request that this person be forced to see a psychiatrist.

Sinfire Titan
2010-02-16, 04:00 PM
No sane DM would allow StP Erudite with the interpretation that grants unique powers/class level.

Fixed. Hell, Erudite alone is pretty broken (especially the Mantled Erudite). If you want a modicum of balance in your campaign, force them to use the basic Psion instead.

Flickerdart
2010-02-16, 04:03 PM
Fixed. Hell, Erudite alone is pretty broken (especially the Mantled Erudite). If you want a modicum of balance in your campaign, force them to use the basic Psion instead.
Yes, but it's not insanity broken. You have to have maximum outrageousness for insanity, which needs StP and the interpretation.

Roland St. Jude
2010-02-16, 04:05 PM
Hyperbole, dude. When people say "No sane DM," what they mean is "No sane DM who is well-versed in the system and has a good understanding of the mechanics at play would allow this, in my opinion." It's a convenient shorthand, not a personal attack.

Sheriff: Unless someone already said that they do, in fact, allow X. Then it most certainly is a personal attack.

The Demented One
2010-02-16, 04:05 PM
Sheriff: Unless someone already said that they do, in fact, allow X. Then it most certainly is a personal attack.
Oh. Um, right. Yeah.

hamishspence
2010-02-16, 04:05 PM
aren't unique powers restricted by power points anyway?

Even if a 20th level erudite could manifest 11 9th level, + 11 8th level, + 11 7th level, and so on, powers per day, they still have to spend power points each time they manifest one.

My guess is, that hyperbole is overused- maybe the more common phrase should be:

"if you allow this, be warned that it is very powerful, and discuss it with the player beforehand so it doesn't overshadow everyone else"

Unless there's a variant of erudite that gets around this?

ScionoftheVoid
2010-02-16, 04:05 PM
Hyperbole, dude. When people say "No sane DM," what they mean is "No sane DM who is well-versed in the system and has a good understanding of the mechanics at play would allow this, in my opinion." It's a convenient shorthand, not a personal attack.

"Such and such option is overpowered/broken, IMO" doesn't take much effort to write though, now does it? I realise that it is usually hyperbole but if they look over their posts (as many of the people I've seen using this seem to have done) would altering the statement to be less offensive be too much to ask? Unless the post is full of texting abbreviations I doubt that they don't have time to write a short sentence instead of an unqualified statement which is bound to cause offence to someone.

Also, a nice suggestion by Hamishspence. A variation to be used when addressing players would be good. "This option is very powerful (without much effort put into it), be careful not to upset your fellow players, including the DM" with the bracketed section only if appropriate would be good enough, though someone else can certainly put it in less words than I.

Flickerdart
2010-02-16, 04:06 PM
You can get infinite power points even as a run of the mill Psion; as an StP Erudite, it's a joke.

Sinfire Titan
2010-02-16, 04:08 PM
You can get infinite power points even as a run of the mill Psion; as an StP Erudite, it's a joke.

You at least have to jump through two hoops as a Psion. Erudite doesn't jump, he freaking waltzes.

hamishspence
2010-02-16, 04:14 PM
I suppose if the class, or PRC, or other ability gets past a certain point, it becomes a case of the player needing to deliberately choose not to go overpowered.

Still- could be workable with the DM and the player working together.

Brigham
2010-02-16, 04:15 PM
{Scrubbed}

The Demented One
2010-02-16, 04:16 PM
"Such and such option is overpowered/broken, IMO" doesn't take much effort to write though, now does it? I realise that it is usually hyperbole but if they look over their posts (as many of the people I've seen using this seem to have done) would altering the statement to be less offensive be too much to ask? Unless the post is full of texting abbreviations I doubt that they don't have time to write a short sentence instead of an unqualified statement which is bound to cause offence to someone.
Even on as friendly a forum as this, people aren't always going to be thinking about making their posts completely and totally inoffensive and anodyne, and it's not really within the bounds of reason to expect them to. It'd be nice, but not likely.

BRC
2010-02-16, 04:30 PM
"Such and such option is overpowered/broken, IMO" doesn't take much effort to write though, now does it? I realise that it is usually hyperbole but if they look over their posts (as many of the people I've seen using this seem to have done) would altering the statement to be less offensive be too much to ask? Unless the post is full of texting abbreviations I doubt that they don't have time to write a short sentence instead of an unqualified statement which is bound to cause offence to someone.
Overpowered/Broken dosn't necessarily get the message across that we don't think your DM will allow it.

For example, alot of people say that Wizards are overpowered, but they can still be in a game without breaking it.

Also, people have different methods of speaking/writing, different general types of diction.
"That build is overpowered", "I wouldn't count on your DM allowing that", "No sane DM is going to allow that build", "That build is ridiculously cheesy", "It's a neat trick, but don't try to use it in-game", "If you bring that character to the table expect to have the DMG hurled at your head".

All these are saying the same thing in different ways, it's just a matter of personal style and preference, and except in the case where the DM has been stated to already approve it, none are personal attacks.
If I say "I'm so hungry I could eat an entire cow", do I really mean that I want to eat an entire cow? If I say "the Professor assigns WAY too much reading" do you assume I am saying that I know better than my professor how much reading should be assigned, and that my professor is a bad teacher? Or am I complaining in the fine tradition of students everywhere. If I say "Sorry guys, I can't hang out tonight, this test is going to kill me if I don't study", do you assume that, if I do not study for the test, I will literally die? Or do you assume that I'm worried about the test and want to spend more time studying. If I am in an airport and my flight get's cancelled and I respond "Unbelievable", do you assume that I am literally unable to believe that my flight is canceled, or do you assume that I'm just upset.

Optimystik
2010-02-16, 04:33 PM
Unless there's a variant of erudite that gets around this?

Spell to power gets around power points quite easily. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/spells/mentalPinnacle.htm)

hamishspence
2010-02-16, 04:40 PM
true- seems like the player has to actively choose not to make the character overpowered. Picking spells that are useful but not ovewhelming in that context, and so on.

ScionoftheVoid
2010-02-16, 04:43 PM
Even on as friendly a forum as this, people aren't always going to be thinking about making their posts completely and totally inoffensive and anodyne, and it's not really within the bounds of reason to expect them to. It'd be nice, but not likely.

I couldn't complain much if I didn't try to at least raise awareness though. A thread is also less effort than trying to point it out whenever I see it. Hopefully this will remind people that exaggeration and statements without qualifiers are not as safe on the internet as they are IRL. In real conversation you may miss your opportunity if you don't get a point in, which leads to shortening your point and thinking it through less. On the internet time is not as much of an issue, a ninja edit may invalidate your argument but the edit button is there for such occasions. I know removing the occurance completely is unrealistic, but I can attempt to reduce it.

Thank you to anyone supporting me, in addition.


Overpowered/Broken dosn't necessarily get the message across that we don't think your DM will allow it.

For example, alot of people say that Wizards are overpowered, but they can still be in a game without breaking it.

Also, people have different methods of speaking/writing, different general types of diction.
"That build is overpowered", "I wouldn't count on your DM allowing that", "No sane DM is going to allow that build", "That build is ridiculously cheesy", "It's a neat trick, but don't try to use it in-game", "If you bring that character to the table expect to have the DMG hurled at your head".

All these are saying the same thing in different ways, it's just a matter of personal style and preference, and except in the case where the DM has been stated to already approve it, none are personal attacks.
If I say "I'm so hungry I could eat an entire cow", do I really mean that I want to eat an entire cow? If I say "the Professor assigns WAY too much reading" do you assume I am saying that I know better than my professor how much reading should be assigned, and that my professor is a bad teacher? Or am I complaining in the fine tradition of students everywhere. If I say "Sorry guys, I can't hang out tonight, this test is going to kill me if I don't study", do you assume that, if I do not study for the test, I will literally die? Or do you assume that I'm worried about the test and want to spend more time studying. If I am in an airport and my flight get's cancelled and I respond "Unbelievable", do you assume that I am literally unable to believe that my flight is canceled, or do you assume that I'm just upset.

In real life I would not assume any of those. On the internet I would be irritated that you had not stated them more clearly, and may assume you were serious with some of the less obvious statements (e.g. the complaint against the professor). Clarifications usually do not take very long, if they do your point was probably rather lengthy anyway and a few more minutes couldn't hurt. If someone clarifies some elements of their post (spelling, grammar) then why not others?

kjones
2010-02-16, 05:05 PM
In real life I would not assume any of those. On the internet I would be irritated that you had not stated them more clearly, and may assume you were serious with some of the less obvious statements (e.g. the complaint against the professor). Clarifications usually do not take very long, if they do your point was probably rather lengthy anyway and a few more minutes couldn't hurt. If someone clarifies some elements of their post (spelling, grammar) then why not others?

Look, no sane DM would have any trouble interpreting that kind of statement...

Honestly, if you take oblique statements made to others on the internet as personal criticism, then consider yourself lucky to be on the GiantITP forums, possibly one of the nicest places on the Web.

If people are responding to decisions you make as a DM with "No sane DM..." then you have reason to complain, but is that really what's happening?

Optimystik
2010-02-16, 05:07 PM
true- seems like the player has to actively choose not to make the character overpowered. Picking spells that are useful but not ovewhelming in that context, and so on.

Even without trying it's quite hard. StP Erudites get all the action abuse of psions and wilders, with a much better list.

What's worse - they can flat out ignore verbal, somatic and material components (even expensive ones!) for everything they do. It was just a crazy idea, no matter how much I love them.

Boci
2010-02-16, 05:43 PM
I would like to ask the Playground to stop writing things such as "no sane DM would allow..." and "any DM with half a brain would ban...". It is very frustrating being indirectly insulted whilst reading a thread. There are DM's who allow such things and implying that they are insane or stupid is both discriminatory and generally rude.

This thread may be used for the discussion of such options and for the justification of the above implications if anyone cares to attempt it. Thank you.
If this thread falls under vigilante modding sorry, may it please be locked/deleted.

Are you also offended by the slander against WotC employees? Many posters will have at some point accused them of consuming illegal drugs.


Sheriff: Unless someone already said that they do, in fact, allow X. Then it most certainly is a personal attack.

True. However, in this particular thread, unless my reading if off, the OP has not clearly stated that they allow such things. So they are really just playing devil's advocate on behalf of some hypothetical DMs.

Felyndiira
2010-02-16, 05:45 PM
I would like to ask the Playground to stop writing things such as "no sane DM would allow..." and "any DM with half a brain would ban...". It is very frustrating being indirectly insulted whilst reading a thread. There are DM's who allow such things and implying that they are insane or stupid is both discriminatory and generally rude.

This thread may be used for the discussion of such options and for the justification of the above implications if anyone cares to attempt it. Thank you.
If this thread falls under vigilante modding sorry, may it please be locked/deleted.

Certainly, it is entirely possible for a DM to enjoy using an ability tagged with the "no sane DM" statement for perfectly legitimate reasons.

However, it may not be a good idea to seek to ban blanket, undirected statements as personal attacks. To use an example: in your original post, you said that anyone using the phrase is attacking a certain group of DMs and is thusly automatically being discriminatory and rude. Thus, anyone who have used the phrase before can claim, in a similar manner, that your post is attacking them as "discriminatory" and "rude." There's absolutely no way that an individual can word their posts so that they cannot be interpreted in an offensive way.

Another example: let's assume that you wish to express that you believe that, er, Incantatrix are overpowered. If you say "I think incantatrix are way overpowered," an individual that played an incantatrix might interpret your statement as an attack that he plays overpowered characters. Therefore, pretty much the only way to word that opinion to be non-offensive is to state "I dislike incantatrix because I dislike the abilities of the incantatrix," since any mention that suggests "overpowered" can lead to the same implication, and a player might find offense at being indirectly called a powergamer.

What I'm trying to say is, it's really not possible/a good idea to dictate how another individual chooses to word his/her statements. Since most of the aforementioned people aren't really attacking anyone with the blanket statement, it would be wiser to just read the intention of the post rather than trying to dictate semantics.

Starbuck_II
2010-02-16, 05:52 PM
aren't unique powers restricted by power points anyway?

Even if a 20th level erudite could manifest 11 9th level, + 11 8th level, + 11 7th level, and so on, powers per day, they still have to spend power points each time they manifest one.

My guess is, that hyperbole is overused- maybe the more common phrase should be:

"if you allow this, be warned that it is very powerful, and discuss it with the player beforehand so it doesn't overshadow everyone else"

Unless there's a variant of erudite that gets around this?

Mental Pinnacle grants bonus 3/caster (manfester level) PP that lasts 1 rd/level. Normally, you'd be stuck with the listed 5 powers, but you aren't a caster so you don't lose manifesting.

Now, a Erudite level 13, gains 39 pp with each casting manifesting. And he can continue casting it every 12 rounds if he wishes to keep it up forever (only costs 11 pp).

Stompy
2010-02-16, 05:55 PM
No sane DM would allow StP Erudite with the interpretation that grants unique powers/class level.

The problem I have with the "No sane DM" argument is that most of the DMs I've played with don't know what an erudite is*, and don't know the power of it, unless used in their game. Sometimes sane DMs allow broken things to be allowed (Abrupt Jaunt), because they don't know of its power. Mind you, it is not usually their fault. Most DMs I know don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of DnD 3.5 books, and therefore can allow (or be beguiled into) very broken things into the game.

*Hell, I don't know what an erudite is either!

hamishspence
2010-02-16, 05:56 PM
that's definitely a spell to avoid if you don't want to break the game outright.

Optimystik
2010-02-16, 05:58 PM
*Hell, I don't know what an erudite is either!

Be enlightened... (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/iw/20060406b)

...then weep (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20070629a) :smalltongue:


Now, a Erudite level 13, gains 39 pp with each casting manifesting. And he can continue casting it every 12 rounds if he wishes to keep it up forever (only costs 11 pp).

It costs 13, actually (11 + 2 to replace the material component each time, the potion of fox's cunning.) It can still be done ad infinitum.

Starbuck_II
2010-02-16, 06:01 PM
Even better cast Schism. Now you have extra stabdard action to cast Mental Pinnacle every few rounds.
But wait, Schism runs out? Then have schism cast Schism when duration runs low.

See, you now as a no action keep it up always (after initial cost) for free. Till you sleep I guess.

Proven_Paradox
2010-02-16, 06:02 PM
Seriously man, chill out. "No sane DM" is clearly hyperbole, and getting offended at hyperbole does not endear oneself to people.

I curse the limits of text at conveying inflection at the moment, because if I were speaking I would be saying this in a gentle, "I'm not trying to offend you but this is the way things are" voice. If this kind of thing really offends you, you need to leave the Internet. Seriously. These are the nicest boards I've ever been on, but even here expecting people to curb themselves because someone might take their statements as a personal attack (unless it actually is a personal attack, which "no sane DM" is not 95% of the time it's being used) is absurd.

Mellow out a bit. If someone says no sane DM would ever allow something you allow, don't get mad. If you don't know why, ask. If you do and don't care, just roll your eyes and move on. There's nothing good in letting it get to you.

Stompy
2010-02-16, 06:03 PM
Be enlightened... (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/iw/20060406b)

...then weep (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20070629a) :smalltongue:

This is what I mean. This isn't even in a published book, and unless the sane DM in this case knows about the infinite PP tricks and other offenses this class could do, they might just look at it, say it's a variant psion, and approve it.

EDIT: Let's assume this sane DM doesn't frequent gaming boards like the GitP boards at all.

Optimystik
2010-02-16, 06:13 PM
This isn't even in a published book

It's from Complete Psionic... that article is a preview.


and unless the sane DM in this case knows about the infinite PP tricks and other offenses this class could do, they might just look at it, say it's a variant psion, and approve it.

As written, it's not bad (just poorly worded.) If you give it the 11 UPD interpretation (i.e. the sane one) then it falls somewhere between Wilder and Psion.

It's the variant from Mind's Eye that's nuts, but ALL the base classes got amazing buffs from those.

Starbuck_II
2010-02-16, 06:16 PM
It's the variant from Mind's Eye that's nuts, but ALL the base classes got amazing buffs from those.

Divine Mind wasn't as buffed as Erudite. In fact, none of the others gained that much a increase (Wilder was close).

Boci
2010-02-16, 06:25 PM
This is what I mean. This isn't even in a published book, and unless the sane DM in this case knows about the infinite PP tricks and other offenses this class could do, they might just look at it, say it's a variant psion, and approve it.

EDIT: Let's assume this sane DM doesn't frequent gaming boards like the GitP boards at all.

Ideally a DM would make sure he understands something before allowing it, but sometimes jerkish players will sneak such overpowered builds past a DM and think that makes them cool.

huttj509
2010-02-16, 06:34 PM
Now you see, my view is that the statement would be a bit offensive towards those who are not, shall we say, normally adjusted in their neural chemicals?

Heck, I'm on medication specifically designed to alter the chemical balance of my brain, adjusting my mood and ability to think clearly. While I don't think I'm insane without it, I don't know where the line is (outside for legal purposes of not being able to judge the consequences of one's actions).

Saph
2010-02-16, 06:36 PM
Honestly, if you take oblique statements made to others on the internet as personal criticism, then consider yourself lucky to be on the GiantITP forums, possibly one of the nicest places on the Web.

Have to say, of all the things to get outraged about, the OP's is one of the silliest I've ever seen. Not the silliest, but it's up there. :)

Ormur
2010-02-16, 07:35 PM
I think it's a bit to much to ask for people never to spicing their posts with a bit of hyperbole or the occasional non-PC statement said in a jest for fear of offending some hypothetical and very hurtful person. Of course people should be nice when speaking directly to other people but it's a bit excessive to purge everything that could possibly be interpreted as an insult you're speaking in general terms.

As has been mentioned people don't actually mean that DM's that allow punpun and chain-gating are clinically insane. I think that when people are conversing with someone in particular they should be cautious with the use of words like "crazy" and "insane" because a lot of people really are dealing with mental illness but there is no reason to take such mild general statements personally.

I don't really think people have a right not to be insulted because there are so many things people can choose to be insulted by. It's impossible to take it all in account when speaking or writing without constant self-censorship that would result in very sterilized speech or text. I think that would cause more misery than the occasional "no sane DM would allow that".

Kaun
2010-02-16, 08:04 PM
I would like to ask the Playground to stop writing things such as "no sane DM would allow..." and "any DM with half a brain would ban...". It is very frustrating being indirectly insulted whilst reading a thread. There are DM's who allow such things and implying that they are insane or stupid is both discriminatory and generally rude.

This thread may be used for the discussion of such options and for the justification of the above implications if anyone cares to attempt it. Thank you.
If this thread falls under vigilante modding sorry, may it please be locked/deleted.

Jeez you must go spare every time an add comes on the TV for mobile phones or an Electronics wholesaler because they love telling people they would be CRAZY to miss what ever sale they are raving on about at the time.

My question is; is this really a valid topic?

If so can we start listing what are and arn't acceptible colloquialism's for this forum.

Kish
2010-02-16, 08:08 PM
My question is; is this really a valid topic?

If so can we start listing what are and arn't acceptible colloquialism's for this forum.
I think this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?a=1) covers it. Note the parts about passive-aggressive flaming.

(i.e., as Roland already mentioned, ScionoftheVoid is quite right if the person speaking is saying a DM would "have to be crazy" to do something s/he knows someone on the board does, a usage which I think happens frequently.)

Boci
2010-02-16, 08:22 PM
I think this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?a=1) covers it. Note the parts about passive-aggressive flaming.

(i.e., as Roland already mentioned, ScionoftheVoid is quite right if the person speaking is saying a DM would "have to be crazy" to do something s/he knows someone on the board does, a usage which I think happens frequently.)

But as others have pointed out, the very first post in this thread is a flame by accussing anyone who has ever used the phrase "no sane DM would ever allow" of being "both discriminatory and generally rude".

Kaun
2010-02-16, 08:22 PM
I think this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?a=1) covers it. Note the parts about passive-aggressive flaming.

(i.e., as Roland already mentioned, ScionoftheVoid is quite right if the person speaking is saying a DM would "have to be crazy" to do something s/he knows someone on the board does, a usage which I think happens frequently.)

Yes but even in his orriginal post he stated he found it indirectly insulting while reading through posts, not that it had ever been aimed directly at him.

I mean should i stop using terms like, "Pull the other one.." incase sombody with only one leg reads the thread and takes offence?

Roderick_BR
2010-02-16, 08:38 PM
Agreed. "No well informed DM..." would sound better, as many "sane" options are not really obvious to a lot of people, and many never had trouble with them.

magic9mushroom
2010-02-17, 01:51 AM
Even without trying it's quite hard. StP Erudites get all the action abuse of psions and wilders, with a much better list.

What's worse - they can flat out ignore verbal, somatic and material components (even expensive ones!) for everything they do. It was just a crazy idea, no matter how much I love them.

I only just went and found Erudite, and it looks very much like a parallel to the archivist or wizard. That in itself set off alarm bells, but then I found and read "Spell to Power".

Besides the obvious brokenness analogous to the Archivist, the "ignore non-negligible material components" schtick allows you to utterly break spells like Teleport Through Time which are otherwise entirely dependent on DM fiat.

GoodbyeSoberDay
2010-02-17, 04:45 AM
Agreed. "No well informed DM..." would sound better, as many "sane" options are not really obvious to a lot of people, and many never had trouble with them.This is exactly why the "DM will throw the [sourcebook] at your head" variant is better. While it's not perfect (I bet there are games where even StP Erudite is within a reasonable power level and would be reasonably allowed) it's an appropriate response to the most common situation presented here. A player is asking for build advice, there's a broken but rules-legal build presented with the caveat that you'd get the book thrown at you. "No sane DM would allow this build" tempts the player to at least try and sneak the build past the DM, whereas "The DM will Rocks Fall you faster than you can say Serpent Kingdoms" serves as a clear warning against resorting to such base rules trickery, and it puts the bad light on the hypothetical trickster player rather than the hypothetical uninformed DM.

lord_khaine
2010-02-17, 05:04 AM
I only just went and found Erudite, and it looks very much like a parallel to the archivist or wizard. That in itself set off alarm bells, but then I found and read "Spell to Power".

Besides the obvious brokenness analogous to the Archivist, the "ignore non-negligible material components" schtick allows you to utterly break spells like Teleport Through Time which are otherwise entirely dependent on DM fiat.

But at the same time, StP Erudite is the best way i have found to remake Strago from ff6, so it will allways have a place in my heart :smallbiggrin:

Chrono22
2010-02-17, 05:11 AM
There's nothing wrong with discriminating between a rational choice, and an irrational choice so long as the distinction has some logical foundations.
It would be inconsistent for a DM who believes that spellcasters as a generality are overpowered to invent a more powerful version of the planar shepherd.
Some ideas are bad, in the context of the intentions of the person that states them.

Example being: "I want to run a first level game with low treasure rewards and slow advancement. One of my players wants to run a pun-pun build to make the game more exciting; he's promised to keep it within acceptable parameters."

Optimystik
2010-02-17, 10:00 AM
Divine Mind wasn't as buffed as Erudite. In fact, none of the others gained that much a increase (Wilder was close).

Wait, what? Have you read the Mind's Eye articles?

- Psychic Warrior's buff replaced an entire class.
- Ardent's first buff elevated them to tier 2. Their second buff removed the one restriction they truly had - lame mantles. (Though that one is at least with DM approval.)
- Lurk finally got Trapfinding, and many other useful abilities to replace the crappy ones from CPsi.
- Seers trade one bonus feat for two.
- Nomads trade it for a free bag of holding at first level - inside their bodies - or the ability to reroll any saving throw that would hamper their movement if failed.
- Telepaths get - you guessed it - telepathy.
- All Egoists become Changelings.
- Shapers autoquicken Astral Construct (one type.)

And Wilder you already mentioned - they trade a rather lame class feature for a free PK boost of almost 50%.

You're right - Divine Mind and Soulknife didn't get much - but trust me when I say the rest did.

Starbuck_II
2010-02-17, 10:25 AM
Wait, what? Have you read the Mind's Eye articles?

- Psychic Warrior's buff replaced an entire class.
- Ardent's first buff elevated them to tier 2. Their second buff removed the one restriction they truly had - lame mantles. (Though that one is at least with DM approval.)
- Lurk finally got Trapfinding, and many other useful abilities to replace the crappy ones from CPsi.
- Seers trade one bonus feat for two.
- Nomads trade it for a free bag of holding at first level - inside their bodies - or the ability to reroll any saving throw that would hamper their movement if failed.
- Telepaths get - you guessed it - telepathy.
- All Egoists become Changelings.
- Shapers autoquicken Astral Construct (one type.)

And Wilder you already mentioned - they trade a rather lame class feature for a free PK boost of almost 50%.

You're right - Divine Mind and Soulknife didn't get much - but trust me when I say the rest did.

I have. And i stand by my words. i'll use math:

Let us say Wilder was 90 and Nomad was 100. If each are granted 10 points: who increased more?
You might day they got equal points, but you'd be wrong.
Wilder was increased 9%, but nomad was increased 10%. But in actuallity, Wilder gained 15 points still not as high as Nomad, but pretty good.

Erudite didn't gain 10 points he got 50 points: no one was buffed as much as him.

Optimystik
2010-02-17, 10:28 AM
Oh I see; we're defining "didn't get that much of an increase" differently.

You meant "not as much as Erudite."
I thought you meant "not a significant amount."

In that case yes, Erudite got the biggest boost - elevating them from Tier 2-3 almost to Tier 0.

Math_Mage
2010-02-17, 11:05 AM
I have. And i stand by my words. i'll use math:

Let us say Wilder was 90 and Nomad was 100. If each are granted 10 points: who increased more?
You might day they got equal points, but you'd be wrong.
Wilder was increased 9%, but nomad was increased 10%. But in actuallity, Wilder gained 15 points still not as high as Nomad, but pretty good.

Erudite didn't gain 10 points he got 50 points: no one was buffed as much as him.

I'd like to point out that the math is wrong. Wilder gets a bigger percentage boost from a constant-point increase if its initial point level was lower--in this case, 11.1%. :smalltongue:

WreckedElf
2010-02-17, 12:27 PM
If I hear someone say "No sane DM would do 'X'", even though it is probably obvious that the speaker is not literally claiming that DM's who do 'X' are mentally disturbed, the question still remains, what is the unexaggerated meaning? Are they saying "no well educated DM", "no intelligent DM", "no good DM"? In any case, no matter how much its meaning is scaled down, the statement is still derogatory (unless the speaker or the one spoken too considers insanity as a compliment). The statement is also presumptuous, because it implies that the speaker believes that there does not exist any conditions in which a good DM would ever do 'X'.

So the statement appears to be expressing a negative opinion of anyone who does 'X', and possibly expressing the limitations of the speaker’s willingness to consider the existance of rational alternatives. If this was not the speakers intention, then using a "No sane DM..." without clear explanation, might simply be a case of poor communication.

For myself, I've never been offended by that sort of statement (but then I'm also not often offended by challenges to my sanity), but offended or not, I can entirely understand how frustrating it is to hear someone, without explaining themselves, simply imply that anyone who uses some such game play mechanic or other must therefore be a bad or ill-informed DM.
So, personally, I think that politely asking the people of this forum to avoid those sorts of statements (or at least provide some clarity to their meaning) seems entirely reasonable.

Boci
2010-02-17, 12:37 PM
If I hear someone say "No sane DM would do 'X'", even though it is probably obvious that the speaker is not literally claiming that DM's who do 'X' are mentally disturbed, the question still remains, what is the unexaggerated meaning? Are they saying "no well educated DM", "no intelligent DM", "no good DM"? In any case, no matter how much its meaning is scaled down, the statement is still derogatory (unless the speaker or the one spoken too considers insanity as a compliment). The statement is also presumptuous, because it implies that the speaker believes that there does not exist any conditions in which a good DM would ever do 'X'.

So the statement appears to be expressing a negative opinion of anyone who does 'X', and possibly expressing the limitations of the speaker’s willingness to consider the existance of rational alternatives. If this was not the speakers intention, then using a "No sane DM..." without clear explanation, might simply be a case of poor communication.

For myself, I've never been offended by that sort of statement (but then I'm also not often offended by challenges to my sanity), but offended or not, I can entirely understand how frustrating it is to hear someone, without explaining themselves, simply imply that anyone who uses some such game play mechanic or other must therefore be a bad or ill-informed DM.
So, personally, I think that politely asking the people of this forum to avoid those sorts of statements (or at least provide some clarity to their meaning) seems entirely reasonable.

"No sane DM would do 'X'" is shorthand for "Whilst legal under strict interpretation of RAW, it is clearly abuse, making you far more powerful than other option would. Thus, I imagine most DMs will not allow it,"

ScionoftheVoid
2010-02-17, 03:07 PM
Edited first post with a clarification.


Jeez you must go spare every time an add comes on the TV for mobile phones or an Electronics wholesaler because they love telling people they would be CRAZY to miss what ever sale they are raving on about at the time.

I don't watch television often enough to see those advertisements. If I did I assume that I would be very irritated.


"No sane DM would do 'X'" is shorthand for "Whilst legal under strict interpretation of RAW, it is clearly abuse, making you far more powerful than other option would. Thus, I imagine most DMs will not allow it,"

Whilst I do appreciate how useful shorthand is I do tend to take things literally unless I have a clear indication to do otherwise. If this is the general meaning of the phrase when used could it be put somewhere where it could be found easily? Perhaps the thread on abbreviations used on this board?

Presumably if someone is posting here then they are doing so in their free time and can afford the time to be clear about what they mean. If the shortened version led directly to the longer form I wouldn't mind so much, as it is the only thing clear is that it is probably hyperbole.

Edit: In response to some earlier posts I will not be leaving the internet. I am aware that this is a very nice place, particularly compared to other areas of the internet. However if I am offended by something I have as much right to argue against the issue as anyone else. If rational arguement or a polite (I hope) request will evidently not have an affect then I won't use them. Other forums are not as forgiving as these and I would have merely put up with it, I asked for it to be used less often here because I thought it might work.

Sliver
2010-02-17, 03:16 PM
Alright, someone put WLUSIORIICAMYFMPTOOWTIIMDWNAI in the abbreviations thread.. Now to remember it... :smalltongue:

Melamoto
2010-02-17, 03:19 PM
Well, as someone who has used the phrase "no sane DM" before, then I am going to respectfully request that you no longer create threads solely for the purpose of insulting and disrespecting me and others who have used a perfectly acceptable blanket statement.

ScionoftheVoid
2010-02-17, 03:37 PM
Well, as someone who has used the phrase "no sane DM" before, then I am going to respectfully request that you no longer create threads solely for the purpose of insulting and disrespecting me and others who have used a perfectly acceptable blanket statement.

Really? Do you mind pointing out where I did that to the extent you seem to be implying so I can rectify it? In what way is your blanket statement "perfectly acceptable", also?

Edit: I didn't think this thread would attract as much attention as it did so I have a suggestion:

A definition for this phrase as used on these forums is agreed upon and recorded somewhere that it will not be deleted. I will edit the first post of this thread to include this definition and it may be used with a clear meaning, as opposed to the vague idea behind it currently. We may then continue discussing options which are often mentioned with this phrase, so that others may make informed decisions about allowing or using them (like the tier system, but more in-depth and with specific "tricks" mentioned).

My suggestion for the definition is this:

"This option is often considered to be abusive, very difficult to balance with other options and/or difficult to challenge in a game. As such a DM or player valuing balance, challenge and/or lack of abusive interprtations would be recommended to research the option to discover why it is considered as it is. A player or DM not valuing these would be advised to do the same, though less thouroughly."

That is probably going to be considered insufficient, so if you feel you have a better interpretation please post it if you have the time!

Optimystik
2010-02-17, 03:42 PM
Internet...

Serious Business

Sinfire Titan
2010-02-17, 03:54 PM
Internet...

Serious Business

+1 to post count.

Ormur
2010-02-17, 04:13 PM
Whilst I do appreciate how useful shorthand is I do tend to take things literally unless I have a clear indication to do otherwise. If this is the general meaning of the phrase when used could it be put somewhere where it could be found easily? Perhaps the thread on abbreviations used on this board?

I find that the best rule for avoiding drama on the internet (and in general) is to presume the best possible intent for whatever post you read. If something that might at first be understood as an insult can also be understood as a lighthearted joke, then the latter interpretation is preferable. It's really you who choose whether to get worked up over a statement, let alone a blanket statement.

sonofzeal
2010-02-17, 04:18 PM
Internet...

Serious Business
Quite. (http://www.macrochan.org/view.php?u=EMWWNWCVRKJBU56XGX4A4O7NJBNXAI5W)



Eh, people exaggerate and talk in hyperbole all the time. "Omg this spell is the best thing evar", "wtf CW Samurai are liek worse than commoner", "gotta be insane to try that". Trying to stop it isn't going to help, no matter what you do.

BRC
2010-02-17, 04:22 PM
Edit: In response to some earlier posts I will not be leaving the internet. I am aware that this is a very nice place, particularly compared to other areas of the internet. However if I am offended by something I have as much right to argue against the issue as anyone else. If rational arguement or a polite (I hope) request will evidently not have an affect then I won't use them. Other forums are not as forgiving as these and I would have merely put up with it, I asked for it to be used less often here because I thought it might work.
You have every right to bring it up. Mind you, we have every right to argue against you, and the mods and the community have every right to not act on your request.

Really, GiantITP only seems nice because, rather than posting generic insults like "ur stupid lol" we battle with page long arguments loaded with subtle criticism, biting sarcasm, and links to TVtropes.

Well, that and the There is no mind control, I will go back to my fun.

ScionoftheVoid
2010-02-17, 04:35 PM
You have every right to bring it up. Mind you, we have every right to argue against you, and the mods and the community have every right to not act on your request.

Really, GiantITP only seems nice because, rather than posting generic insults like "ur stupid lol" we battle with page long arguments loaded with subtle criticism, biting sarcasm, and links to TVtropes.

Well, that and the There is no mind control, I will go back to my fun.

But of course. I always enjoy a good bit of verbal/textual sparring to keep my mind sharp, particularly if I need not answer immediately, so it is good for me if not others.

I'll repost my suggestion at the bottom of page two to make sure it is noticed.


I didn't think this thread would attract as much attention as it did so I have a suggestion:

A definition for this phrase as used on these forums is agreed upon and recorded somewhere that it will not be deleted. I will edit the first post of this thread to include this definition and it may be used with a clear meaning, as opposed to the vague idea behind it currently. We may then continue discussing options which are often mentioned with this phrase, so that others may make informed decisions about allowing or using them (like the tier system, but more in-depth and with specific "tricks" mentioned).

My suggestion for the definition is this:

"This option is often considered to be abusive, very difficult to balance with other options and/or difficult to challenge in a game. As such a DM or player valuing balance, challenge and/or lack of abusive interprtations would be recommended to research the option to discover why it is considered as it is. A player or DM not valuing these would be advised to do the same, though less thouroughly."

That is probably going to be considered insufficient, so if you feel you have a better interpretation please post it if you have the time!

Roland St. Jude
2010-02-17, 04:42 PM
...Really, GiantITP only seems nice because, rather than posting generic insults like "ur stupid lol" we battle with page long arguments loaded with subtle criticism, biting sarcasm, and links to TVtropes. ...

Sheriff of Moddingham: That is untrue and perpetuates a common misunderstanding about the Forum Rules/moderation here. No matter how subtle, clever, humorous, or erudite your comment, if it is a personal insult on another poster, it is prohibited here. Plenty of people have received Warnings or Infractions for comments that they thought were sufficiently oblique, humorous, or true to evade the Forum Rules. It doesn't work that way. Any personal attacks, insults, or belittling of other posters, based on their playstyle preferences, personal attributes, mental capacity, or pretty much anything else, are strictly prohibited here.

To the extent that the Forum Rules have anything to do with GitP seeming nice, it's not just because they prohibit blatant flaming but also because they prohibit even passive-aggressive flaming, counter-flaming, flaming someone thinks is factually justified, and pretty much any other personal attacks. And, I suppose, because the community has come to expect such an atmosphere that even comments such as those you think slip through the cracks are frequently reported and acted upon.

It seems to me that the OP makes a reasonable point and fair request without personally insulting anyone, yet this thread has veered off into a substantive discussion about the Erudite and a bunch of spam. It is also true that we tend not to allow these types of threads because posters shouldn't be telling each other what to do, and everyone has their pet peeves and we can't have hundreds of these threads.

Thread locked.