It's the Aesthetics of Optimization that I Don't Like

[Teron]

Actually, what I am saying is that in AD&D a class (or sometimes a combination of classes) is a broad archetype, and you play the archetype. Messing on trying to fit bits of classes together over the course of X levels to achieve a certain result is a waste of time within that system.

If you want to play a fighter who is also a thief, then by all means play a fighter/thief. If you want to play Conan don't bother messing on with taking three levels in fighter, then two levels in rogue, or whatever if it can be done in a less intrusive way. On the other hand, if doing so does fit your perception of Conan, great! It does not fit my perception of that character.
I admit I'm not particularly familiar with Conan, which is partly why I switched to a more generic Bob the fighter/thief (also because I thought the specific example we'd been going on about for a while was starting to obscure the actual subject).

Anyway, I still think you're contradicting yourself. Arbitrarily modifying the existing classes seems more damaging to the "classes as archetypes" approach than combining them. I can't quite read a coherent philosophy into your posts beyond "AD&D is better".

Then again, I've been awake longer than I'd like and I'm starting to feel it, so maybe it's my problem. I think I'm going to bow out of this thread; agree to disagree, run your games as you like and I'll keep well away, and so on?

[Matthew]

^Matthew: What happens if one single archetype doesn't fit? Characters can change goals mid-career.

For example, a wizard gaining mastery over magic the classical way stumbles upon a way to "take away the human element" and automate much of the spell casting processes. He changes his focus and begins to build magical machines, applying what he learnt as a wizard to make them harness more powerful energies than other golem makers.

It's not like my example wizard has thrown away his former journey as a mage. It's just that he now wants to level as artificer or something like that and still apply his magical knowledge. He doesn't study magic any more and thus isn't getting better at it, but he is learning to make magic machines.
In AD&D there is pretty much no recourse; once you create a fighter you are a fighter and you will not be changing classes, unless maybe by dual classing, but those rules require very high attribute scores so it is pretty unlikely. The archetypes are supposed to be broad enough that they can fit a high degree of variation (an artificer would be a sort of magician, building magical machines by means of spells), but for the most part you cannot just stop being a fighter and become a thief. The game is not designed for it.

On the other hand, there are always odd ways involving magic, so never say never I suppose.



I admit I'm not particularly familiar with Conan, which is partly why I switched to a more generic Bob the fighter/thief (also because I thought the specific example we'd been going on about for a while was starting to obscure the actual subject).

Heh, well that specific subject was making Conan in C&C, and the broader subject seems to have gone in all different directions.



Anyway, I still think you're contradicting yourself. Arbitrarily modifying the existing classes seems more damaging to the "classes as archetypes" approach than combining them. I can't quite read a coherent philosophy into your posts beyond "AD&D is better".

Then again, I've been awake longer than I'd like and I'm starting to feel it, so maybe it's my problem. I think I'm going to bow out of this thread; agree to disagree, run your games as you like and I'll keep well away, and so on?

I think you may well have been up too long if you think I am saying AD&D is objectively better than D20. It may sound contradictory to indicate that altering a class is less disruptive than combining it with another, but I would guess that is because the idea of "class" is different in D20, in that it represents a bundle of abilities rather than an archetype.

[DragoonWraith]

In AD&D there is pretty much no recourse; once you create a fighter you are a fighter and you will not be changing classes, unless maybe by dual classing, but those rules require very high attribute scores so it is pretty unlikely. The archetypes are supposed to be broad enough that they can fit a high degree of variation (an artificer would be a sort of magician, building magical machines by means of spells), but for the most part you cannot just stop being a fighter and become a thief. The game is not designed for it.
And this is appealing? I am not sarcastic - I'm genuinely confused. In what way is a lack of options a good thing?

[Scorpina]

(and even then Minsc does not fit Ranger very well).

Yes, but he was created before Barbarians were a thing. Aside from which, he is more or less completely defined by his Animal Companion.

[Matthew]

And this is appealing? I am not sarcastic - I'm genuinely confused. In what way is a lack of options a good thing?

Are we going edition warring? :smallbiggrin:

Seriously, I used to be all for character options, but in more recent years I have found myself increasingly drawn to simplicity of rules and minimal predefined mechanical options. Faster play and more suitable to casual players seems to be one of the chief benefits. A lack of explicit rules also means it is easier to make stuff up without contradicting them, but that is a long debate better situated in other threads.



Yes, but he was created before Barbarians were a thing. Aside from which, he is more or less completely defined by his Animal Companion.

I think they used a specific Forgotten Realms kit for him, many of the Baldur's Gate characters had "little extras".

[Manga Shoggoth]

And this is appealing? I am not sarcastic - I'm genuinely confused. In what way is a lack of options a good thing?

Actually, the description isn't quite true. The situation in AD&D was a little more complex:

Humans could only play single-class characters. There was an option to dual-class, but that had a number of limitations that looked horrible.

Non-humans, however, could multi-class. You would have two (or more) classes, and your experience would be split between them. As a result you would have the multiple abilities of - say - a fighter/thief, but would progress more slowly as the exp for each class would effectively be halved.

[Matthew]

Non-humans, however, could multi-class. You would have two (or more) classes, and your experience would be split between them. As a result you would have the multiple abilities of - say - a fighter/thief, but would progress more slowly as the exp for each class would effectively be halved.

Yes, but you cannot change midway through character progression, which is why I left it out.

[Scorpina]

I thoguht that was what dual-classing was all about? Or was that just in Baldur's Gate?

[Matthew]

I thought that was what dual-classing was all about? Or was that just in Baldur's Gate?

Yes, dual classing allows characters to change midway through progression, as mentioned above. You need a 15 in your previous class's primary attribute, and a 17 in your new class's primary attribute (if I recall this correctly).

[Drakyn]

I think they used a specific Forgotten Realms kit for him, many of the Baldur's Gate characters had "little extras".

Minsc in both BGs is a ranger with the special ability "berserk." Even BG2, where kits were implemented and the fighter - berserker kit and just straight barbarian were both available. I guess they didn't feel like retconning his class or whatever. Besides, yeah, defined by Boo, and there was still no "really angry guy" kit available for rangers.

[Sucrose]

My experience is that lighter rule sets are generally preferable for my group (and my game mastering), but certainly everybody has different preferences (as this thread shows!) :smallbiggrin:

To say the least.:smallbiggrin: I presume, given the glowing reports of your DMing that I half-remember seeing on these boards, that you're pretty good with 2E mechanical fixes, or good enough with story that it doesn't matter to your players.


Well, people were saying Mike you are playing the wrong game, and the discussion at the time was turning towards alternatives (specifically we had exchanged two or three posts about C&C, which Mark had mentioned earlier).

I see. I agree that Mike really should be looking into 2E or C&C, which does seem more to his taste. I can also see why you're so adamant about altering the class rather than multiclassing, given the degree of complication that causes in a game with varying experience charts like 2E, and the strong tendency for players to play single-classed, and certainly not to dip, caused by that system conceit. Also, the necessity of greater DM intervention in the rules could certainly make altering the class seem more appealing.

Suffice it to say that complicated multiclassing in 3E doesn't cause nearly as many mechanical issues, while writing balanced classes or variants one's self is a bit daunting, at least to those weaned on 3E. Since my D&D experience has largely been based on d20, I'm much more suited to that system's assumptions than I am AD&D.


Oh definitely, D20/3e is designed largely to reduce the need for game master intervention in the rules.

Aye.

As an aside, I apologize for the misunderstanding of what your side of the discussion was about. I thought that you were advocating for 3E the same approach as 2E, and I didn't feel that made much sense. However, sticking up for your ideas of how 2E should be run is entirely reasonable.

The one part that I do not entirely apologize for, however, is sticking up for the ideals of optimization. I realize that your comment was comparatively innocuous, but I still feel that it demonstrates a lack of understanding of what many optimizers are about, and I find that rather disconcerting. However, I suppose I can see how many of the assumptions that go into most casual optimization (preeminently the 'class levels as ability bundles' assumption) could seem odd or even wrongheaded to someone who prefers AD&D.

[Matthew]

Minsc in both BGs is a ranger with the special ability "berserk." Even BG2, where kits were implemented and the fighter - berserker kit and just straight barbarian were both available. I guess they didn't feel like retconning his class or whatever. Besides, yeah, defined by Boo, and there was still no "really angry guy" kit available for rangers.

Yeah, that is what I mean. Minsc is a ranger with what appears to be the benefits of the berserker kit from the Complete Fighter's Handbook, though it is not mentioned in the game. Baldur's Gate contains a lot of interesting differences from AD&D, though.

[Drakyn]

Yeah, that is what I mean. Minsc is a ranger with what appears to be the benefits of the berserker kit from the Complete Fighter's Handbook, though it is not mentioned in the game. Baldur's Gate contains a lot of interesting differences from AD&D, though.

He actually differs from the berserker kit itself in a few interesting ways. He only ever gets one berserk ability per day (no increases uses on levelup), and his berserk ability makes him non-controllable - and he can and will splat allies doing it, both issues berserkers and barbarians don't have to worry about. Also, apparently the bonuses for all three abilities beyond "you're immune to certain mind-affecting spells" are fairly different.
So, Minsc got a weird little bonus ability in BG1 for flavour and then in BG2 when similar stuff popped up they didn't bother tweaking it to match with the new standards.

[Umael]

Having read the whole thread from the beginning, I got a few thoughts.

When discussing the levels of, say, Heracles, it would be a good idea to discuss the levels of the mooks he fought as well. A lot of you are saying things like, "Heracles could easily trash 25 Level 1 warriors, any Level 6 Fighter could do that!"

True. But who said that those 25 Persians WERE Level 1 warriors? There is a lot of assumption that these Level 1 warriors are just that, pretty much fresh and green and recently trained. In reality, a lot of warriors found would be a mix of green, experienced, veteran, and elite (where someone who is elite is Level 4).

To the person who equated Elric, King Arthur, Lord of the Rings, and the Princess Bride (I might have added some, missed some) to being "Mary Sue" stories - you obviously know nothing about either good fantasy literature and what makes a character a "Mary Sue". Your comparison was insulting - a "Mary Sue" story devalues the paper it is printed on until it is not worth wiping off the execrement that is the "Mary Sue" off the memories of anyone who reads it, while stories like Lord of the Rings become literary and cultural sucesses that are beloved by millions.

The trouble with Sword & Board concepts is all in the mechanics. There is a reason why it was such a popular choice for warriors in real life during the age - it was very effective. D&D mechanics do not reward this. For example, giving someone an AC Bonus of +1 for a small shield, +2 for a large? I'm sorry, but the difference between me getting hit and not getting hit does not go up by a pitiful 10% because I have a metal barrier big enough to hide behind if I want to go turtle! Oh, and I didn't need to take a Feat to know how to Shield Bash someone.

(As a sidenote, I wonder which weapon was more used - the sword or the spear. I know, depends on where and when, but still...)

D&D IS high magic. Even 1e had Deities & Demigods - there were things out there that were very powerful, and there were munchkins who bragged about "killing Zeus" with their characters. Something no character in mythology ever did - I think the closest we have in popular culture is Kratos.

I think part of this is the game tendency to appeal to the ego. "Want to play someone stronger than ever Heracles? Play D&D! Now load up your character with a belt of giant's strength, and half-dragon template, and..."

Someone mentioned that finding Glamdring and Orchrist was a bit contrived because they were orcbane weapons, yet found in a lair of orcs. Incorrect. First of all, they were found the troll's lair, not where the orcs/goblins lived, under the Misty Mountains. While there seems to be some similarity between orcs and goblins, trolls are definitely a separate species.

Furthermore, they were not contrived, as their finding was reasonable (the trolls had a den where they hide from the sun, the same sun that destroyed them). It was even a minor plot point that Gandalf asked Elrond how the trolls came by them, and as Elrond explained, the swords were taken by plunderers, and then the trolls plundered the plunderers.

To the OP: You said you tried Iron Heroes, but you didn't like how the magic system worked. Could you possibly try allowing difference classes of casters? For example, if you like your wizards throwing fireballs, maybe you could modify the warmage, or the warlock? Keep the spell list limited and see what you get.

[Matthew]

To say the least.:smallbiggrin: I presume, given the glowing reports of your DMing that I half-remember seeing on these boards, that you're pretty good with 2E mechanical fixes, or good enough with story that it doesn't matter to your players.

One can only hope so. :smallsmile:



I see. I agree that Mike really should be looking into 2E or C&C, which does seem more to his taste. I can also see why you're so adamant about altering the class rather than multiclassing, given the degree of complication that causes in a game with varying experience charts like 2E, and the strong tendency for players to play single-classed, and certainly not to dip, caused by that system conceit. Also, the necessity of greater DM intervention in the rules could certainly make altering the class seem more appealing.

Suffice it to say that complicated multiclassing in 3E doesn't cause nearly as many mechanical issues, while writing balanced classes or variants one's self is a bit daunting, at least to those weaned on 3E. Since my D&D experience has largely been based on d20, I'm much more suited to that system's assumptions than I am AD&D.

Certainly. I am looking forward to hearing about Mike's experiences with C&C, if he does make the change, as his problems with AD&D were mainly solved by the advent of D20, so it will be interesting to see if this represents a suitable intermediate ground or if it turns out to be too far away from D20. My worry with Castles & Crusades is that it was designed to accomodate house rules, so may not fit the bill without the Castle Keeper's Guide (which folks are still waiting on).



Aye.

As an aside, I apologize for the misunderstanding of what your side of the discussion was about. I thought that you were advocating for 3E the same approach as 2E, and I didn't feel that made much sense. However, sticking up for your ideas of how 2E should be run is entirely reasonable.

The one part that I do not entirely apologize for, however, is sticking up for the ideals of optimization. I realize that your comment was comparatively innocuous, but I still feel that it demonstrates a lack of understanding of what many optimizers are about, and I find that rather disconcerting. However, I suppose I can see how many of the assumptions that go into most casual optimization (preeminently the 'class levels as ability bundles' assumption) could seem odd or even wrongheaded to someone who prefers AD&D.

No worries, forum discussions often go in odd directions and misunderstandings are inevitable. For my part I apologise for any offence I cause you, it was certainly not intentional. I can certainly appreciate the attraction of optimisation, both as a practical and theoretical exercise.



He actually differs from the berserker kit itself in a few interesting ways. He only ever gets one berserk ability per day (no increases uses on levelup), and his berserk ability makes him non-controllable - and he can and will splat allies doing it, both issues berserkers and barbarians don't have to worry about. Also, apparently the bonuses for all three abilities beyond "you're immune to certain mind-affecting spells" are fairly different.
So, Minsc got a weird little bonus ability in BG1 for flavour and then in BG2 when similar stuff popped up they didn't bother tweaking it to match with the new standards.

Ah, found it the one in BG1, it is from Warriors & Priests of the Realms (there were a few "berserker" kits in AD&D):



Rashemen
These semi-barbaric warriors start out with several strong advantages. Each beginning Rashemaar warrior can use her fists as a free weapon proficiency, and they deal 2-4 points of damage with a +1 bonus to attack rolls when using only fists. Rashemaar warriors also get the land based riding non-weapon proficiency for free.

Each Rashemaar warrior starts off with a heavy fur and leather tunic (Armor Class 6), a choice of a one-handed melee weapon, a short bow, a light lance, and a mountain pony. All of these items are free.

While these are not the elite Fang berserkers, each Rashemaar warrior can enter a mild berserker rage once per day. It lasts for five rounds or until all enemies are slain, whichever comes first. While in this rage, all attack, damage, and saving throw rolls gain a +1 bonus, and a −1 bonus on initiative rolls.

I suspect this was the basis for that ability, but it was probably an amalgamation of several different entries.

[Sliver]

Then you have misinterpreted me, because all I was implying is that when you make a class to be the "best at being that class" it makes sense to go from levels 1-20 in that class.

That is entirely incorrect.

The best at being a sorcerer is not more sorcerer, neither is in being a cleric or a wizard. If you take a full spellcasting progression PrC in either of those, only the wizard might lose some feats out of it, with clerics and sorcerers becoming better with no power loss, so without PrCing out but going straight, they are not attempting to be best at their class.

[Matthew]

The best at being a sorcerer is not more sorcerer, neither is in being a cleric or a wizard. If you take a full spellcasting progression PrC in either of those, only the wizard might lose some feats out of it, with clerics and sorcerers becoming better with no power loss, so without PrCing out but going straight, they are not attempting to be best at their class.

Here is what I am saying:

Fighter 15 = Fighter 15
Fighter 13 + Rogue 2 = Fighter 13/Rogue 2

Here is what you are saying:

Wizard 15 = wizard 15
Wizard 13 + PrC 2 = wizard 15

I am not disagreeing with that.

[Sucrose]

One can only hope so. :smallsmile:


Certainly. I am looking forward to hearing about Mike's experiences with C&C, if he does make the change, as his problems with AD&D were mainly solved by the advent of D20, so it will be interesting to see if this represents a suitable intermediate ground or if it turns out to be too far away from D20. My worry with Castles & Crusades is that it was designed to accomodate house rules, so may not fit the bill without the Castle Keeper's Guide (which folks are still waiting on).


No worries, forum discussions often go in odd directions and misunderstandings are inevitable. For my part I apologise for any offence I cause you, it was certainly not intentional. I can certainly appreciate the attraction of optimisation, both as a practical and theoretical exercise.


Ah, found it the one in BG1, it is from Warriors & Priests of the Realms (there were a few "berserker" kits in AD&D):


I suspect this was the basis for that ability, but it was probably an amalgamation of several different entries.

Thank you much. Your apology for the offense is entirely accepted, and I very much appreciate your willingness to forgive my own mistakes. I'm glad that we could come to an understanding.:smallsmile:

I also shall look forward to seeing how C&C fits Mike's expectations.

[Sliver]

Here is what I am saying:

Fighter 15 = Fighter 15
Fighter 13 + Rogue 2 = Fighter 13/Rogue 2

Here is what you are saying:

Wizard 15 = wizard 15
Wizard 13 + PrC 2 = wizard 15

I am not disagreeing with that.

No. What I quoted you on said that:

Class 20 = Max Power of that Class

Not Class 20 > Class 15 + Unrelated Class 5

And Wizard 13 + PrC 2 is most likely > Wizard 15, unless you lose a lot of spellcasting levels.

/nitpicking

[DragoonWraith]

Sliver, I think he was stating how he thinks things should be, not how they are.


Here is what I am saying:

Fighter 15 = Fighter 15
Fighter 13 + Rogue 2 = Fighter 13/Rogue 2

Here is what you are saying:

Wizard 15 = wizard 15
Wizard 13 + PrC 2 = wizard 15

I am not disagreeing with that.
Alternatively, Wizard 13 + PrC 2 might equal PrC 15, depending on your character's fluff and the PrC in question.

And Fighter 13 + Rogue 2 might equal Fighter 13/Rogue 2, but just not necessarily. Take an ACF to get a Feat instead of Sneak Attack, and it's just a Fighter who sacrificed a bit of pure martial skill for better maneuverability (extra skills, which might be in, say, Tumble, plus Evasion). That's still pretty much a Fighter.

But anyway, optimizing in 3.5 does not always mean multiclassing. A Warblade 20 is a very solid build, and basically does what the Fighter failed to do. The fluff differences between Warblade and Fighter are minimal (the Warblade seems more geared to a more intelligent, tactical fighter, as opposed to the Big, Stupid Fighter that the actual Fighter class espouses), but on a mechanical level the Warblade just works much better.

[Matthew]

No. What I quoted you on said that:

Class 20 = Max Power of that Class

Not Class 20 > Class 15 + Unrelated Class 5

And Wizard 13 + PrC 2 is most likely > Wizard 15, unless you lose a lot of spellcasting levels.

/nitpicking

I wrote "best at being that class", not "most powerful". You are misunderstanding my meaning.



Sliver, I think he was stating how he thinks things should be, not how they are.

Could be; replying to multiple posts can get confusing, I will take another look at the context. [edit] That does seem to be the thrust of things, that if you create a class to be the best at being that class then it makes sense to take that class from level 1-20 if you want to be best at being that class. In reality there are potentially many better ways to serve the function of a given class, but that is not necessarily the same purpose.

[Caphi]

I wrote "best at being that class", not "most powerful". You are misunderstanding my meaning.

What is "being a wizard"? The eight schools alone provide variance. Is a transmuter 20 being more of a wizard than an evoker 20? How about a transmuter/master transmogrifist? Is he more of a wizard than a transmuter 20? Is a transmuter/master transmogrifist more or less of a wizard than an abjurer/Initiate?

You can't be a wizard. You can be a character that uses wizard powers to do his thing, whatever that thing is, but "being a wizard" is a terrible definition of anything.

[Rixx]

Let it be known that the original poster is now my best friend, and is henceforth invited to all my birthday parties and labor day barbecues.

[Terazul]

You can't be a wizard. You can be a character that uses wizard powers to do his thing, whatever that thing is, but "being a wizard" is a terrible definition of anything.

Yes. Really. I cannot possibly fathom how people get so caught up in class names as though they were professions or the end-all be-all of this is what you are. Classes are just collections of abilities and features there just like spell names, feat names, or anything else, so that we, the players, can refer to them in such a way that everyone else knows what we're talking about without being confused, and a way to represent the character's mechanical development. That's. It.

A rogue (not the class, someone who considers themselves a rogue) who goes into Wizard does not automatically consider himself less of a rogue unless he wants to. He's just dabbling in magic to get himself a familiar, or maybe learning to scribe some scrolls. Who knows, it depends on the character. Just like a Fighter who picks up Power Attack does not go around boasting how he trained in Power Attack instead of Combat Expertise; He just got better at swinging really hard.

It is really not all that much of an issue.

[Yuki Akuma]

"Wizard", "Cleric", "Druid" and "Paladin" are totally in-setting professions, though.

The others? Not so much. (Well, maybe "Magewright".)

[Jayabalard]

Yes, but he was created before Barbarians were a thing. You're talking of Minsc from Baldur's Gate? I'm not sure what you mean by this.

Baldur's Gate was released in 1998. Barbarians were in the 1e AD&D Unearthed arcana, relased in 1985; Barbarian was also one of the classes that appeared in the D&D cartoon, from 1983 (along with the Cavalier, and Acrobat, who were also featured in Unearthed Arcana). On further googling, it looks like they first appeared in the Dragon #63 in 1982


Really. I cannot possibly fathom how people get so caught up in class names as though they were professions or the end-all be-all of this is what you are.My guess? It's edition based. Your character's title was literally based on your class; it very much defined who you were, in character. That went away in later editions.

[Scorpina]

You're talking of Minsc from Baldur's Gate? I'm not sure what you mean by this.

Baldur's Gate was released in 1998. Barbarians were in the 1e AD&D Unearthed arcana, relased in 1985; Barbarian was also one of the classes that appeared in the D&D cartoon, from 1983 (along with the Cavalier, and Acrobat, who were also featured in Unearthed Arcana). On further googling, it looks like they first appeared in the Dragon #63 in 1982

Yes, but Barbarians were not a core class in the edition of D&D that BG1 was based on. Thus, Barbarians were not in BG1. Thus, Minsc could not be one.

[Matthew]

What is "being a wizard"? The eight schools alone provide variance. Is a transmuter 20 being more of a wizard than an evoker 20? How about a transmuter/master transmogrifist? Is he more of a wizard than a transmuter 20? Is a transmuter/master transmogrifist more or less of a wizard than an abjurer/Initiate?

You can't be a wizard. You can be a character that uses wizard powers to do his thing, whatever that thing is, but "being a wizard" is a terrible definition of anything.

Right, these things are inherently subjective within certain parameters. Whatever the class has defined as "wizard" is itself the definition, and it will probably be relatively broad. Any iteration on wizard within that class seems to be reasonably encompassed by "wizard".

[DragoonWraith]

Except there's essentially nothing the Sorcerer can't do that the Wizard can't, though probably not as well. And there's definitely nothing that a Wizard 20 can't do that a Wizard 15/Archmage 5 can't.

[Terazul]

"Wizard", "Cleric", "Druid" and "Paladin" are totally in-setting professions, though.

The others? Not so much. (Well, maybe "Magewright".)

It's true! But it's more defined by the scope of the abilities, rather than the class itself; I can be a sorc (or even a psion) and call myself a Wizard. I can be an incredibly devout cleric and call myself a Paladin. I can be a feral-templated human (Shifter Prime) who is the leader of a pack of shifters and hunts down the humans who terrorized their village with bestial vigor and call myself a Druid (http://pengia.wikispaces.com/Super+Variant+Ranger). We don't have magical class bars floating over our heads.

[Matthew]

Yes. Really. I cannot possibly fathom how people get so caught up in class names as though they were professions or the end-all be-all of this is what you are. Classes are just collections of abilities and features there just like spell names, feat names, or anything else, so that we, the players, can refer to them in such a way that everyone else knows what we're talking about without being confused, and a way to represent the character's mechanical development. That's. It.

That is certainly one way of looking at classes, and it is the D20 norm. In AD&D, though, a class is more significant than that and does indeed define the character and most of his future mechanical development.



Except there's essentially nothing the Sorcerer can't do that the Wizard can't, though probably not as well. And there's definitely nothing that a Wizard 20 can't do that a Wizard 15/Archmage 5 can't.

Sure, they are all part of the same archetype, and in previous editions were all grouped under the one heading of "wizard". By contrast, a "Rogue 20" is very different from any of the above, and is another archetype. D20 has a multi class system that enables these distinct archetypes to be literally mixed together, which is fine, though not as suitable for every concept as other possibilities might be (such as by means of customisation or class variants or whatever).



Yes, but Barbarians were not a core class in the edition of D&D that BG1 was based on. Thus, Barbarians were not in BG1. Thus, Minsc could not be one.

I think that is probably the most plausible scenario, that the barbarian was not considered "core" enough to the game.

[Yuki Akuma]

That is certainly one way of looking at classes, and it is the D20 norm. In AD&D, though, a class is more significant than that and does indeed define the character and most of his future mechanical development.


Sure, they are all part of the same archetype, and in previous editions were all grouped under the one heading of "wizard". By contrast, a "Rogue 20" is very different from any of the above, and is another archetype. D20 has a multi class system that enables these distinct archetypes to be literally mixed together, which is fine, though not as suitable for every concept as other possibilities might be (such as by means of customisation or class variants or whatever).

So what archetype does the Elf Fighter/Mage fit under? How about the Gnome Thief/Mage? The Halfling Fighter/Thief?

[Matthew]

So what archetype does the Elf Fighter/Mage fit under? How about the Gnome Thief/Mage? The Halfling Fighter/Thief?

Supposedly, these fit narrower archetypes of those races. The fighter/magician elf is probably the most famous being drawn (it seems) from Elric. The gnome illusionist/thief is supposed to play up to their "trickster" reputation, but these go back primarily to "class as race" in OD&D, where the race itself was an archetype.

[Yuki Akuma]

Oh, right, Gnomes multiclass as Illusionists, not Mages. Forgot that.

[Fax Celestis]

That is certainly one way of looking at classes, and it is the D20 norm. In AD&D, though, a class is more significant than that and does indeed define the character and most of his future mechanical development.

And why, in a game about imagination and creativity at its very fundament, is a restriction as apparently arbitrary as this a good thing?

[Matthew]

And why, in a game about imagination and creativity at its very fundament, is a restriction as apparently arbitrary as this a good thing?

Simplicity of play? It depends on what you and your group want out of the game. I generally have fairly casual gamers in my group who just are not interested in the nuts and bolts of creating and developing a character mechanically (even if they enjoy developing a personality). If we want to play a pick up module it is very quick to put together a party of characters of the appropriate level. Another possible (and debatable) "good" is that it takes the focus away from "building" and puts it on "playing". However, we can start other threads for that sort of discussion (or just read the old ones again), in C&C there are no multi classing rules at all (though I think some OGL ones for the Yggsburgh campaign setting were eventually released, and I know it gets debated in the forums and Crusader magazine), so Mike can either introduce them (which I do not advise for various reasons) or he can try using adjuncts, which i think will be a better option for that system.

[Tequila Sunrise]

Who gives a damn if you're less of a Fighter? Classes are an abstraction. No one goes around saying "Yeah, I'm a Fighter. That guy's a Fighter/Rogue."
To play devil's advocate: I have a friend who's invited me to play in her bf's campaign. I declined because it's an online game, but let's say I accepted the invitation.

This friend is a casual player with little-to-no opti-fu. She thinks that paladins have to be LG to compensate for being awesome; she doesn't know that taking more than two fighter levels is questionable; she likes playing arcanists but she doesn't know basic tricks/loopholes like Rope Trick; she thinks that casting's about blasting. You get the idea.

Let's say that she's playing a tenth level fighter because she wants to be good at fighting. When I join the game I decide I want to fight too, but I know opti-fu so I whip up a fighter 2/rogue 8. And then I easily outshine her character with my SA and other tricks, which naturally ticks her off.

And why shouldn't she be ticked off? It's only natural to expect that the class called "fighter" should fight better than a mish-mash of classes. Sure, I can explain to her that classes are just abstractions, but that just leaves her asking "If classes are just abstractions, why have them at all? If the Fighter isn't the best fighter, why doesn't the book say so?" And then I'd have to explain system mastery, lack of play testing and the power of sacred cows to her.

But I think you see my point: The idea that classes are just abstractions is a very liberating idea once one knows and accepts it, but at the same time it's a dishonest idea.

[Zovc]

*snip*

A very insightful post, Tequila Sunrise!

[Terazul]

But I think you see my point: The idea that classes are just abstractions is a very liberating idea once one knows and accepts it, but at the same time it's a dishonest idea.

Uhh. So instead of helping her out in this example, you just went ahead making a build you know full well would eclipse her. That's not an example of optimization being bad, or using other means to fulfill an archetype being bad, that's just general showing her up intentionally to possibly prove a point.

Just because you're (and I'm, and other people are) good at optimization, doesn't mean you (or I, or other people, we) have to be a jerk about it. Which is what alot of people think; That just because you enjoy the ideas or practices of optimization, that we pursue them without regard of other's enjoyment. And yeah, some people do, but that's not everyone, and furthermore that's not a problem with optimization or archetypes, that's a problem with people.

Like if I was joining a game where I knew some guy was playing a Monk because he wanted to be cool punching stuff, deliberately going out of my way to make an Unarmed Swordsage or Tashalatora Psychic Warrior to do everything he does except better, doesn't show the folly of optimization. That's me intentionally ruining his happy-fun-time day, when I could play any number of other things. We don't have to run full-stop all the time, people.

[Gruffard]

The above reason is one of the reasons I like 4E, not that I hate 3.x, But for the last few years most of the groups I been in has one or more new players and 4E is better at keeping all the 10th level guys about the same power, and with the new stuff out for 4E, I can still add stuff for fun and optimization reasons, but not have to worry about outstripping the other players be leaps and bounds.

[Yuki Akuma]

Uhh. So instead of helping her out in this example, you just went ahead making a build you know full well would eclipse her. That's not an example of optimization being bad, or using other means to fulfill an archetype being bad, that's just general showing her up intentionally to possibly prove a point.

Just because you're (and I'm, and other people are) good at optimization, doesn't mean you (or I, or other people, we) have to be a jerk about it. Which is what alot of people think; That just because you enjoy the ideas or practices of optimization, that we pursue them without regard of other's enjoyment. And yeah, some people do, but that's not everyone, and furthermore that's not a problem with optimization or archetypes, that's a problem with people.

This did not actually happen. This was a hypothetical situation put forth in order to prove a point.

And that point is that, while classes in D&D are abstractions rather than archetypes, the game goes out of its way to hide this fact from you. This is not good game design.

[Terazul]

This did not actually happen. This was a hypothetical situation put forth in order to prove a point.

And that point is that, while classes in D&D are abstractions rather than archetypes, the game goes out of its way to hide this fact from you. This is not good game design.

Yeah, I got that. And reading over it again, I can understand where it's coming from. But I don't wholly feel it's the system being "dishonest", but maybe that's because I'm good with 'opti-fu', and thus when looking at a system don't take most things at face value, or something. Hard to explain. In any case, I'm willing to agree to disagree. Or something.

About the game hiding it from you. Not about DnD/3.5/whatever being designed well. No way I'm going to try and argue in favor of that.

[DragoonWraith]

This did not actually happen. This was a hypothetical situation put forth in order to prove a point.

And that point is that, while classes in D&D are abstractions rather than archetypes, the game goes out of its way to hide this fact from you. This is not good game design.
On this, I don't think anyone would disagree. 3.5 is not well designed. However, the multiclassing system did turn out, albeit apparently unintentionally, to be something approaching beauty.

[Soras Teva Gee]

Uhh. So instead of helping her out in this example, you just went ahead making a build you know full well would eclipse her. That's not an example of optimization being bad, or using other means to fulfill an archetype being bad, that's just general showing her up intentionally to possibly prove a point.

Just because you're (and I'm, and other people are) good at optimization, doesn't mean you (or I, or other people, we) have to be a jerk about it. Which is what alot of people think; That just because you enjoy the ideas or practices of optimization, that we pursue them without regard of other's enjoyment. And yeah, some people do, but that's not everyone, and furthermore that's not a problem with optimization or archetypes, that's a problem with people.

Like if I was joining a game where I knew some guy was playing a Monk because he wanted to be cool punching stuff, deliberately going out of my way to make an Unarmed Swordsage or Tashalatora Psychic Warrior to do everything he does except better, doesn't show the folly of optimization. That's me intentionally ruining his happy-fun-time day, when I could play any number of other things. We don't have to run full-stop all the time, people.

Yet their are jerks and that they shouldn't do something doesn't mean they can't and are arguably within their rights to do. (I've had almost that situation happen by accident to, great stats plus rudimentary knowledge had my first campaign pure Rogue the prime melee guy and all around party superman. And the fighter didn't catch up until he got a +2 flaming sword and I was on only one magic weapon with a TWF build)

Ultimately though it's besides the point. It doesn't answer why shouldn't the Fighter be at least good-tier and be at least hard to beat in their specialty of tanking melee. If it was a better class by the numbers we probably wouldn't have a need to get into view classes as abstracts.

Most of the "fixes" I've seen for that underlying problem are recommendations to take ToB material instead. Which is an modifying the archetype of the fighter in pretty meaningful ways to attempt to make them quadratic like casters.

[Frosty]

I wrote "best at being that class", not "most powerful". You are misunderstanding my meaning.


Could be; replying to multiple posts can get confusing, I will take another look at the context. [edit] That does seem to be the thrust of things, that if you create a class to be the best at being that class then it makes sense to take that class from level 1-20 if you want to be best at being that class. In reality there are potentially many better ways to serve the function of a given class, but that is not necessarily the same purpose.
In newer editions, the phrase, "best at being that class" makes no sense whatsoever, because what's important is the role a character fills. In the game world, there IS no concept of class. NPCs will look at your charcter and judge your character based on apparent abilities, Maybe it wasn't that way in ADnD, and I guess if you like that then you'd best use that system.

The OP might feel that 'class' is inherently worth something, and if he does, then he should just work with eveyr single one of his players to homebrew a progression from 1-20 of the player's character concepts. It's what I'd do...or move to a classless system. Either way works.

[DragoonWraith]

Most of the "fixes" I've seen for that underlying problem are recommendations to take ToB material instead. Which is an modifying the archetype of the fighter in pretty meaningful ways to attempt to make them quadratic like casters.
How?! It's almost exactly the same damn thing. Ignore the tripe about being glory-hounds, and the Warblade is in every way exactly what the Fighter tried, and failed, to be.

I feel like a lot of the people who complain about optimization are really just upset that the Fighter class was so poorly designed, but complain about optimizers pointing this out rather than accept a fix to the situation.

I'm not saying everyone who has problems with optimization does this, or even that Soras here does, it's just an observation I've seen from several threads like this.

[Matthew]

In newer editions, the phrase, "best at being that class" makes no sense whatsoever, because what's important is the role a character fills. In the game world, there IS no concept of class. NPCs will look at your character and judge your character based on apparent abilities, Maybe it wasn't that way in ADnD, and I guess if you like that then you'd best use that system.

Right, in previous editions the niches or roles (or whatever) were largely the classes. You would not necessarily be called a "fighter" in the game world as a reference to the class, but the phrase "fighting-man" described both role in the game world and class to which the character belonged, same for magic-user, and to a lesser degree thief and cleric as well. Subclasses tend to be narrower versions of the parent class, and so are often even more meaningfully described by their class name. Within those larger archetypes you might have narrower descriptors of the character, but the class remains a signifier of function. This is particularly useful for speedy generation of NPCs, which is what the level titles originally referred to (apparently).

[Hyooz]

We could always look at Perseus for our example of a classic hero that relied heavily on tons of magical items to succeed.

[Frosty]

Right, in previous editions the niches or roles (or whatever) were largely the classes. You would not necessarily be called a "fighter" in the game world as a reference to the class, but the phrase "fighting-man" described both role in the game world and class to which the character belonged, same for magic-user, and to a lesser degree thief and cleric as well. Subclasses tend to be narrower versions of the parent class, and so are often even more meaningfully described by their class name. Within those larger archetypes you might have narrower descriptors of the character, but the class remains a signifier of function. This is particularly useful for speedy generation of NPCs, which is what the level titles originally referred to (apparently).
I would not want to play in such a system, unfortunately, except maybe in a computer game (I enjoyed Baldur's Gate). For me, I can create 3.5 characters fairly quickly. but then, I'm not new to the game.

[Matthew]

I would not want to play in such a system, unfortunately, except maybe in a computer game (I enjoyed Baldur's Gate). For me, I can create 3.5 characters fairly quickly. but then, I'm not new to the game.

As with most things, it is not for everyone (or at all times), which is why I suppose we are lucky to have different versions. :smallbiggrin:

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

It's a bit belated, now, but seeing the mention of Beowulf, my take on Beowulf by d20 rules was that he was a melee class of some sort who rolled a natural twenty on every single roll he ever made. Ever.

[SuperPanda]

Thanks for the reply on the Minsc thing, I was away when you did it by the way.

Still, for me the point fits just fine that Classes are a bad model of what they were trying to make. Either the class should be general enough that it fits the archetypes you want to fit in it and other options are available for fine tuning... or ... why have classes at all?


For me the big Aesthetic issues with "Op-fu" and the DnD class system in general is the fluff surrounding the classes.

Paladin is a description and a caste. The best, most noble, most virtuous warriors of the age might be Paladins, and the powers of goodness might grant them similar abilities... but why have a Paladin class when the War Cleric is better than the Paladin at being a Paladin in virtually all respects and isn't held to the code of conduct expected of one?

I can think of no good reason why a Monk1/rogue1/Swashbuckler1 would have a +0 BAB and a +6 base Reflex save. It makes no logical sense why a person of notable skill (level 3 with level 4 being Elite amongst mortals) who has trained for all their life and spent a good part of their professional years fighting would be no better at landing a hit than a commoner using a wooden stick. I also don't see how they should be better at dodging than Monk 3, Rogue 3, or Swashbuckler 3.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Clarifying some points from a few pages back:


When discussing the levels of, say, Heracles, it would be a good idea to discuss the levels of the mooks he fought as well. A lot of you are saying things like, "Heracles could easily trash 25 Level 1 warriors, any Level 6 Fighter could do that!"

True. But who said that those 25 Persians WERE Level 1 warriors? There is a lot of assumption that these Level 1 warriors are just that, pretty much fresh and green and recently trained. In reality, a lot of warriors found would be a mix of green, experienced, veteran, and elite (where someone who is elite is Level 4).

The point of the discussion was not to say "Herakles must have been level X because of Y and Z" but rather show how he could be statted in a low-level environment to counter the talk about how high-level martial types should be awesome because mythical heroes and similar were obviously high level. The scenario you've given is an example precisely the problem at hand. You are arbitrarily claiming that elite = level 4, without examining other alternatives.

Let's say someone is claiming Herakles must have been level 8, because he fought bunches of Persians who must have been level 4, or the other way around, that because those Persians were elite and elite = level 4, Herakles must have been level 8. The idea is to adjust your expectations downward. Level 1 doesn't mean newb and level 4 doesn't mean elite, they're all relative. It's just as reasonable to say that the green guys are Warrior 1s, the veterans are Fighter 1s or 2s, and the elites are Warblade 1s or 2s. In that case, a level 4-6 Herakles makes sense, so the claim that he must have been level 8 or must have been high-level in general is shown to be false. Does it mean he couldn't be mid- to high-level? Not at all, simply that the intuitive claim that badass heroes must be at a high level isn't always true.

See where I'm getting at with this?


D&D IS high magic. Even 1e had Deities & Demigods - there were things out there that were very powerful, and there were munchkins who bragged about "killing Zeus" with their characters. Something no character in mythology ever did - I think the closest we have in popular culture is Kratos.

I think part of this is the game tendency to appeal to the ego. "Want to play someone stronger than ever Heracles? Play D&D! Now load up your character with a belt of giant's strength, and half-dragon template, and..."

I don't recall anyone debating whether D&D is high magic or high power, but rather whether it is high fantasy. High magic simply means you have very powerful or very common magic, and high power is the epic/D&DG stuff, while high fantasy is more than just magic level and usually involves both high commonality and high power where magic is concerned. LotR, for instance, could be classed as high-magic but low-fantasy because you have really powerful artifacts and really powerful wizards, but the artifacts are rare and hidden, and there are only a handful of wizards and most of their powers are subtle. D&D is high-magic at most levels and high-power when you hit epic levels (or Immortal tier in BECMI), while it's only really high-fantasy at mid-to-high levels.


Someone mentioned that finding Glamdring and Orchrist was a bit contrived because they were orcbane weapons, yet found in a lair of orcs. Incorrect. First of all, they were found the troll's lair, not where the orcs/goblins lived, under the Misty Mountains. While there seems to be some similarity between orcs and goblins, trolls are definitely a separate species.

Furthermore, they were not contrived, as their finding was reasonable (the trolls had a den where they hide from the sun, the same sun that destroyed them). It was even a minor plot point that Gandalf asked Elrond how the trolls came by them, and as Elrond explained, the swords were taken by plunderers, and then the trolls plundered the plunderers.

Actually, I said their discovery could have been precipitated on OOC events if LotR were a campaign, to debate the point that players simply asking for items or getting the ones they want wasn't good fantasy and that the LotR characters didn't simply go out and grab their magic items on a whim, not that their discovery was contrived IC. My point was that even if a player outright asked the DM for an orcbane weapon, there's no reason you couldn't put one into the story in exactly the manner you just specified, with the well-thought-out placement and reasonable explanation.

[Mike_G]

Wow.

I go to work for a day and this things takes on a life of its own.

Mostly, this was me venting steam at the tone of optimization advice on this forum. Where the advice for building a Fighter involves an oddball race, some flaws, a weapon that makes soldiers and physicists cry and dips into seven or eight classes. Or sneering advice to "just play a Cleric." (Well pre-ToB. Now it's "Play a Warblade")

All the mechanically "optimal" choices seem at odds with classic fantasy stories, and oddly, real world combat. I may be 20 years older and fatter than when I went to boot camp, but I'd gladly go sword and board against anyone on the planet who agreed to using a length of spiked chain.

There has been a lot of decent advice, and a few ideas that sound worth trying.

I do want to reiterate that I have an affection for D&D, having played it for ever, that I don't like a lot of the baggage of other systems, and that D&D played "wrong" can accommodate low -op, low magic dependency play that actually feels like a Fritz Leiber story.

And everyone stop characterizing Matthew as a crabby old man. He is inexplicably fond of the hideous mess that was the AD&D rules, but he tends to be one of the people on this forum most likely to actually try to see the other person's point and discuss it in context with some hint of politeness.

I also miss the aesthetics of civilized debate

[Mystic Muse]

All the mechanically "optimal" choices seem at odds with classic fantasy stories, and oddly, real world combat. I may be 20 years older and fatter than when I went to boot camp, but I'd gladly go sword and board against anyone on the planet who agreed to using a length of spiked chain.

D&D 3.5 does not replicate realism well at all. I could go into detail if you really wanted me to but I doubt you care. There are a bunch of reasons why the optimal choices are at odds with classic fantasy stories.



I do want to reiterate that I have an affection for D&D, having played it for ever, that I don't like a lot of the baggage of other systems, and that D&D played "wrong" can accommodate low -op, low magic dependency play that actually feels like a Fritz Leiber story.
The only "wrong" way to play D&D is to be a jerk player or a jerk DM.



I also miss the aesthetics of civilized debate
Wait.....How can you miss something that never existed?:smalltongue:

[Mike_G]

D&D 3.5 does not replicate realism well at all. I could go into detail if you really wanted me to but I doubt you care. There are a bunch of reasons why the optimal choices are at odds with classic fantasy stories.


Which makes no freaking sense, but, whatever. I don't even mind the silly choices, so long as they weren't so much better mechanically than the reasonable choices. Two Bladed swords are stupid, but since they are just a feat intensive way to get TWF, I don't have to hear about them all that much.



The only "wrong" way to play D&D is to be a jerk player or a jerk DM.


Except anybody who dares to advocate shutting down the MagicMart, or nerfing silly choices is called a "jerk DM."

I think that's my biggest pet peeve.



Wait.....How can you miss something that never existed?:smalltongue:

You must have been born after the internet was invented.

When one had to debate in choking range of one other, people tended to be more polite.

[Yuki Akuma]

I don't think I've ever played in a game with a "magic mart".

Commissioning crafters to make you a custom magic item? Sure. But, well, that makes sense. :smalltongue:

[Mystic Muse]

Which makes no freaking sense, but, whatever. I don't even mind the silly choices, so long as they weren't so much better mechanically than the reasonable choices. Two Balded swords are stupid, but since they are just a feat intensive way to get TWF, I don't have to hear about them all that much.


Why doesn't this make sense? I'd like a better understanding of what you're thinking before I make any form of rebuttal.



Except anybody who dares to advocate shutting down the MagicMart, or nerfing silly choices is called a "jerk DM."

The Magicmart is a consequence of the system like others have said. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "Silly choices" so I'll leave that alone.

EDIT: Zore said it much better than I could.

[Yrcrazypa]

I have one little nitpick. Orcs and goblins are the same thing. Goblin was the hobbit word for orc. Unless I'm mistaken, since I haven't read the Silmarillion, or any of the other history books of Middle-Earth, but I know I've heard that somewhere.

[Zore]

Except anybody who dares to advocate shutting down the MagicMart, or nerfing silly choices is called a "jerk DM."

I think that's my biggest pet peeve.


I think you are missing something here that a few people have tried to explain. You shut down the Magic Mart, you better adjust your encounters so your players can handle them. A lot of times these so called 'Jerk-DMs', especially the stories on the forums, play at a level where Fighters are useless without magical items and the person playing the Fighter is not having fun because hes become completely incompetent. Likewise, suggesting removing magical items in high level play absolutely mathematically screws over martial types more than casters. Worse is when the party is continually thrown at what would be beatable encounters, if they had appropriate equipment.

[Mike_G]

I think you are missing something here that a few people have tried to explain. You shut down the Magic Mart, you better adjust your encounters so your players can handle them. A lot of times these so called 'Jerk-DMs', especially the stories on the forums, play at a level where Fighters are useless without magical items and the person playing the Fighter is not having fun because hes become completely incompetent. Likewise, suggesting removing magical items in high level play absolutely mathematically screws over martial types more than casters. Worse is when the party is continually thrown at what would be beatable encounters, if they had appropriate equipment.

I've always said that a DM's job is to tailor the adventure to his players.
I've DMed a party of a Monk, a Fighter, a Swordsage and a Barabarian.
Needless to say, the lack of any caster at all made me rethink my encounters.

And I have never said remove all magic items. Just that the assumption in any given build that you will naturally have unfettered access to Tomes, etc. is a level of entitlement that pisses me off.

Sure, you should make sure the party tank has a magic weapon before you send an enemy at him who is immune to nonmagical weapons. That doesn't mean he's going to be guaranteed access to an animated shield, a Tome of Strength, and Adamantine Full Plate of Greater Fortification just because it's within the WBL guidelines.

[Mike_G]

Why doesn't this make sense? I'd like a better understanding of what you're thinking before I make any form of rebuttal.




It doesn't make sense that a Spiked Chain is a better weapon than a longsword. It makes no sense that a shield is just a trivial bonus to AC, instead of something so useful that most warriors throughout nearly all cultures carried them for a few thousand years.

It makes no sense that D&D saw fit to make good, proven choices suboptimal, while rewarding unwieldy, unworkable choices.

[Mystic Muse]

It doesn't make sense that a Spiked Chain is a better weapon than a longsword. It makes no sense that a shield is just a trivial bonus to AC, instead of something so useful that most warriors throughout nearly all cultures carried them for a few thousand years.

It makes no sense that D&D saw fit to make good, proven choices suboptimal, while rewarding unwieldy, unworkable choices.

Given that D&D 3.5 does not replicate real life well at all, yes it does make sense.

If you're going to complain about realism then most of the time you get hit it's an SOD, only about 3 or 5 different creature types are left and magic doesn't exist at all. If magic does exist then all blasting spells are SODs. If those creatures do exist then the game is no longer realistic. Oh, and nobody would ever reach past level 5.

Short of having Realistic characters (Meaning relistic motivations and such), D&D 3.5 does not replicate the real world well at all. 3.5 works off of rule of cool. Not realism. If you want to make houserules that's fine. However, since Almost nothing in D&D is realistic I don't blame them for not making the weapons realistic either.

[Skaven]

It's a bit belated, now, but seeing the mention of Beowulf, my take on Beowulf by d20 rules was that he was a melee class of some sort who rolled a natural twenty on every single roll he ever made. Ever.

Beowolf was one of those players who covered his rolls and always said he made a passing roll.

Only, his player was 6' 6", had barrels for biceps and his DM was running his character in return for immunity to his lunch money getting taken.

Either that, of the player was the DM's girlfriend.

She totally rolled all 18's.

[Zore]

I've always said that a DM's job is to tailor the adventure to his players.
I've DMed a party of a Monk, a Fighter, a Swordsage and a Barabarian.
Needless to say, the lack of any caster at all made me rethink my encounters.

And I have never said remove all magic items. Just that the assumption in any given build that you will naturally have unfettered access to Tomes, etc. is a level of entitlement that pisses me off.

Sure, you should make sure the party tank has a magic weapon before you send an enemy at him who is immune to nonmagical weapons. That doesn't mean he's going to be guaranteed access to an animated shield, a Tome of Strength, and Adamantine Full Plate of Greater Fortification just because it's within the WBL guidelines.

The problem is that this isn't some wave of player entitlement. The entire game was built around those assumptions. And if your player is high enough in level for that stuff to be within WBL, and he has a magical weapon only? What are they fighting? Because that level assunes your fighting dragones and demons that would shred that setup in seconds.

[Salbazier]

A lot of thing in DnD doesn't make sense, but I'm glad for it. There's a lot things in fiction that makes no sense whatsoever but really col. If DnD make sense, I would not be able to build a character that simulate those things.

[DragoonWraith]

It doesn't make sense that a Spiked Chain is a better weapon than a longsword. It makes no sense that a shield is just a trivial bonus to AC, instead of something so useful that most warriors throughout nearly all cultures carried them for a few thousand years.

It makes no sense that D&D saw fit to make good, proven choices suboptimal, while rewarding unwieldy, unworkable choices.
For a lot of this, they did not "see fit" to do this - it was a mistake.

Sword & Board was supposed to be a good option. The designers just overvalued AC, and undervalued the damage multiplier that 2h swords gives you.

The Spiked Chain, well, that costs a feat. Mechanically, it has to be better. Realistically, it has to cost a feat, because of the training that would be involved in using such a thing. Etc.


There's no inherent reason why S&B cannot work in 3.5. It's just that, through the entire publication history of the edition, no one ever actually made it good. There are quite a few homebrewers here that could probably come up with a way for S&B to be quite good, in fact.

[Kaiser Omnik]

When people ask for optimization advice for D&D 3.x or 4E, they get optimization advice suited for that system. You don't like it, fine; but you don't need optimization advice if all you want is create a cool, classic, if not especially optimized, character, now do you? Or if you do need suggestions to how to achieve this, just specify it when you make a thread. I really don't see the problem.

The OP may have some interesting points, but that is ultimately a question of personal taste. However, the hints that "all was better back then, even discussions" are not so needed. What do I care? Every generation belives it had it better, anyway. Those are just tired arguments.

Everyone has their prefered playstyle, and none is better than another. This board (at least, in the spirit of its rules) recognizes that.

EDIT: Also, players who feel entitled to certain things are a completely different business. I understand your point on that matter. I feel the same way about players who play casters and feel like they are entitled to a hundred spells and a solid gameplay at high level, when martial characters are left as nothing more than meatshields who swing a sword once in a while, simply because that's how it should be in their mind. Which is the case for many old-school D&D players I have encountered. Not generalizing here, just saying that it doesn't necessarily have to do with the last editions, even if the WBL is included in the core rules.

[Scorpina]

When people ask for optimization advice for D&D 3.x or 4E, they get optimization advice suited for that system. You don't like it, fine; but you don't need optimization advice if all you want is create a cool, classic, if not especially optimized, character, now do you? Or if you do need suggestions to how to achieve this, just specify it when you make a thread. I really don't see the problem.

I think the problem is the tendancy for people to reply to a thread where someone is asking for help building a Fighter to suggest they play a Warblade, for exampe. I could be wrong, though.

[Mystic Muse]

I think the problem is the tendancy for people to reply to a thread where someone is asking for help building a Fighter to suggest they play a Warblade, for exampe. I could be wrong, though.

Well, in this case they're generally trying to help. Warblade is just plain better than the fighter and so if the OP hasn't specifically excluded Warblade from their list of options there's good reason to bring it up.

[Kaiser Omnik]

I think the problem is the tendancy for people to reply to a thread where someone is asking for help building a Fighter to suggest they play a Warblade, for exampe. I could be wrong, though.

Yeah, those can be annoying. I see two different reasons for doing so, and two different ways of saying it:

1) People who think fighters all suck because they are unoptimized and thus shouldn't be played - at all. That's not a problem - it's their opinion after all - until they try to force it on others. "You're stupid if you play a fighter!" That's simply wrong, and someone who tells you something to that effect is simply an ass.

2) People who think fighters suck, or at least are underpowered, and thus warn you that a warblade might be a better choice, because let's face it, someone playing a fighter in a group consisting of a wizard, a cleric and a druid may feel annoyed by his character's relatively low contribution to the group. The important thing here is that the poster respects the wishes of the person who asked for advice. Something like "A warblade is a good substitute for a fighter, and you will contribute more to your party that way. However, if you still prefer fighter, here are some tips..." is perfectly acceptable in my mind.

I agree that not everyone on these boards is in category 2, but many optimizers are.

[Matthew]

I agree that not everyone on these boards is in category 2, but many optimizers are.

It also varies by post; after answering a similar question for the tenth time people tend to get a little short about it, and then there are also different grades of politeness between those two examples. Some posters just do not even read the preceding (sometimes even the original) post and reply without taking into account what was said. There was a recent thread tagged "[AD&D]" here and somebody still managed to make a post as though D20 were the subject. Worst of all, perhaps, is that it only takes one person behaving poorly to send the thread off on a spiral or characterise it as "one of those threads". Most of the time, you just have to suck it up, which may result in somebody eventually feeling the need to rant. :smallbiggrin:

[Fax Celestis]

It doesn't make sense that a Spiked Chain is a better weapon than a longsword. It makes no sense that a shield is just a trivial bonus to AC, instead of something so useful that most warriors throughout nearly all cultures carried them for a few thousand years.

It makes no sense that D&D saw fit to make good, proven choices suboptimal, while rewarding unwieldy, unworkable choices.

These are system errors, not player errors--and is, at it's fundament, why I'm doing d20r.

[Snake-Aes]

Treatise on double swords!
http://www.errantstory.com/comics/2007-05-02.jpg
http://www.errantstory.com/comics/2007-05-04.jpg
Courtesy of Errant Story (http://www.errantstory.com).

[Gametime]

I have one little nitpick. Orcs and goblins are the same thing. Goblin was the hobbit word for orc. Unless I'm mistaken, since I haven't read the Silmarillion, or any of the other history books of Middle-Earth, but I know I've heard that somewhere.

Goblins and orcs were basically ret-conned to be the same thing. The Hobbit was written after Tolkien had already started outlining the world of The Silmarillion, and they weren't intended to be the same setting. It was after he started writing the Lord of the Rings books that it occurred to him, hence the ret-con of Bilbo's encounter with Gollum and the throwaway line about "goblins" being small orcs that live under the mountains.

[Frosty]

I think Sword and Board does just FINE...for level 1, if we want to say that people in the real world are level 1.

See, in the real world, one solid longsword crunch on your clavicle, and you're probably out of the fight (and a longsword is a BLUDGEONING weapon, not a slashing one back in medieval times). At level 1, with everybody usually between 4 and 12 HP, one solid hit from a weapon will do you in, so avoiding that first hit is CRUCIAL. A large steel shield with a +2 AC makes a significant different at level 1, and you really are much less likely to be hit.

In a world where one hit KOs, having a shield is pretty smart. In DnD 3.5 beyond level 1, one hit doesn't even inconvenience you until you've reached 0 HP. That's the problem.

Granted, I personally think shields should grant miss chances instead of AC, but that's just me.

[Umael]

Goblins and orcs were basically ret-conned to be the same thing. The Hobbit was written after Tolkien had already started outlining the world of The Silmarillion, and they weren't intended to be the same setting. It was after he started writing the Lord of the Rings books that it occurred to him, hence the ret-con of Bilbo's encounter with Gollum and the throwaway line about "goblins" being small orcs that live under the mountains.

Makes sense.

I basically looked at goblins and orcs as how we might look at the difference between, say, Italian and Japanese. Different eye color, different facial structure... but nothing really major. Still human, just a different collection of genetics.

Of course, you never see or hear about female orcs or goblins, so they are created, or rather, manufactured, not bred, it seems...

[Matthew]

See, in the real world, one solid longsword crunch on your clavicle, and you're probably out of the fight (and a longsword is a BLUDGEONING weapon, not a slashing one back in medieval times).

It surprises me how many people really think this, but it just is not true. Medieval swords (and axes) were plenty sharp, they just weren't razor blade sharp (because that would cause too much damage to the edge), and they certainly were made to cut and slash and chop, and did so effectively. Of course, they cannot usually (I would say ever, but you never know) cut through plate armour, and in that case would indeed deliver mainly blunt trauma, much like an axe under the same circumstances (though an axe will generally deliver a more powerful chop because it has a shorter edge). But if you are chopping at plate armour you do not really want a sword or axe, though the former would stand a better chance of being thrust through gaps in the plate.

[Snake-Aes]

It surprises me how many people really think this, but it just is not true. Medieval (and axes) swords were plenty sharp, they just weren't razor blade sharp (because that would cause too much damage to the edge), and they certainly were made to cut and slash and chop, and did so effectively. Of course, they cannot usually cut through plate armour, and in that case would indeed deliver mainly blunt trauma, much like an axe under the same circumstances.

They were sharp enough to cut and poke through anything if you swing with at least as much force as a punch, and whenever you had to worry with armor, you just hit with the side of the blade for a very painful "PANG".
Often, attacking with swords involved aiming at the softer spots, like the face and crotch.

[Matthew]

They were sharp enough to cut and poke through anything if you swing with at least as much force as a punch, and whenever you had to worry with armour, you just hit with the side of the blade for a very painful "PANG". Often, attacking with swords involved aiming at the softer spots, like the face and crotch.

You actually would not be well advised to strike with the flat of the blade (assuming I am understanding you aright) because the transfer of force would be lessened and (I imagine) that the blow would be slower. Still, yes, they were sharp enough to do their job. Often the lower part of the blade was not sharpened (the ricaso) for various reasons.

[Frosty]

They were sharp enough to cut and poke through anything if you swing with at least as much force as a punch, and whenever you had to worry with armor, you just hit with the side of the blade for a very painful "PANG".
Often, attacking with swords involved aiming at the softer spots, like the face and crotch.

Depends on which country. Some just didn't have very god materials or metalsmiths. I'm in a rennaisance guild and we have a few history and armor and weapons experts. I actually do swordfighting.

[Matthew]

Depends on which country. Some just didn't have very god materials or metalsmiths. I'm in a renaissance guild and we have a few history and armour and weapons experts. I actually do sword fighting.

That is interesting. What countries are you thinking of, and what periods, where long swords were mainly bludgeoning weapons?

[Snake-Aes]

I was thinking 14th century France and England.

[Frosty]

That is interesting. What countries are you thinking of, and what periods, where long swords were mainly bludgeoning weapons?
I'm not the expert in the guild. I just always remember the fact that longswords were most often used a bludgeoning weapons being drilled into me. I hear it so often. I can go and ask again when I have the chance. I will be at sword practice later today. Today we're having a special practice. In honor of one of our member's bday, we're doing a Katana workshop woot! Now Katanas...THOSE are slashing weapons. The relative lack of metal in Japan meant their blades had to be made super well.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

I'm not the expert in the guild. I just always remember the fact that longswords were most often used a bludgeoning weapons being drilled into me. I hear it so often. I can go and ask again when I have the chance. I will be at sword practice later today. Today we're having a special practice. In honor of one of our member's bday, we're doing a Katana workshop woot! Now Katanas...THOSE are slashing weapons. The relative lack of metal in Japan meant their blades had to be made super well.

Everybody PLEASE do not turn this into a katanas vs. longswords thread. We're doing so well thus far, and that would really send us off the rails.

(Not saying that's your intention, just that mentioning katanas and Western swords in the context of their real-world capabilities within several posts of each other usually does that.)

[Mike_G]

The problem is that this isn't some wave of player entitlement. The entire game was built around those assumptions. And if your player is high enough in level for that stuff to be within WBL, and he has a magical weapon only? What are they fighting? Because that level assunes your fighting dragones and demons that would shred that setup in seconds.

I will again restate my point that I do not advocate eliminating any and all magic, or restricting the fighter to "only a magic weapon" and sending Dragons and demons at the party.

I have said only that the PC should not feel entitled to the exact batch of items her read about on the CharOp board.

You get exactly the items the DM gives you, and fight exactly the foes the DM gives you. Since he's the same guy, he should try to see that the one prepares you for the other. I've also said that the idea of questing for an item is a good one, involves player and DM input, and advances the story.

He's not a jerk for giving you access to only the items he has chosen to put in the adventure, or makes you go quest for a pint of demon blood to temper the demonbane sword in.

You wouldn't throw standard CR enemies at a high op, gestalt, double WBL party, why would you assume I'd throw standard CR at a low op, low wealth party?

Either way, the encounter is fun if it's challenging but not impossible. Number inflation is pretty irrelevant.

[Matthew]

I was thinking 14th century France and England.

That is a good transitional period, as swords become less suited to cutting and more suited to thrusting during that period.



I'm not the expert in the guild. I just always remember the fact that longswords were most often used a bludgeoning weapons being drilled into me. I hear it so often. I can go and ask again when I have the chance. I will be at sword practice later today. Today we're having a special practice. In honor of one of our member's bday, we're doing a Katana workshop woot! Now Katanas...THOSE are slashing weapons. The relative lack of metal in Japan meant their blades had to be made super well.

Yikes! Well, I will leave it to others to deal with this. In your position I would be highly interested in establishing your fellow guild members' credentials as sword experts. Maybe ask them what they think of ARMA (http://www.thearma.org/) or something.

[Frosty]

That is a good transitional period, as swords become less suited to cutting and more suited to thrusting during that period.


Yikes! Well, I will leave it to others to deal with this. In your position I would be highly interested in establishing your fellow guild members' credentials as sword experts.

Well, they've got more books on armor and weaponry than I have gaming books...they were long time members of the SCA (Society for Creative Anacrhonisms), and they were members of the armed forces (one of them was a US Marine who went through a few wars, and participated in Desert Storm. He KNOWS about weaponry. He even stopped a tank with a katana once).

[PersonMan]

Depends on which country. Some just didn't have very god materials or metalsmiths. I'm in a rennaisance guild and we have a few history and armor and weapons experts. I actually do swordfighting.

Well, I'm pretty certain that we would know right now if a certain country had deific materials or metalsmiths! :smallwink:

[DragoonWraith]

You wouldn't throw standard CR enemies at a high op, gestalt, double WBL party, why would you assume I'd throw standard CR at a low op, low wealth party?
If you are specifically running a low-wealth campaign, with your players informed of this ahead of time and on board with it, there is absolutely no problem, of course. However, this is a houseruled campaign that works differently from how 3.5 was designed to be run, which is completely acceptable, but also not what we expect when we offer advice on a character build, unless they mention that it is a low-wealth campaign.

And a DM who mentions nothing about houserules to the way wealth works, but dramatically reduces WBL (and if they have 135,000 gp and nothing to spend it on, that 135,000 gp does not really count towards WBL) without warning, that's a jerk move on the DM's part.

[Frosty]

Well, I'm pretty certain that we would know right now if a certain country had deific materials or metalsmiths! :smallwink:

Only the greeks had that luxury... :smallamused:

[Umael]

Clarifying some points from a few pages back:

The point of the discussion was not to say "Herakles must have been level X because of Y and Z" but rather show how he could be statted in a low-level environment to counter the talk about how high-level martial types should be awesome because mythical heroes and similar were obviously high level. The scenario you've given is an example precisely the problem at hand. You are arbitrarily claiming that elite = level 4, without examining other alternatives.

Correction - I am not arbitrarily claiming that elite = level 4, but rather suggesting it based on an article that I did not cite.

Basically, the article pointed out that the way the skills use show that most everyone in the real world would have been only levels 1-4, with a few exceptions. Einstein, for example, would have been just Expert 5 (Intelligence 20, max skill ranks in Physics, Skill Focus (Physics), add in a bonus for a lab). The same article pointed out that most of the mechanics of the system (skills, encumbrance, etc.) were actually very reasonable.

Furthermore, I did not claim that the Persians WERE level 4, just that I suggested the elite (be is Greek, Persian, or anyone) as level 4. This would raise the average Persian opponent from a 1st level mook to probably a 2nd or a 3rd. Since your argument was -

that the intuitive claim that badass heroes must be at a high level isn't always true.
-my counter-argument should be read as -

it is more likely that the NPCs are low level, a mix of 1st through 4th.

(If you want to fault me for something, fault me for not citing that article.)



I don't recall anyone debating whether D&D is high magic or high power, but rather whether it is high fantasy.

Okay, I see your terms.

Fair enough. D&D is high fantasy.



Actually, I said their discovery could have been precipitated on OOC events if LotR were a campaign,

That's nice. I'm pretty sure my comment wasn't directed at you AND that the person who said it called it "contrived".

*search*

Ah! Here it is!



Which does happen, in 3e. The DM is supposed to be aware of what things the party wants to find, and has them come up. Sometimes it can seem a bit contrived, but a good DM can make it look like very happy coincidence. After all, coming across the Orc-Slayer in a cave full of the very same? That's a bit contrived, too.

This is the quote to which I was referring.

As I pointed out, they DIDN'T come across Beater, Biter, OR Sting in a cave full of orcs, but in a cave that was used by trolls.

Also, given that most of the world has elves, dwarves, humans, hobbits, orcs/goblins, and trolls - an orcbane weapon would be really useful and believable. Hence, not contrived.

[DragoonWraith]

OK, so your point is that J.R.R. Tolkien is a good author, much like the good DM I mentioned earlier, who doesn't make things seem so contrived? I don't think anyone's arguing against that...

[Umael]

But I think you see my point: The idea that classes are just abstractions is a very liberating idea once one knows and accepts it, but at the same time it's a dishonest idea.

The Lies will set you Free!

[Umael]

OK, so your point is that J.R.R. Tolkien is a good author, much like the good DM I mentioned earlier, who doesn't make things seem so contrived? I don't think anyone's arguing against that...

Okay, maybe this is an example of mis-communication - but it sure as all get looked like you called the finding of the elven swords in the Hobbit "contrived".

[Zovc]

You wouldn't throw standard CR enemies at a high op, gestalt, double WBL party, why would you assume I'd throw standard CR at a low op, low wealth party?

Whoa, whoa, whoa!

No.

NO.

Sorry Mike, but you just can't use that to support your case. Normal optimizers aren't automatically using gestalt, and almost never assume to have double WBL. Even if optimizers use gestalt, the gestalt entry in Unearthed Arcana explicitly says not to use "standard CD enemies."

You've lost a significant amount of credibility for even trying that, in my book.

[Matthew]

Well, they've got more books on armor and weaponry than I have gaming books...they were long time members of the SCA (Society for Creative Anachronisms), and they were members of the armed forces (one of them was a US Marine who went through a few wars, and participated in Desert Storm. He KNOWS about weaponry. He even stopped a tank with a katana once).

Uh, huh. My dad is 150' tall.

[jseah]

^Zovc: His point is valid.

The main part of the CO-side of the argument is that too many tactical/strategic options are available to spellcasters/monsters that change the nature of the game. It thus behooves a DM to ensure that his players are properly equipped for the encounter.

Or the other way around, the encounter doesn't require item-based counters that the players don't have.

[PersonMan]

Uh, huh. My dad is 150' tall.

My dad is 200' tall, and could beat up your dad! :smallcool:

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Correction - I am not arbitrarily claiming that elite = level 4, but rather suggesting it based on an article that I did not cite.

Basically, the article pointed out that the way the skills use show that most everyone in the real world would have been only levels 1-4, with a few exceptions. Einstein, for example, would have been just Expert 5 (Intelligence 20, max skill ranks in Physics, Skill Focus (Physics), add in a bonus for a lab). The same article pointed out that most of the mechanics of the system (skills, encumbrance, etc.) were actually very reasonable.

Furthermore, I did not claim that the Persians WERE level 4, just that I suggested the elite (be is Greek, Persian, or anyone) as level 4. This would raise the average Persian opponent from a 1st level mook to probably a 2nd or a 3rd. Since your argument was -

-my counter-argument should be read as -

(If you want to fault me for something, fault me for not citing that article.)

I've read the article as well, and while I agree with the general sentiment that real life = low level, there are some flaws with it; you can search for some of the discussions on it, 'cause they're kind of long to mine for quotes. The summary of the objections is that level 5 as a hard cap only works for some aspects of 3e but not all, and a soft cap of around level 7 or 8 works in other cases.

Regardless, I said it was an arbitrary choice that elite = level 4 because that would imply that those warriors were among the best humankind had to offer, rather than being elite relative to the other warriors and fairly average in the grand scheme of things. Any mooks slaughtered en masse by a hero were not, I'm guessing, some of the world's most amazing warriors, or they'd be called out as such to make the hero look better. You're still making an assumption there that places the hero at a higher level unnecessarily, albeit a better-informed one.


That's nice. I'm pretty sure my comment wasn't directed at you AND that the person who said it called it "contrived".

*search*

Ah! Here it is!

I missed that comment; fair enough.

[tyckspoon]

Sorry Mike, but you just can't use that to support your case. Normal optimizers aren't automatically using gestalt, and almost never assume to have double WBL.

Double is an overestimate, but it's not that much of a stretch to assume an efficient crafter is available to the party (even if only as a cohort), which will probably generate something around 150% wealth, and even something as simple as the GMW/Magic Vestments-instead-of-buying-base-enhancement technique will make the party's effective wealth greater than the WBL charts. I don't think it's out of line to say that a practically optimized party will have greater than assumed wealth.

[Frosty]

Uh, huh. My dad is 150' tall.

You don't have to believe me if you don't want to :smallwink: But if you ever want to come check us out we practice in the Memorial Park in Cupertino, California every Saturday. We're all friendly and you can meet those people.

[Koury]

He even stopped a tank with a katana once.


http://208.116.9.205/10/content/8918/1.jpg

[Matthew]

My dad is 200' tall, and could beat up your dad! :smallcool:

Nuh, uh. Not if my fiancé's dad was there, with his dad's katana. :smallbiggrin:



You don't have to believe me if you don't want to :smallwink: But if you ever want to come check us out we practice in the Memorial Park in Cupertino, California every Saturday. We're all friendly and you can meet those people.

Sure, if I am ever in the neighbourhood it will be on my list of possible activities.

[DragoonWraith]

Okay, maybe this is an example of mis-communication - but it sure as all get looked like you called the finding of the elven swords in the Hobbit "contrived".
My point is that something like that could come off as contrived. It doesn't, at least in my opinion, because J.R.R. Tolkien is a good author. By the same token, a good DM should be able to include the items the party wants without it seeming overly contrived.

[PersonMan]

Nuh, uh. Not if my fiancé's dad was there, with his dad's katana. :smallbiggrin:

Bah. My friend's brother's aunt has a quad-bladed katana. Like an Orc Quadruple Axe, but with katanas. Your fiancé's dad would be so dead. :smallwink:

[Umael]

I've read the article as well, and while I agree with the general sentiment that real life = low level, there are some flaws with it;

I'm not surprised. Okay, without reading the counter-arguments, I'll go ahead and agree to your point (since a hard cap of level 5 versus a soft cap of level 7-8 isn't a big deal to me).


Regardless, I said it was an arbitrary choice that elite = level 4 because that would imply that those warriors were among the best humankind had to offer, rather than being elite relative to the other warriors and fairly average in the grand scheme of things.

Fair enough. If the soft cap is 8th, then the elite could be anywhere from 4th to 6th, easily, and higher or lower conceivable.



Any mooks slaughtered en masse by a hero were not, I'm guessing, some of the world's most amazing warriors, or they'd be called out as such to make the hero look better. You're still making an assumption there that places the hero at a higher level unnecessarily, albeit a better-informed one.

Wait.

If I get what you are saying, this is an argument against saying that the elite are, say, 4th-level Warriors versus 1st or 2nd level Warblades (or even 1st or 2nd level Fighters)?

[Umael]

My point is that something like that could come off as contrived. It doesn't, at least in my opinion, because J.R.R. Tolkien is a good author. By the same token, a good DM should be able to include the items the party wants without it seeming overly contrived.

(I wonder if you made that pun unintentionally...)

In any case, okay, I'm putting this down as mis-communication, because it sure read that you were calling it contrived (which, if it was a mis-communication - *shrug* it happens, no biggie).

Your point as you said in this quote - got no beef with it.

[DragoonWraith]

Well, when I wrote it I thought the cave was full of Orcs, which kind of makes it seem contrived when I thought about it. But I didn't think so when I read it, cuz, ya know, it wasn't a cave of Orcs and Tolkien's good at what he does so I really wasn't thinking about that so much as the story.

But anyway, yes, the pun was unintentional. Groan.

[Serenity]

For what its worth...

I have never seen double weapons of any kind used in an optimized build. Two-bladed swords, dire flails, orc double axes, et al. are, to my understanding, as underpowered as they are silly concepts. I think you also overstate the extent to which optimizers value the spiked chain. Its about the only exotic weapon that is worth the feat, yes, and fairly powerful--but it tends to be used in a handful of specific builds. An optimizer may suggest the fighter use a spiked chain if he wants to be a tripping battlefield controller (which, is not precisely a sword and sorcery archetype in itself). In a vacuum, though, he is just as likely to suggest an uber-charger build, which involves a big two-handed sword or greataxe--both much more iconic fantasy weapons.

It is indeed unfortunate that sword and board and single-handed weaponry have received so little good support considering their iconic place in fantasy.

And the Christmas Tree effect...it's been said before, and I'll reiterate it. Whether you like it or not, the game is designed with an at least semi-functional Magic Mart in mind. Challenges of various levels are designed with the assumption that you have magic items boosting your stats and saves to a certain degree, or that you have ample means to deal certain types of damage or counter various effects and conditions. Certainly, it makes a sense at character creation that the player can define the gear his character has access to as long as it fits under WBL. That's how the rules were written, and its what an optimizer assumes if he has no information to the contrary. Now there's plenty of ways a DM can alter this assumption, and plenty of ways that he can do it without being a jerk. The best, I'd say, would be to homebrew up an inherent progression that gives characters the benefits of the boring 'necessity' magic items, thus allowing each magic item they encounter to be unique and interesting without robbing the players of needed effects. But, as with any other house rule, the DM must make any such changes clear to his players. If he lets his players labor in the dark about how the rules work in his game, than he is being a jerk--and that's where most of the complaints you see on this board spring from.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Fair enough. If the soft cap is 8th, then the elite could be anywhere from 4th to 6th, easily, and higher or lower conceivable.

Wait.

If I get what you are saying, this is an argument against saying that the elite are, say, 4th-level Warriors versus 1st or 2nd level Warblades (or even 1st or 2nd level Fighters)?

Right. It all boils down to the issues of seeing level as the sole indicator of skill and of artificially inflating levels--as the Alexandrian put it, the "Aragorn was 20th level" problem. I've been trying to show that (A) since most heroes didn't do anything superhuman as a result of their skill (as opposed to divine favor, godly strength, etc.) they can be represented at low levels and (B) arbitrarily choosing levels doesn't mean much.

Different classes are better or worse than others, and having different classes/skill sets provides additional granularity over levels. If you're a level 1 warrior, you're the lowest of the low. If you're a level 1 fighter, you're of middling capability. If you're a level 1 warblade, you're pretty darn good for a newbie. However, all of those pale in comparison to a level 3 warrior, which are mediocre next to a level 3 barbarian, which is chump change to a level 5 paladin. The higher level you give to the faceless mooks, the higher level the hero has to be to beat them, whereas simply changing around the classes can give the same differential while fitting heroes into the existing D&D framework. If you interpret "elite warrior" to mean "elite warrior relative to all other warriors everywhere," you get untenable scenarios that lead to Aragorn being high level agian, whereas if you interpret it to mean "elite warrior relative to the guys with him but so-so in general" you get something that can model mythology, which is the whole point of statting them in the first place.

[Mike_G]

Whoa, whoa, whoa!

No.

NO.

Sorry Mike, but you just can't use that to support your case. Normal optimizers aren't automatically using gestalt, and almost never assume to have double WBL. Even if optimizers use gestalt, the gestalt entry in Unearthed Arcana explicitly says not to use "standard CD enemies."

You've lost a significant amount of credibility for even trying that, in my book.


I'm not "trying" anything.

People have said over and over that "with no WBL Magicmart, PC's can't compete with CR appropriate stuff."

To which I say "So what?" If you played a higher powered game such as gestalt, or double WBL, you would have to adjust CR. So, if you play low power, guess what?

You adjust CR.

CR is crap anyway. There are over and underpowered monsters at every level. I base the choice of enemy on its abilities and how they stack up to the party's abilities. The wrong special attack or immunity can screw a party
of the right level for a given CR, so you don't send Shadows against a party with no magic or force effects available, or no way to recover Str drain.


And I do not say my way is right and yours wrong. This is a self declared rant, and I object to the feel that bonus seeking, number crunching character building creates.

[Salbazier]

...He even stopped a tank with a katana once.

What!!? Eh, okay I'll just say I'm not buying that.

[Knaight]

I'm guessing some of these people have odd senses of humor, like to joke around a bit, and both the tank-katana story and the "blunt sword" story fall into the category of jokes taken seriously.

[Kaiyanwang]

What!!? Eh, okay I'll just say I'm not buying that.

You are joking, right? Stop and cut a tank with a katana is trivial.

[Kobold-Bard]

You are joking, right? Stop and cut a tank with a katana is trivial.

Says you. I tried it once and ended up in a secret military prison for 70 years. AND they only had Freeview so I couldn't watch Lost.

[Salbazier]

You are joking, right? Stop and cut a tank with a katana is trivial.

I know, a mothership is the record so far right?


Says you. I tried it once and ended up in a secret military prison for 70 years. AND they only had Freeview so I couldn't watch Lost.

At least they have internet now

[PairO'Dice Lost]

People have said over and over that "with no WBL Magicmart, PC's can't compete with CR appropriate stuff."

To which I say "So what?" If you played a higher powered game such as gestalt, or double WBL, you would have to adjust CR. So, if you play low power, guess what?

You adjust CR.

1) This whole "Magic Mart" thing is a red herring. Your character doesn't need to hit a shop to get his stuff. He could have inherited a magic shield, he could get flying boots as a gift, he could find Sting during his adventure, whatever. There is literally no functional difference between a character in, say, Eberron who walks into a shop and buys a magic sword, one in FR who sits for a week and crafts one himself, and one in Dark Sun who finds an ancient and forgotten relic. You end up with a magic sword of X gp value, and that's all you need.

2) The whole "adjust challenges for different challenges" thing is exactly what everyone's been saying. Every single time it is mentioned that WBL is necessary to face level-appropriate challenges, it is followed up with "unless you change the game to compensate." Of course you can play a low-item low-wealth game if you remove incorporeal baddies and DR X/magic and such. Of course it's just as valid a playstyle. Just don't complain about the Christmas Tree Effect and say Real RPGers can play just fine without items because as written you cannot do that without (A) your characters dying, (B) your martial characters failing challenges at high levels, or (C) you and your players adjusting the game to make low-wealth work, deliberately or otherwise.


CR is crap anyway. There are over and underpowered monsters at every level. I base the choice of enemy on its abilities and how they stack up to the party's abilities. The wrong special attack or immunity can screw a party
of the right level for a given CR, so you don't send Shadows against a party with no magic or force effects available, or no way to recover Str drain.

You'll note that I, at least, and several others have not mentioned CR, but rather appropriate challenges. CR is crap, and we've known that for a while; adjusting to your party is what you have to do. However, a level-appropriate challenge means a level-appropriate challenge by the rules as they stand, which includes the magic sword to overcome DR, the enlarge person item to let grappling stay relevant, the item of flight to deal with flying foes as a melee spec, and everything else--without items, you're not facing level-appropriate challenges, you're facing appropriate challenges for someone of that level with no or low gear, which is going to look different.

[Zovc]

You adjust CR.

CR is crap anyway. There are over and underpowered monsters at every level. I base the choice of enemy on its abilities and how they stack up to the party's abilities. The wrong special attack or immunity can screw a party
of the right level for a given CR, so you don't send Shadows against a party with no magic or force effects available, or no way to recover Str drain.

Oh, sorry, I wasn't using CR because you did, or anything. >.>

My point wasn't that CR worked, so this excerpt is a straw-man, as far as I am concerned.

If you understand that a campaign/encounter's difficulty can be adjusted, I fail to comprehend how you can have a problem with optimization or a lack thereof.

[Mike_G]

If you understand that a campaign/encounter's difficulty can be adjusted, I fail to comprehend how you can have a problem with optimization or a lack thereof.

Wow.

My problem is all subjective, opinionated, taste based, crabby old grognard bitching. I just think a fantasy game which got its early influences from the pulp fantasy stories, should emulate those stories.

I don't like the aesthetic. The feel. The flavor of high-optimization.

I realize I should have, like, put that in the title of the thread or something.

Oh. Wait.

[Matthew]

My problem is all subjective, opinionated, taste based, crabby old grognard bitching. I just think a fantasy game which got its early influences from the pulp fantasy stories, should emulate those stories.

I don't like the aesthetic. The feel.The flavour of high-optimization.

I think that is where we have to remember the whole "the game is still ze same" deal is just not true. Some people like to say "the game has evolved" in the sense of "the game has gotten better", other people say "it has not evolved" by which they mean the changes have not improved the game. In actual fact, though, I would say the game has "evolved", but in the sense that it has become better suited to deal with an environment that has changed. By that I mean that the expectations and fantasy influences of the player base have changed (and not just by means of repeated new influxes of players, people's tastes change as they do, as well as their perspectives on the fantasy they are acquainted with). Where the pulp fantasies once held sway over the imagination now it is stuff I am just not familiar with. When some people say the "rule of cool" with reference to spiked chains, double swords or whatever, I can understand what they mean, but their idea of cool and mine just do not coincide. I know that I may be pointing out what is already obvious to you, but perhaps it is just worth restating it at this point in the thread.

[Mystic Muse]

I just think a fantasy game which got its early influences from the pulp fantasy stories, should emulate those stories.

I don't like the aesthetic. The feel. The flavor of high-optimization.


And others feel differently. I personally enjoy high fantasy and total ridiculousness/Rule of funny/Rule of cool. (All of my backup characters, of which I have too many, Follow these rules)

A game is going to change after a few decades. It's simply inevitable. Some people will like the edition changes others will not. If you don't like the edition changes why can't you just choose a different edition?

The thing you have to accept is that these problems exist in the game because they are built in. You can't change that short of making your own RPG.

[Gametime]

I think that is where we have to remember the whole "the game is still ze same" deal is just not true. Some people like to say "the game has evolved" in the sense of "the game has gotten better", other people say "it has not evolved" by which they mean the changes have not improved the game. In actual fact, though, I would say the game has "evolved", but in the sense that it has become better suited to deal with an environment that has changed. By that I mean that the expectations and fantasy influences of the player base have changed (and not just by means of repeated new influxes of players, people's tastes change as they do, as well as their perspectives on the fantasy they are acquainted with). Where the pulp fantasies once held sway over the imagination now it is stuff I am just not familiar with. When some people say the "rule of cool" with reference to spiked chains, double swords or whatever, I can understand what they mean, but their idea of cool and mine just do not coincide. I know that I may be pointing out what is already obvious to you, but perhaps it is just worth restating it at this point in the thread.

Well put. D&D 3.5 arguably doesn't emulate the sources that inspired much of it. It's possible, as people have pointed out, to make the "classic" fantasy archetypes work - the archer, the sword-n-board, the swashbuckler. To make them work really well, you'll probably have to employ some abstraction, but they can work decently with no trouble.

The spiked chain is radically out of place in the pseudo-medieval default environment of D&D. It might fit in very well with another genre of fantasy, one focused less on historical influences and more on whatever cool stuff you could throw out. In a game trying to emulate the action of, say, Ninja Scroll instead of Lord of the Rings in terms of feel and aesthetics, a spiked chain wouldn't be at all out of place.

[DragoonWraith]

Wow.

My problem is all subjective, opinionated, taste based, crabby old grognard bitching. I just think a fantasy game which got its early influences from the pulp fantasy stories, should emulate those stories.

I don't like the aesthetic. The feel. The flavor of high-optimization.

I realize I should have, like, put that in the title of the thread or something.

Oh. Wait.
But you aren't talking about the aesthetics of "high-optimization", you're talking about the aesthetics of 3.5 as a whole.

Your opinion is completely valid, but for the life of me I cannot understand why you blame optimization for this. Whether you optimize or not, 3.5 is built with the concept of, for example, the christmas tree effect, the fact that characters above 8th level or so are beyond anything ever seen even in classical mythology, the fact that magic is the way things get done. This is all built into the system, and while in a low-optimization setting you might be be able to ignore some of it, optimization is not what has caused these things - Wizards of the Coast did when they designed the edition.

If 3.5 had been designed differently, playing a Conan-esque barbarian, or an Aragorn-like ranger, or ye olde knight in shining armor, could be optimal, and optimizers would be recommending these builds. It is only because 3.5 was designed as it was that optimizers espouse things that you aren't interested in. That you're not interested in them is fine, but don't blame optimization for it. That's just not fair.

[Zovc]

I believe DragoonWraith has represented my opinion more concisely (and probably less abrasively) than I can do so myself.

[Philistine]

Wow.

My problem is all subjective, opinionated, taste based, crabby old grognard bitching. I just think a fantasy game which got its early influences from the pulp fantasy stories, should emulate those stories.
Yes, the earliest editions of D&D drew heavily on Vance, Lieber, Howard, Tolkien and so forth. More recent editions? Not so much. After all, that was more than thirty years ago, and a lot has changed since then. Many (likely most) younger players come to Tolkien via Peter Jackson; as far as they're concerned Conan the Barbarian is and will always be Arnold Schwarzenegger; and they're doing well if they've so much as heard of Lieber and Vance, never mind actually having read them.

The point is that these works no longer hold their former dominant position in the subculture. They haven't done so for decades. It is completely unrealistic to expect new editions of a game to continue to reflect the influence of works which are no longer core reading for the majority of current players.


I don't like the aesthetic. The feel. The flavor of high-optimization.

I realize I should have, like, put that in the title of the thread or something.

Oh. Wait.
As has been repeatedly pointed out, the things you don't like are failings of the system, not the players. You don't like that some absolutely boneheaded weapons are mechanically superior to sword and board fighting? Fair enough - but it isn't optimization that makes it so, it's the design of the game system that makes it so. You don't like the massive item dependence built into 3E? Well, I've yet to hear of anyone, other than a certain notorious Monk fancier, who does - but again it's not optimization that makes characters (especially martial types) totally ineffective when not festooned with a king's ransom in magical gear, it's the design of the game system that does that. You don't like that characters are no longer rigidly locked into extremely narrow (Also tired. Also cliched) niches by an archetype-heavy class system? Oh-kaaaaaay, whatever - but it's still not optimization that's causing the "problem" you're complaining about, it's the design of the game system that creates a situation in which the classic party roles are most effectively filled by classes which (once, long ago) began as expressions of different archetypes from the ones you're used to.

So no, it's clearly not "the aesthetics of optimization" that bother you, because none of the complaints you've made have anything to do with optimization other than tangentially. More accurately, you're bellyaching about the fact that the world in general, and the F/SF-reading/RPG-playing subculture in particular, have not remained static over the past three decades. The world has changed, now it sucks! Well, tough. You know what doesn't change over time? Fossils. And other things long since dead. So you'll please pardon me if I don't weep for the fact that an entertaining hobby hasn't stagnated and died.

You're at least chronologically an adult, and now you know that D&D 3E requires the Christmas Tree, and rewards Spiked Chain Crap, CoDzilla, and Batman; so you have no legitimate grounds to complain if you continue to game using a system which you apparently find not merely unsatisfactory but actually distasteful.

TL/DR: It's just the way 3rd Edition is. Either get over it, or switch game systems.

[balistafreak]

You're at least chronologically an adult, and now you know that D&D 3E requires the Christmas Tree, and rewards Spiked Chain Crap, CoDzilla, and Batman; so you have no legitimate grounds to complain if you continue to game using a system which you apparently find not merely unsatisfactory but actually distasteful.

Get off of my lawn, you whippersnapper! :smalltongue:

[Umael]

Right. It all boils down to the issues of seeing level as the sole indicator of skill and of artificially inflating levels

*snip*

Different classes are better or worse than others, and having different classes/skill sets provides additional granularity over levels. If you're a level 1 warrior, you're the lowest of the low. If you're a level 1 fighter, you're of middling capability. If you're a level 1 warblade, you're pretty darn good for a newbie. However, all of those pale in comparison to a level 3 warrior, which are mediocre next to a level 3 barbarian, which is chump change to a level 5 paladin. The higher level you give to the faceless mooks, the higher level the hero has to be to beat them, whereas simply changing around the classes can give the same differential while fitting heroes into the existing D&D framework.

I agree with that.

However, and except me for putting in a dose of realism for my rebuttal in the mechanics of a fantasy game, it doesn't quite work like that.

Not that what you said is incorrect in-and-of itself, but that there is a scale of progress that happens in real-life that isn't accurately modeled by using the D&D class/level. In real life, you gain your hit points one at a time (eat your veggies, exercise, etc.), you gain your skill points one at a time, etc. But in D&D, you chug along, gaining experience points until *DING!*, you go up a level.

So let's say that you start with a farm kid drafted into the army. We'll be generous and say that he doesn't have any levels as commoner, but goes through basic training and comes out as a warrior 1. Why warrior 1? Because his background and his destiny and what now says that he shouldn't be tougher than our heroes, the PCs, who are also level 1. Now the PCs are going to go get some experience points and level up a little, while the ex-farm kid is going to do the same.

So what happens? Does the farm kid go from warrior 1 to warrior 2? Or does he transform from a warrior to a fighter, or even a warblade?

It makes sense that if you want to call this group of "green" soldiers has having warrior 1, and this group of "experienced" soldiers as fighter 1, because it makes the PCs feel that, yes, they are green, and yes, these guys are experienced. But when I look at the ex-farm kid, I don't see him transforming from warrior 1 to fighter 1. It is easier for me to just give him another level of warrior.

[Frosty]

What!!? Eh, okay I'll just say I'm not buying that.

He basically used it to stop the treads. It was a smaller tank used by the Iraqis back in Desert Storm. Made it so it can only spin in a circle endlessly and then his buddies and him were able to finish it off easier.

[balistafreak]

He basically used it to stop the treads. It was a smaller tank used by the Iraqis back in Desert Storm. Made it so it can only spin in a circle endlessly and then his buddies and him were able to finish it off easier.

Well in that case, katana is not defined as "ridiculously awesome sword of awesome awesomeness" but as "roughly yard-long hunk of metal with no other application against a tank". :smallwink:

[Umael]

You're at least chronologically an adult, and now you know that D&D 3E requires the Christmas Tree, and rewards Spiked Chain Crap, CoDzilla, and Batman; so you have no legitimate grounds to complain if you continue to game using a system which you apparently find not merely unsatisfactory but actually distasteful.

TL/DR: It's just the way 3rd Edition is. Either get over it, or switch game systems.

While I agree with what you had to say, how you said it was kinda insulting.

Also, it is not "either get over it or switch game systems." E6 and modifying that game work too.

[Salbazier]

He basically used it to stop the treads. It was a smaller tank used by the Iraqis back in Desert Storm. Made it so it can only spin in a circle endlessly and then his buddies and him were able to finish it off easier.

I thought something like when I read your post, but what on earth he was doing bringing a katana into war? Does the superior allow that, or at least not mock him?

[742]

well my fantasy heroes are um

well lets take the protagonist from the dresden files series* as an example: yes, hes a wizard with a magic staff ect, but he packs all the magical enchanted everything and potions he can, halfway through the latest book in the series hes wearing i think ten enchanted rings-it makes sense, its completely in character only because hes poor and cant afford to enchant even more stuff.

in fact for anything but a pure flat out action hero with absolutely no brain it doesnt make any sort of thematic sense to have just one tool you use for everything**, and besides it gets a little repetitive.

*yes its set in modern times but the main character is a wizard, half the characters use swords and the bad guys are for the most part vampires fairies and evil wizards in long black cloaks, so it counts here

**uses: smashing people, cutting people in half, smashing doors, smashing things that are neither people nor doors, cutting in half things that are neither people nor doors, cutting things that may or may not be people and/or doors into unequal pieces, cutting halves of things into smaller pieces with or without equity in regards to the mass and volume of said pieces.

[Matthew]

People are getting a bit ranty here, and I suppose that is to be expected when responding to a self proclaimed rant, but let us try and think a bit more carefully about what is being said. I may have some small advantage of insight here in that I have interacted with Mike over the years on this forum a number of times and have become somewhat familiar with his D&D history, as well as his likes and dislikes.

So... cast your minds back to the end of the last century, when AD&D was in its last throes, TSR had been bought out by the company whose collectable card game had battered in the last nail, and rumours of a "third edition" were being floated. The marketing campaign was very much, "we're going back to the dungeon, it is going to be everything you loved about first edition AD&D, but better!" Mike has been playing first edition AD&D in the wilderness for about ten years, and he is willing to give the hype a shot.

It turns out that D20/3e lives up to its promise! It is indeed exactly what he had been looking for. Easy multi-classing and character customisation, rules that cover the vast majority of typical situations, a skill system (oh lordy!), and a simple "1d20 + modifiers versus difficulty" roll to figure out the probability of any action. Even better, it feels just like his AD&D game did, so it is just exactly like it, but better. Okay, there is some weird stuff in there, double bladed swords, spiked chains, lots of spikey dungeon-punk art, but I guess you cannot have everything and it is what the kids are into, or whatever, it even has its own attraction, I suppose. Hey, what's this? OGL? SRD? Internet taking off in a big way? Wow, I can go and talk with literally hundreds of people about my favourite hobby and all matters thereby related in a sort of virtual community or hobby club. This is awesome.

The years tick by, and the system expands, the warts begin to show, it gets revised and many warts are dealt with, but other remain or are reintroduced. The "kids" grow up, some leave, new kids come into the hobby. There is a whole subculture developing, a sort of "optimisation club" where people analyse the best possible way of doing X, Y, and Z within the constraints of the system. The majority of conversation within the community is about the rules and what you can do with them, a sort of baseline or universal language for discussing the hobby.

By 2007 or so D20/3e is no longer performing as well for WotC and its time to reinvigorate the line, so D20/4e is released in 2008. It is very, very different rules wise from what went before, which is unexpected, and it somewhat splits the community, a large number of people migrate away from the WotC forums to other outlying strongholds of D20/3e. At the same time the "traditional" or "old school" resurgence is gaining ground, and the voices that prefer that aesthetic begin to drift away from more mainstream forum communities.

What I am mapping out above (admittedly, with somewhat broad strokes and risky generalisations) is a gradual progression away from the aesthetics predominant in 2000 (perceived and real), both in the "community" and in the "system". The question is not "why is Mike ranting about this?" but rather "why is Mike ranting about this now, ten years after first changing systems and five years after joining the community here". When our answers are "duh, course not, play something else" it is going to irritate because it is not necessarily obvious that both the system and community, not to mention the attitude of the community towards the system, has changed over the last decade.

Anyway, just saying maybe "go a bit easier". :smallbiggrin:

[Amphetryon]

I think
"why is Mike ranting about this now?", ten years after first changing systems and five years after joining the community hereis an unexplored inquiry with some validity. Abstract discussions on web-forums will tend to focus on the mathematical aspects of D&D, because those are the aspects which can be discussed in clearly quantifiable terms, rather than qualifiers of personal taste. As such, a 'culture of optimization' appears to have emerged, simply because it is the lingua franca through which we, as gamers, can show why we loved or hated the session we just had or the character our cousin Terry brought to the game. Discussions of quantifiable attributes are more likely to produce lengthy dialogues, whereas discussions lacking them will tend, at best, to produce simple 'wow, awesome' or 'Oh, that sucked. I feel ya.' replies that aren't conducive to a productive dialogue.
Unless you're That Lanky Bugger.

So, what was the straw that broke this particular camel's back, Mike_G, and made you post this particular rant after so much time has passed since you joined GitP, and after 3.5's heyday has passed us by?

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Yes, the earliest editions of D&D drew heavily on Vance, Lieber, Howard, Tolkien and so forth. More recent editions? Not so much. After all, that was more than thirty years ago, and a lot has changed since then. Many (likely most) younger players come to Tolkien via Peter Jackson; as far as they're concerned Conan the Barbarian is and will always be Arnold Schwarzenegger; and they're doing well if they've so much as heard of Lieber and Vance, never mind actually having read them.

The point is that these works no longer hold their former dominant position in the subculture. They haven't done so for decades. It is completely unrealistic to expect new editions of a game to continue to reflect the influence of works which are no longer core reading for the majority of current players.

I'd just like to point out that I'm a member of the "new generation" of players (I started picking up 1e and 2e in second grade two years before 3e came out) and I still like Vance, Lieber, and the rest of them. However, I like other authors just as well, and sometimes more. My gamer friends likewise have read the classic fantasy but also read more modern material. So when talking about the literary influences of D&D, I wouldn't say that people don't read those books anymore, but rather that they don't read only those works. 3e didn't remove the older influences, just added to them.


I agree with that.

However, and except me for putting in a dose of realism for my rebuttal in the mechanics of a fantasy game, it doesn't quite work like that.
[...]
So what happens? Does the farm kid go from warrior 1 to warrior 2? Or does he transform from a warrior to a fighter, or even a warblade?

It makes sense that if you want to call this group of "green" soldiers has having warrior 1, and this group of "experienced" soldiers as fighter 1, because it makes the PCs feel that, yes, they are green, and yes, these guys are experienced. But when I look at the ex-farm kid, I don't see him transforming from warrior 1 to fighter 1. It is easier for me to just give him another level of warrior.

You're assuming that all the mooks in the myths started off as farm boys and progressed through warrior 1 to warrior 2 and beyond; that's a valid way to do things, but again, that requires that all these former farm boys end up at level 4 or 5 and the hero higher than that. If, however, you assume that the impoverished farm boy who picks up a sword becomes a warrior 1, a slightly more advantaged merchant-class son gets some training and becomes a fighter 1, and the rich nobleman's heir gets lots of specialized training and becomes a warblade 1, you have the same gradations in a smaller level range. It's entirely possible that Farm Boy will never get good enough training to advance in anything but warrior, but then again he might become a warrior 1/fighter 1 with enough instruction instead of warrior 3 or warrior 4.

[Philistine]

I'd just like to point out that I'm a member of the "new generation" of players (I started picking up 1e and 2e in second grade two years before 3e came out) and I still like Vance, Lieber, and the rest of them. However, I like other authors just as well, and sometimes more. My gamer friends likewise have read the classic fantasy but also read more modern material. So when talking about the literary influences of D&D, I wouldn't say that people don't read those books anymore, but rather that they don't read only those works. 3e didn't remove the older influences, just added to them.
Yes? I'm a member of the "older generation" myself - much closer to Mike G's age than to yours, by the sounds of it. Age doesn't prevent me recognizing that the landscape of the subculture has changed, and that many of the authors who defined the F/SF genre when I was growing up have now been largely relegated to footnotes: read of more often than read. It's true that Howard has had a bit of a resurgence over the past couple of years, and of course Tolkien has never entirely gone out of fashion; but you genuinely have to go looking to find anything by Vance or Lieber on bookstore (or even library!) shelves anymore. So I think it's fair to say that, yes, their influence been mostly supplanted by newer works. They (including here the comparatively evergreen Tolkien as well) certainly no longer occupy the iconic position that they did back in the days when 'Elf' was a class. And so complaining that a game system published in 2003 does not perfectly reflect the fantasy archetypes of 1978 is just kind of... well, it's a bit like complaining that a car dealership no longer has new 1985s in stock: unrealistic. Sad. Arguably insane.

[Matthew]

And so complaining that a game system published in 2003 does not perfectly reflect the fantasy archetypes of 1978 is just kind of... well, it's a bit like complaining that a car dealership no longer has new 1985s in stock: unrealistic. Sad. Arguably insane.

From a certain point of view, perhaps, but it depends also on how closely you tie D&D to a presumed setting. For instance, you would not expect a Lord of the Rings or Conan role-playing game to radically change in terms of influence to the setting, but clearly each has had systems that have gone through several iterations, arguably striving to find a balance somewhere between commercial success and evocation of the core idea.

With D&D things are somewhat different, but one would not expect (for instance) Greyhawk to undergo radical changes for more or less the same reasons. Yet, because D&D is seen as a generic fantasy game, rather than a particular fantasy game, it is open to radical reinterpretations in very short cycles of time, even encourages the system to be applied to a vast number of different campaign settings that have different rules.

So, if from Mike's point of view D&D has a definite and desirable aesthetic, then there is a point at which changes will mean it no longer reflects what he thought D&D represented. I am somewhat sympathetic to this idea, but I think probably we all are aware that D&D went generic on purpose and as part of a plan to broaden its audience, so we already know the reasons why it no longer is really a self proclaimed adventure game of the "sword & sorcery" genre. In that sense, ranting about it is a little pointless, except perhaps as a cathartic exercise, which I suspect was largely the purpose behind the post.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

So I think it's fair to say that, yes, their influence been mostly supplanted by newer works. They (including here the comparatively evergreen Tolkien as well) certainly no longer occupy the iconic position that they did back in the days when 'Elf' was a class. And so complaining that a game system published in 2003 does not perfectly reflect the fantasy archetypes of 1978 is just kind of... well, it's a bit like complaining that a car dealership no longer has new 1985s in stock: unrealistic. Sad. Arguably insane.

Oh, I'm not arguing that they've mostly been replaced by newer influences, I was just objecting to the thought that few to none of the new blood have been exposed to the older works except through movies and that 3e has divorced itself from the older influences as much as you're saying. Basically, while there's a generation gap between 3e and AD&D, I think there are still plenty of bridges across that gap and the gap is smaller that you might think.

[Lans]

We could always look at Perseus for our example of a classic hero that relied heavily on tons of magical items to succeed.

How many did he have? Like eight?

Back in second I Think it was assumed the players had more than 10, on the basis of the paladinds drawback.

[Matthew]

How many did he have? Like eight?

Back in second I Think it was assumed the players had more than 10, on the basis of the paladin's drawback.

That is an interesting point, though I would add that in the modules it is rare for pregenerated player characters to have much in the way of magical items. Three items seems to be pretty common in the 4-8 level range, sounds like something interesting to look into, though.

[Umael]

You're assuming that all the mooks in the myths started off as farm boys and progressed through warrior 1 to warrior 2 and beyond; that's a valid way to do things, but again, that requires that all these former farm boys end up at level 4 or 5 and the hero higher than that.

Whoa.

A couple misconceptions here.

I wasn't assuming anything like ALL the mooks, nor was I saying that they would all end up at level 4 or 5. While you have the gist of what I was going for, please don't exaggerate my position.

Hey, I'm not necessarily even talking about mythology here.

Look, the Illiad is a great piece of literature and full of mythology, but it is based on a real event - the Trojan War. In fact, people examining the site believe that where Troy was built has the remains of several cities - i.e., built, destroyed, re-built (not necessarily by the same people). If any of the heroes of mythology are based on real people, I don't know, although it seems likely that people like Agamemnon was based on a real person.

So on one hand, we have the idea that we are actually talking about real history, and on the other, we have the idea that we are talking about heroes of the like that they were only surpassed by the gods. I don't remember if D&D had it for 2nd and if they have it for 4th, but 1st and 3rd edition had Deities & Demigods - which included stats for the Greek pantheon - both of which included Hercules as a demigod. Of course, you do not have assume that the Hercules in 3rd edition canon (Barbarian 20/Fighter 20) IS the Hercules of the Trojan War, as the Trojan War could have been at a point earlier in his heroic/divine career.

Of course, the trouble with using Hercules as a benchmark is that even the lowest level Hercules is still going to be rather formidable. If most mooks never get to 3rd level, Hercules can still be the greatest warrior in all of Greek just as a 6th level barbarian/fighter with an insanely high Strength score.



If, however, you assume that the impoverished farm boy who picks up a sword becomes a warrior 1, a slightly more advantaged merchant-class son gets some training and becomes a fighter 1, and the rich nobleman's heir gets lots of specialized training and becomes a warblade 1, you have the same gradations in a smaller level range.

That might explain why this NPC is a warrior and that NPC is a warblade, but it would not explain the differences between "green", "experienced", "veteran", and "elite". To some extent, yes, these terms are somewhat arbitrary, but they are also descriptions of troops that are used outside of gaming.

Anyone who completes boot camp is "green", unless they somehow have prior experience. They have the training, but they haven't been tested. You send them off into a few combat zones, and they come back as "experienced". Give them a few years, and they become "veteran". Take the veterans, pick the best of the best, train them, and you have your "elites". Although something of an oversimplification, it gets the idea across.

Now if our farm boy was exceptionally gifted as a warrior, we could imagine him going from "green" to "elite" but simply going from warrior 1 to warrior 4. But now you have this merchant's son who gets some better training and starts as fighter 1. Is he "green"? Is he "experienced"?

Well, I would call him "green" because while he is a fighter, he still just had some training. Same thing with the nobleman's son - he might be a warblade 1, but he lacks the experience.

What makes the difference between "green" troops and "experienced" troops is experience, while what makes the difference between a warrior and a warblade is the amount of training he or she gets.

So then, if I go back to the Persian army and I say that they've been doing this for a while, then I feel by experience, they should all be "experienced" or "veteran". If I feel that most of them were just former farm boys, then they didn't get much training, so they're just warriors. If they went to a better school of training, they get to be fighters. If they went to the best, they get to be warblades.

The quality of the training would determine the class. But the amount determines the level.

Which is why I still hold that your average Persian soldier should be at least 2nd-3rd level - not 1st.


It's entirely possible that Farm Boy will never get good enough training to advance in anything but warrior, but then again he might become a warrior 1/fighter 1 with enough instruction instead of warrior 3 or warrior 4.[/QUOTE]

[Frosty]

I thought something like when I read your post, but what on earth he was doing bringing a katana into war? Does the superior allow that, or at least not mock him?

Actually no. It is very common for marines to bring their own personal weapons to war, although in his case it was shipped over in a container labeled "Sports Equipment."

He used a katana because the relative newbie in their group wasted their last remaining rocket round (it missed) and they were desperate. He got a medal of some sort for his heroics, but unfortunately the government did not reimburse him for his now useless katana.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Look, the Illiad is a great piece of literature and full of mythology, but it is based on a real event - the Trojan War. In fact, people examining the site believe that where Troy was built has the remains of several cities - i.e., built, destroyed, re-built (not necessarily by the same people). If any of the heroes of mythology are based on real people, I don't know, although it seems likely that people like Agamemnon was based on a real person.

So on one hand, we have the idea that we are actually talking about real history, and on the other, we have the idea that we are talking about heroes of the like that they were only surpassed by the gods.

Which is fine--whether mere mortals only go up to level 8 or thereabouts or all the way to 20, the gods have an easy time beating them.


I don't remember if D&D had it for 2nd and if they have it for 4th, but 1st and 3rd edition had Deities & Demigods - which included stats for the Greek pantheon - both of which included Hercules as a demigod. Of course, you do not have assume that the Hercules in 3rd edition canon (Barbarian 20/Fighter 20) IS the Hercules of the Trojan War, as the Trojan War could have been at a point earlier in his heroic/divine career.

And this once again comes down to what we see people actually do vs. the stats people give them. Hercules was described as a "demigod," so based on the 3e definition of "demigod" he's statted up as a 40th level guy with dozens of divine powers and all the other requisite godly stuff. Except that doesn't reflect what he did at all; they just statted him up as a demigod because...well, I honestly don't know what they were thinking. A mid-level character with divine rank 0 and all-around high stats would have been much more accurate, but once again we run into "awesomeness = levels" and "Aragorn was a 20th level ranger" syndrome.


Of course, the trouble with using Hercules as a benchmark is that even the lowest level Hercules is still going to be rather formidable. If most mooks never get to 3rd level, Hercules can still be the greatest warrior in all of Greek just as a 6th level barbarian/fighter with an insanely high Strength score.

Precisely the point. Given that the mythological beasts he fought are around CR 7-8 and given that his only real divine power is strength, that is a vastly better characterization than the D&DG one. It's the same problem that arises when statting someone out as a druid 5/wizard 3 because they were known to change shape and shoot lightning bolts--druids change shape starting at level 5, wizards get lightning bolt at level 3, thus he obviously must have been 8th level. Just because you get a named ability at a given level in D&D doesn't mean that's the minimum level of the character, because abilities can be refluffed and capabilities don't have to map perfectly (the aforementioned character could be a shapeshift druid 3 with an electricity-substituted produce flame, for instance). Hercules is statted as a rank 1-5 deity because the word "demigod" has a specific in-game meaning, not because he's actually worthy of that power.


That might explain why this NPC is a warrior and that NPC is a warblade, but it would not explain the differences between "green", "experienced", "veteran", and "elite". To some extent, yes, these terms are somewhat arbitrary, but they are also descriptions of troops that are used outside of gaming.

Anyone who completes boot camp is "green", unless they somehow have prior experience. They have the training, but they haven't been tested. You send them off into a few combat zones, and they come back as "experienced". Give them a few years, and they become "veteran". Take the veterans, pick the best of the best, train them, and you have your "elites". Although something of an oversimplification, it gets the idea across.

Now if our farm boy was exceptionally gifted as a warrior, we could imagine him going from "green" to "elite" but simply going from warrior 1 to warrior 4. But now you have this merchant's son who gets some better training and starts as fighter 1. Is he "green"? Is he "experienced"?

Well, I would call him "green" because while he is a fighter, he still just had some training. Same thing with the nobleman's son - he might be a warblade 1, but he lacks the experience.

What makes the difference between "green" troops and "experienced" troops is experience, while what makes the difference between a warrior and a warblade is the amount of training he or she gets.

So then, if I go back to the Persian army and I say that they've been doing this for a while, then I feel by experience, they should all be "experienced" or "veteran". If I feel that most of them were just former farm boys, then they didn't get much training, so they're just warriors. If they went to a better school of training, they get to be fighters. If they went to the best, they get to be warblades.

The quality of the training would determine the class. But the amount determines the level.

Which is why I still hold that your average Persian soldier should be at least 2nd-3rd level - not 1st.

If you want to literally represent how long someone has been fighting as opposed to their overall skill level, the warrior/fighter/warblade classification can still hold. First, it takes a lot of fights to level. About 13⅓ encounters of an appropriate CR will get you to the next level; a large-scale army engagement probably counts as just 1 of those, I'd say, after all the XP for the defeated side is divvied up among the soldiers of the winning side (yes, you could count each individual skirmish on the battlefield as one "encounter," but there's a lot of interference and reinforcements, so that doesn't work as well). If you take a look at the American Civil War, for instance, Robert E. Lee was the commanding officer of the Confederate side in 19 battles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Lee#Lee.27s_Civil_War_battle_summaries), only 6 of which were definitively Confederate victories. That means that even if you gave some experience for the drawn or inconclusive battles to put it between 6 and 13 "won" a soldier who was with him from day 1 of the Civil War to the date of his surrender wouldn't gain even a single level.

Second, there's the matter of character background. A PC fighter can start out at level 1 as "farm boy looking for an adventure" or "retired veteran of many battles taking up the sword again" or anything in between. The warblade 1 could be a warblade because he's been in bunches of battles and has picked up some tricks; whether he was a apprentice-level/0th-level character before or something else is immaterial, just like an elf PC doesn't care what he was doing for the past 200 years and a fighter PC can call himself a seasoned veteran in the very first session of a campaign. Experience doesn't necessarily map directly to XP.

Third is the matter of retraining. It's not available in all campaigns, but it fits in this kind of situation. A warrior 1 could fight in a bunch of battles and pick up a few tricks to make him better. He could gain a level in fighter, with all the increased combat stats that implies, or he could simply retrain from warrior 1 to fighter 1, thus having a net gain of 1 fighter bonus feat to represent the tricks he picked up, or even to warblade, giving him an average of 1 extra hit point and 4 maneuvers to represent his tricks.

These are just three reasons why a soldier who's been around the block a few times doesn't necessarily have to be someone of higher level. You might not completely agree with them, but again, I've never claimed that this is the One True Way to run a game; rather, I've claimed that (A) if you want to try to fit heroes/mythical figures into D&D such that they "work" and their capabilities match the source material, you really need to compress the level range quite a bit and (B) if you frame all of these kinds of stories as the equivalent of low levels in D&D it can help you be less confused or put-off when you realize that the game doesn't necessarily work as you'd expect at high levels.

[Umael]

About 13⅓ encounters of an appropriate CR will get you to the next level; a large-scale army engagement probably counts as just 1 of those, I'd say, after all the XP for the defeated side is divvied up among the soldiers of the winning side (yes, you could count each individual skirmish on the battlefield as one "encounter," but there's a lot of interference and reinforcements, so that doesn't work as well).

Counting a large-scale army as simply 1 encounter of appropriate CR is a VAST oversimplification. I don't think the CR system is meant to handle mass-scale engagements. A battlefield can count as its own environmental hazard, much like fighting in a storm or in extreme cold. Many times, people in mass-scale engagements are killed or wounded by things completely without realizing it. The panic and confusion can make people go crazy.

I would say that as long as you are involved in a mass-scale engagement, your life is in danger. You can say the same thing about a skirmish, but a skirmish lasts just a few rounds, maybe a few minutes. Battles can last for hours.

As much as people talk about optimization, mass-scale engagements might be the one example where the fighter can possibly outperform the wizard. In a typical skirmish, a wizard casts what? 2-4 spells? How many spells does a wizard have at, say, 5th level? How long before the wizard runs out of spells?

My point of the above is calling a single mass-scale engagement one appropriate CR encounter is a mistake. I don't know WHAT it is, and it might even BE an appropriate CR encounter - but by you arbitrarily assigning that value, you are making the same mistake I did by assigning the 5th-level as a hard cap.


Second, there's the matter of character background.
*snip*
Experience doesn't necessarily map directly to XP.

Wow.
Another case of word-smithing and definitions in the English language not matching the definitions of D&D terms.

Well, as ironic as your statement was, it does make sense and I can't argue against it.


Third is the matter of retraining. It's not available in all campaigns, but it fits in this kind of situation.

I think I like this one best. It makes the most sense - I could justify turning a warrior into a fighter or a warblade, both from a real-world and from a game design perspective.



These are just three reasons why a soldier who's been around the block a few times doesn't necessarily have to be someone of higher level.

I'll give you two out of three, one of which I actually like.


I've claimed that (A) if you want to try to fit heroes/mythical figures into D&D such that they "work" and their capabilities match the source material, you really need to compress the level range quite a bit and (B) if you frame all of these kinds of stories as the equivalent of low levels in D&D it can help you be less confused or put-off when you realize that the game doesn't necessarily work as you'd expect at high levels.

Neither of your main points I had issue with, incidentally. It was all the minor things in-between.

[JaronK]

None of this rant has anything to do with optimization. It's just that D&D isn't built very well for certain things.

But all of it could be fixed very simply. First of all, play Martial Adepts as your melee class. They can do heroic things and have skills and cleverness, and their weapon matters a lot less (so you can get away with a sword, or even sword and shield). Then play E6 so you don't get too high. Finally, don't allow T1-2 classes. Done.

D&D is a flexible game system with a TON of options. Just restrict the options such that the game plays the way you want.

JaronK

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Counting a large-scale army as simply 1 encounter of appropriate CR is a VAST oversimplification. I don't think the CR system is meant to handle mass-scale engagements. A battlefield can count as its own environmental hazard, much like fighting in a storm or in extreme cold. Many times, people in mass-scale engagements are killed or wounded by things completely without realizing it. The panic and confusion can make people go crazy.

I would say that as long as you are involved in a mass-scale engagement, your life is in danger. You can say the same thing about a skirmish, but a skirmish lasts just a few rounds, maybe a few minutes. Battles can last for hours.

This is very true, and I don't deny that it's dangerous or that it gives valuable experience. From an intuitive perspective, considering all of the help from allies involved, all of the hazards, and all that, a single soldier isn't getting that much XP. For a mechanical perspective, see the analysis below.


My point of the above is calling a single mass-scale engagement one appropriate CR encounter is a mistake. I don't know WHAT it is, and it might even BE an appropriate CR encounter - but by you arbitrarily assigning that value, you are making the same mistake I did by assigning the 5th-level as a hard cap.

On the contrary: it isn't arbitrary at all. 1 ECL 1 character fighting 1 CR 1 creature is a "very difficult" encounter, worth 300 XP or about 1/3 of the XP that character needs to level. 4 ECL 1 characters fighting 4 CR 1 creatures is a "very difficult" encounter, worth 300 XP each or about 1/3 of the XP each character needs to level. 10 ECL 1 characters fighting 10 CR 1 creatures is a "very difficult" encounter, worth 300 XP each or about 1/3 of the XP each character needs to level. 10 ECL 10 characters fighting 10 CR 10 creatures is a "very difficult" encounter, worth 3000 XP each or 1/3 of the XP each character needs to level. In general, X characters of level Y fighting X monsters of CR Y is going to grant the same XP for a given value of Y regardless of the value of X, and for a given value of X changing Y will change the proportion of XP by a small margin relative to total XP granted. The same holds for ratios other than 1:1, such that you'll get the same XP in a matchup of X ECL Y PCs vs. Z*X CR Y monsters when Y is constant for any X.

So like it or not, an army of 10,000 human fighter 1s attacking an army of 10,000 goblin warrior 1s is seriously going to give each of those fighter 1s 300 XP each by the rules. If they all contribute perfectly equally, they get 300 XP; if they split up into smaller groups and fight goblins 10-on-10, they get 300 XP; if they line up and have 1 fighter fight 1 goblin, they get 300 XP. My numbers for the battles above assumed the usual ratio of 3:1 to 5:1 in favor of the winning army for XP purposes if those battles were to happen in D&D instead of an even 1:1, because in D&D the action economy is king and so if the numbers are anywhere near even Joe Warrior is unlikely to survive long enough to level. My last post was couched in more tentative terms because not all CR/ECL 1s are created equal (10,000 warblade 1s with Steel Wind and Punishing Stance will trash a similar number of rogue 1s, for instance, and throwing in some CR 2s and CR ½s might influence the battle in places), but on the whole you can basically consider a battle to be an equal-challenge encounter.


Neither of your main points I had issue with, incidentally. It was all the minor things in-between.

That wasn't all that clear to me; I hope I've cleared up enough of those intermediate points to your satisfaction. Apologies if I've seemed hyperbolic at any point, but it's kind of hard to keep track of who's arguing against what with what level of force.

[Umael]

This is very true, and I don't deny that it's dangerous or that it gives valuable experience. From an intuitive perspective, considering all of the help from allies involved, all of the hazards, and all that, a single soldier isn't getting that much XP.

XP is more than just combat, and when it gets to mass-combat, the D&D system bogs down.



For a mechanical perspective, see the analysis below.

No.

I read it, but I see some serious conceptual problems with the way you set it up. For starters, you are putting your 10,000 vs. 10,000 in effect on just one big confined area.

Look at it this way - if you were in charge of a group of 50, and you got into a conflict with a group of 100, but because of superior tactics, your 50 won - according to you, this would not matter because you are just part of a larger force. You can have separate companies fighting and dying with no knowledge of the other forces.

You don't get experience points if you aren't a part of the fight, if you aren't even present. If the battle extends over the horizon, you aren't part of that part of the fight. To call the battle ONE SIMPLE ENCOUNTER is incredibly misleading.

And this isn't to factor in things like duels, fights with elite units, and so forth.

To claim that the mechanics are accurate is like saying you can keep on using Newtonian mechanics when talking about near-light speed objects.



If they all contribute perfectly equally, they get 300 XP;

And that is where your argument breaks down.

A battle of 10,000 vs. 10,000 is not going to be a battle where everyone contributes equally. For one thing - you don't have the encounter going on at the same time. You have entire groups of people who are out-of-combat while the battle is going on, people who are completely unaware of what is going on to other people because they aren't involved.


but on the whole you can basically consider a battle to be an equal-challenge encounter.

No. You are vastly over-simplifying something that just doesn't work that way.

Let's try it this way.

A farmer divided his apples into two equal batches, good apples and bad apples. He tells his son to sell the good apples at 2/25 cents while the bad apples sell for 3/25 cents. The son is lazy and decides to sell the apples at 5/50 cents. He sells all of the apples. When the farmer gets back, he counts how much money the son made and finds out that he is $1 short. His son explains what he did. The farmer calls his son too lazy to think and sends him to bed without dinner.

I'm figuring you are going to be able to figure out this puzzle. Without giving away the answer, I'll say that this is an example of over-simplification.



That wasn't all that clear to me; I hope I've cleared up enough of those intermediate points to your satisfaction. Apologies if I've seemed hyperbolic at any point, but it's kind of hard to keep track of who's arguing against what with what level of force.

We're arguing minutia now, but yeah.

Oh, and - you still only have two out of three.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

No.

I read it, but I see some serious conceptual problems with the way you set it up. For starters, you are putting your 10,000 vs. 10,000 in effect on just one big confined area.

Look at it this way - if you were in charge of a group of 50, and you got into a conflict with a group of 100, but because of superior tactics, your 50 won - according to you, this would not matter because you are just part of a larger force. You can have separate companies fighting and dying with no knowledge of the other forces.

You don't get experience points if you aren't a part of the fight, if you aren't even present. If the battle extends over the horizon, you aren't part of that part of the fight. To call the battle ONE SIMPLE ENCOUNTER is incredibly misleading.

That matters in a modern warfare environment. In ancient myths and in D&D, where most battles are fought at effective ranges of hundreds of feet, there is no "over the horizon" to worry about. Remember, we're talking Greek and Roman and Persian tactics, here--as skilled as their commanders were, the order of the day was still infantry surrounding war elephants and the Macedonian phalanx and rows of soldiers clashing with each other. D&Disms like AoE spells and flying creatures and such might manage to spread the battlefield out a bit, but then the representation of the myth/historical battle wouldn't be accurate. The fight would resemble the Lord of the Rings movies (a bajillion humans and elves filling the screen vs. three bajillion orcs also filling the screen) much more than any squad-based tactics.


And this isn't to factor in things like duels, fights with elite units, and so forth.

Which, again, is a very important point when discussing D&D battles in general but a minor one in this particular circumstance; the only "elite units" are the heroes we're trying to stat out relative to the armies, and any duels will be hero against hero, so the mooks won't be getting XP in any case.


And that is where your argument breaks down.

A battle of 10,000 vs. 10,000 is not going to be a battle where everyone contributes equally. For one thing - you don't have the encounter going on at the same time. You have entire groups of people who are out-of-combat while the battle is going on, people who are completely unaware of what is going on to other people because they aren't involved.

I said if they contribute equally. That was one of three parallel structures in the sentence:
If they all contribute perfectly equally, they get 300 XP; if they split up into smaller groups and fight goblins 10-on-10, they get 300 XP; if they line up and have 1 fighter fight 1 goblin, they get 300 XP.Whether everyone contributes equally, whether they're broken down into smaller groups, or whether every person fights one on one, they get the same amount of XP. I didn't say that these calculations depended on perfect contributions, only that in the rare case that that did occur the XP reward doesn't change.


No. You are vastly over-simplifying something that just doesn't work that way.

Let's try it this way.

A farmer divided his apples into two equal batches, good apples and bad apples. He tells his son to sell the good apples at 2/25 cents while the bad apples sell for 3/25 cents. The son is lazy and decides to sell the apples at 5/50 cents. He sells all of the apples. When the farmer gets back, he counts how much money the son made and finds out that he is $1 short. His son explains what he did. The farmer calls his son too lazy to think and sends him to bed without dinner.

And this relates to ancient army tactics...how? This isn't a party of genre-savvy PCs played by tactical players, this is Samson's Philistines or the Iliad's Trojans or similar. Yes, if you're talking PCs against goblins this assumption doesn't work. Yes, the mass battle rules suck when you introduce a pegasus air force on one side and storm giant artillery on the other. However, the assumption of one huge muddled melee works fine when considering real-world/mythological battles to calibrate real-world/mythological battles in D&D.


I'm figuring you are going to be able to figure out this puzzle. Without giving away the answer, I'll say that this is an example of over-simplification.

Hey, I'm trying to be polite to you, please try to not be condescending to me, k?


We're arguing minutia now, but yeah.

Oh, and - you still only have two out of three.

I don't think it's really minutiae; the reason I brought this up in this thread in the first place was because some person or people (forget how many now) couldn't see heroes being low- to mid-level facing low-level opponents. The factors we're currently discussing are preventing you from accepting this conclusion because you still have your doubts. Removing those doubts if possible is nontrivial for me.

[Fax Celestis]

I said if they contribute equally. That was one of three parallel structures in the sentence:Whether everyone contributes equally, whether they're broken down into smaller groups, or whether every person fights one on one, they get the same amount of XP. I didn't say that these calculations depended on perfect contributions, only that in the rare case that that did occur the XP reward doesn't change.\

This makes the (false) assumption that NPCs follow the same rules that PCs do. Protip: they don't.

NPCs don't have XP, or WBL, or a character portraying them. NPCs follow one rule: the DM's idea of what this particular NPC is supposed to be.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

This makes the (false) assumption that NPCs follow the same rules that PCs do. Protip: they don't.

NPCs don't have XP, or WBL, or a character portraying them. NPCs follow one rule: the DM's idea of what this particular NPC is supposed to be.

It matters when figuring out whether it's likely that someone who's been fighting a bunch of battles for several years should be level 1 or level 2+. Since the only standard we have for rate of leveling is the PCs', aside from "NPCs work on arbitrarium," it's reasonable to use that standard to figure things out. Though perhaps this particular tangent has run its course.

And NPCs don't have to be run on arbitrarium. There are rules for NPC WBL, modules often note how much XP NPCs have for crafting and XP component spells, and so forth, and NPCs run on the same system as PCs do in terms of base mechanics. You don't have to use them, and for mooks it's generally not worth it, but for situations like this they're there.

[Fax Celestis]

It matters when figuring out whether it's likely that someone who's been fighting a bunch of battles for several years should be level 1 or level 2+. Since the only standard we have for rate of leveling is the PCs', aside from "NPCs work on arbitrarium," it's reasonable to use that standard to figure things out. Though perhaps this particular tangent has run its course.

And NPCs don't have to be run on arbitrarium. There are rules for NPC WBL, modules often note how much XP NPCs have for crafting and XP component spells, and so forth, and NPCs run on the same system as PCs do in terms of base mechanics. You don't have to use them, and for mooks it's generally not worth it, but for situations like this they're there.

True, but even so, you just pointed out that there is a WBL incongruity between PCs and NPCs. Why shouldn't there be a similar incongruity between PC/NPC XP values, crafting costs, or rate of leveling?

[Umael]

That matters in a modern warfare environment. In ancient myths and in D&D, where most battles are fought at effective ranges of hundreds of feet, there is no "over the horizon" to worry about. Remember, we're talking Greek and Roman and Persian tactics, here

Whoa.

Not quite we aren't.

Let me jump ahead and quote you out-of-order here...



I don't think it's really minutiae; the reason I brought this up in this thread in the first place was because some person or people (forget how many now) couldn't see heroes being low- to mid-level facing low-level opponents. The factors we're currently discussing are preventing you from accepting this conclusion because you still have your doubts. Removing those doubts if possible is nontrivial for me.

You can't rest because someone on the Internet is wrong? :smallconfused:

Seriously though - you gave me three possibilities for how you could have opponents be low level. I accepted two of them. I think any impartial judge would have ruled you the winner if this was a debate.

The example with which I disagree is the idea that a battle between equal forces does not automatically award the same rewards for victory as the numbers involved in the battle increase. My basis for that idea is that mass-scale battles involve numbers where the possibility of equal forces being applied unevenly can disrupt the distribution of risk and reward.

Now let me re-visit your opening comment:


That matters in a modern warfare environment. In ancient myths and in D&D, where most battles are fought at effective ranges of hundreds of feet, there is no "over the horizon" to worry about. Remember, we're talking Greek and Roman and Persian tactics, here

I was under the impression that we were discussing mass-battles in general - seeing as how you were the one who first mentioned General Lee. While the Civil War Era technology is far outpaced by modern warfare, it is also highly distant from the technology of ancient myth and most D&D games.

Next, under the heading of D&D games, the idea of battles being mostly "effective ranges of hundreds of feet" has a few problems. The first being is that my statement was an inconclusive of saying that you cannot over-simplify things - even if your conclusion is create, your method for getting there is flawed. It is only fair that if I use an inconclusive statement that you have an equally inconclusive rebuttal - and you used the word "most" - meaning that you admit that there ARE battles where the range is greater than hundreds of feet. In addition, the term "over the horizon" is improper, and I'll admit it. It would have been better to say "out of sight". A battle in the forests (elves, maybe) would not have to be a battle measured in "hundreds of feet" to render one company out of the perception of another. As a final note, when you introduce magic, you change the battlefield. A massed charge of tightly-packed fighters is very effective for melee combat, not so much when the enemy has a few mages with fireball spells, or even sleep spells.

But you want to just discuss battles as they did in ancient Greece. Well, that's good, but it isn't hard to imagine that being a case of equal forces being applied unevenly - and with parts of the forces being out of sight. The Trojan War was a ten-year seige. Put one company on the far side of the city is all it takes. Not to mention duels - several duels are mentioned in the Illiad. These duels are all part of one battle or another - by just averaging out the ECL and the CR, as a GM, you would deny the duelists their experience points.



--as skilled as their commanders were, the order of the day was still infantry surrounding war elephants and the Macedonian phalanx and rows of soldiers clashing with each other. D&Disms like AoE spells and flying creatures and such might manage to spread the battlefield out a bit, but then the representation of the myth/historical battle wouldn't be accurate.

You can still have companies of soldiers involved in a battle while other companies don't get involved. "Archers, hold your fire! You'll hit our own men!" "We were on the left flank. We had no idea what the right flank was doing when they charged our vanguard." "They came from the mountains onto the beachhead, with the light of the full moon just rising behind him."

And again - duels.



The fight would resemble the Lord of the Rings movies (a bajillion humans and elves filling the screen vs. three bajillion orcs also filling the screen) much more than any squad-based tactics.

That battle might be an example of equal forces applied equally. Don't know.



Which, again, is a very important point when discussing D&D battles in general but a minor one in this particular circumstance; the only "elite units" are the heroes we're trying to stat out relative to the armies, and any duels will be hero against hero, so the mooks won't be getting XP in any case.

Why?

Duels don't have to be between heroes. Look at d20 Rokugan for a D&D game. The "mooks" most of the time are nameless samurai, many of whom might delight at the chance of a duel. The only "mooks" who don't have a culture of duels are ashigaru.

That still doesn't mean that you can't have a lone surviving "mook" charge a unit of enemy healers and take on their protector in one-on-one combat. "Duels" don't have to even be formal affairs.



I said if they contribute equally.

But that's my point - you made a generalization, which is only known to be true under very particular conditions.



Whether everyone contributes equally, whether they're broken down into smaller groups, or whether every person fights one on one, they get the same amount of XP. I didn't say that these calculations depended on perfect contributions, only that in the rare case that that did occur the XP reward doesn't change.

So by this paragraph I can take it that you DO agree that 10,000 level 1 fighters versus 10,000 CR 1 creatures will not necessarily produce 1/3 of the XP reward needed to advance a level.



And this relates to ancient army tactics...how?

It's a philosophical point. The point is that the lazy son in the puzzle was guilty of over-simplifying things, just as I accused you of doing. The (unstated) reason why was because the son was lazy in his thinking, however since I said I figured you would be able to figure out this puzzle, I am heavily implying that you are NOT lazy in your thinking.

Which brings us to this:


Hey, I'm trying to be polite to you, please try to not be condescending to me, k?

I wasn't being condescending.

If you believed that I was, I'm sorry for that, but there was no condescension to my tone (nor am I apologizing for something I didn't imply).

Please read it again. I put faith in your ability to solve a puzzle. That is not a statement to denote condescension when it is serious.

The only thing I accused you of doing was over-simplification, something I said earlier. I did not accuse you of being simple or lazy in your thinking.

That accusation stemmed from your generalization about this theoretical Confederate soldier who had been with General Lee the entire war. As you said, he would have gained experience points for being involved in between 6 to 13 major engagements. You then put the number necessary to level at 13 1/3 - going strictly by the numbers - hence the soldier would have never gained a level (hence, we can have this soldier still considered just "green", if you will).

My point is I am not saying that your conclusion is wrong that the soldier would never have gained a level. I'm saying that your analysis that lead you to your conclusion is flawed. It might work just fine, since we don't need more than a "yeah, he's still 1st level" or "let's call him 2nd level".

We are, however, going on the assumption that all battles are equal and that the soldier doesn't engage in any kind of skirmish or other experience-earning activity in the meantime. So if you wanted to assume that, that's fine - but that is an assumption, NOT a strictly logical analysis. Either one of your assumptions can be incorrect, and the only assumption that bothered me was the idea of all battles being equal.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

True, but even so, you just pointed out that there is a WBL incongruity between PCs and NPCs. Why shouldn't there be a similar incongruity between PC/NPC XP values, crafting costs, or rate of leveling?

Possibly because evidence already exists in modules and other such supplements that they don't, as silly as such may be.

[Fax Celestis]

Possibly because evidence already exists in modules and other such supplements that they don't, as silly as such may be.

We see leveled up NPCs, sure, but they use the Elite array instead of rolling or point-buy, they use NPC wealth, and we never see an XP value. NPCs imitate PC mechanics, but do not replicate it.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

You can't rest because someone on the Internet is wrong? :smallconfused:

Seriously though - you gave me three possibilities for how you could have opponents be low level. I accepted two of them. I think any impartial judge would have ruled you the winner if this was a debate.

I'm not doing this because I want to "win," I just happen to like examining the way things translate to D&D and you're providing a nice sounding board.


The example with which I disagree is the idea that a battle between equal forces does not automatically award the same rewards for victory as the numbers involved in the battle increase. My basis for that idea is that mass-scale battles involve numbers where the possibility of equal forces being applied unevenly can disrupt the distribution of risk and reward.

Now let me re-visit your opening comment:

I was under the impression that we were discussing mass-battles in general - seeing as how you were the one who first mentioned General Lee. While the Civil War Era technology is far outpaced by modern warfare, it is also highly distant from the technology of ancient myth and most D&D games.

I was providing that as an example of scale--that someone can fight through the entire Civil War and still not level--not as a statement on how well or badly D&D mass combat rules work. This conversation has always been about the Conan/Arthur/Hercules types and how they work (or rather don't) in 3e; I'll admit that using a more modern example was a bad idea since it blurs the outlines there, but I can't find any similar data for any ancient or mythical conflicts.


Next, under the heading of D&D games, the idea of battles being mostly "effective ranges of hundreds of feet" has a few problems. The first being is that my statement was an inconclusive of saying that you cannot over-simplify things - even if your conclusion is create, your method for getting there is flawed. It is only fair that if I use an inconclusive statement that you have an equally inconclusive rebuttal - and you used the word "most" - meaning that you admit that there ARE battles where the range is greater than hundreds of feet. In addition, the term "over the horizon" is improper, and I'll admit it. It would have been better to say "out of sight". A battle in the forests (elves, maybe) would not have to be a battle measured in "hundreds of feet" to render one company out of the perception of another.

To get pedantic for a moment, "effective ranges of tens of feet" is not equivalent to "effective ranges of hundreds of feet," so I didn't have to mean greater than hundreds of feet. :smallwink: More seriously, using D&D rules the only way to engage an enemy over 1000 feet sans magic is using longbows, and massed longbow fire was not a common tactic in the time frames we're talking about. I said most battles in mythology and D&D take place within hundreds of feet, and the the "most" was in there because D&D has magic that changes the equation, not because the RL/myth scenarios stretch past that.

Making it "out of sight" does make a big difference. I wouldn't say it makes a big enough difference to justify splitting up a battle--if you're a fighter in a dungeon with your buddies fighting kobolds and end up chasing a kobold down a tunnel when your torch goes out, you're out of sight of your companions but I wouldn't say you're now in a separate encounter. Likewise, even if you're fighting through a forest, you're connected enough with the main battle (shouted orders, reinforcements arriving from outside, splitting up and reforming around hazards, etc.) that it's not really separate.


As a final note, when you introduce magic, you change the battlefield. A massed charge of tightly-packed fighters is very effective for melee combat, not so much when the enemy has a few mages with fireball spells, or even sleep spells.

Which is why we're not talking vanilla D&D, we're talking the Conan/Arthur/Hercules scenario. I need to come up with a good abbreviation to encompass all of those.


But you want to just discuss battles as they did in ancient Greece. Well, that's good, but it isn't hard to imagine that being a case of equal forces being applied unevenly - and with parts of the forces being out of sight. The Trojan War was a ten-year seige. Put one company on the far side of the city is all it takes. Not to mention duels - several duels are mentioned in the Illiad. These duels are all part of one battle or another - by just averaging out the ECL and the CR, as a GM, you would deny the duelists their experience points.

I already mentioned that duels aren't under consideration because they're between heroes and this part of the problem is establishing mook levels.

When it comes to a long-term siege, of course you're going to have multiple battles for the duration and of course forces will be split up. That doesn't mean that a single push out by the Trojans or a single assault on the walls can't be treated as a single discrete combat for leveling purposes.


You can still have companies of soldiers involved in a battle while other companies don't get involved. "Archers, hold your fire! You'll hit our own men!" "We were on the left flank. We had no idea what the right flank was doing when they charged our vanguard." "They came from the mountains onto the beachhead, with the light of the full moon just rising behind him."

In which case the uninvolved don't get XP. 10,000 human fighters vs. 10,000 goblin fighters is 10,000 human fighters vs. 10,000 goblin fighters whether or not you have a company of a few hundred human archers watching from the sidelines or not. That doesn't affect the core point that you can take a large-scale combat as a whole for leveling purposes, it just means that if you have 10K human warriors fighting 5K goblin warriors and 5K goblin archers and the archers aren't fighting, the humans now get more XP because the battle is actually 10K vs. 5K and not 10K vs. 10K.


Why?

Duels don't have to be between heroes. Look at d20 Rokugan for a D&D game. The "mooks" most of the time are nameless samurai, many of whom might delight at the chance of a duel. The only "mooks" who don't have a culture of duels are ashigaru.

That still doesn't mean that you can't have a lone surviving "mook" charge a unit of enemy healers and take on their protector in one-on-one combat. "Duels" don't have to even be formal affairs.

Macedonian Phalanx Member #823 isn't going to be rushing out and challenging anyone; Mr. Pikeman Third-From-The-Right isn't going to be taking anyone on by himself. Arthur, Conan, Hercules, Samson, Beowulf, etc. never went one-on-one with anyone so far as I can recall without it being (A) a quick victory against the unfortunate victim or (B) against another named character.


But that's my point - you made a generalization, which is only known to be true under very particular conditions.

So by this paragraph I can take it that you DO agree that 10,000 level 1 fighters versus 10,000 CR 1 creatures will not necessarily produce 1/3 of the XP reward needed to advance a level.

:smallsigh: It's not a generalization, it's the result of the math. If you plug 10,000 into both sides for the Encounter Calculator, you get 300 XP for level 1 characters. If you do the same with 1,000 or 100 or 10 or 1, each participant gets 300 XP. For any number of equal-CR opponents on each side, the XP is identical. That paragraph says the exact opposite of what you think--10,000 level 1 fighters vs. 10,000 CR 1 creatures will always, every single time, give you 300 XP by the encounter creation and XP reward rules.


It's a philosophical point. The point is that the lazy son in the puzzle was guilty of over-simplifying things, just as I accused you of doing. The (unstated) reason why was because the son was lazy in his thinking, however since I said I figured you would be able to figure out this puzzle, I am heavily implying that you are NOT lazy in your thinking.

Well, given the prior discussion on splitting up forces, I thought you were trying to make some point about splitting up armies and getting different XP rewards or something along those lines. Explained your way, it makes sense, but that wasn't clear from the context.


Which brings us to this:

I wasn't being condescending.

If you believed that I was, I'm sorry for that, but there was no condescension to my tone (nor am I apologizing for something I didn't imply).

Please read it again. I put faith in your ability to solve a puzzle. That is not a statement to denote condescension when it is serious.

I took presenting a rhetorical point and then saying "I'm sure you can puzzle this out without my help" to be condescension; if that was not your intent, I apologize for mis-construing that.


The only thing I accused you of doing was over-simplification, something I said earlier. I did not accuse you of being simple or lazy in your thinking.

That accusation stemmed from your generalization about this theoretical Confederate soldier who had been with General Lee the entire war. As you said, he would have gained experience points for being involved in between 6 to 13 major engagements. You then put the number necessary to level at 13 1/3 - going strictly by the numbers - hence the soldier would have never gained a level (hence, we can have this soldier still considered just "green", if you will).

My point is I am not saying that your conclusion is wrong that the soldier would never have gained a level. I'm saying that your analysis that lead you to your conclusion is flawed. It might work just fine, since we don't need more than a "yeah, he's still 1st level" or "let's call him 2nd level".

We are, however, going on the assumption that all battles are equal and that the soldier doesn't engage in any kind of skirmish or other experience-earning activity in the meantime. So if you wanted to assume that, that's fine - but that is an assumption, NOT a strictly logical analysis. Either one of your assumptions can be incorrect, and the only assumption that bothered me was the idea of all battles being equal.

A battle against a force with more than 1 allied soldier per 2 enemy soldiers will grant less than 600 XP, as laid out by the XP and encounter rules, so yes, all battles are equal in the sense that they will yield ≤600 XP per battle; I didn't hash out the precise numbers because the ratio of soldiers on each side was below 2:1 and thus the exact XP gained could not affect the final result. As for the second assumption, I thought it was implicit that when I described someone who fought in those battles with Lee I meant someone who fought in only those battles; it was my mistake for not making that more clear. So, with the clarification that I started from the standpoint that those battles were the only sources of XP for the hypothetical soldier, I believe that example is logically sound.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since we already agree on the essentials and are just debating the details and it's been basically the two of us arguing back and forth for the last page, I move that we hold off for a bit and let others get a word in on other facets of the original topic. If no one else jumps in, I'd be happy to continue this line of discussion.

[Umael]

I'm not doing this because I want to "win," I just happen to like examining the way things translate to D&D and you're providing a nice sounding board.

Er... sorry, didn't mean for it to come across like this was a competition.

And thanks for the compliment. (Nice sounding board = intelligent listener, someone who listens and responds.)



*surgery-level SNIP!*

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since we already agree on the essentials and are just debating the details and it's been basically the two of us arguing back and forth for the last page, I move that we hold off for a bit and let others get a word in on other facets of the original topic. If no one else jumps in, I'd be happy to continue this line of discussion.

Sounds good. Although by the time I replied, this was already on the 2nd page of the threads.

Go and ahead and ping me if no one else jumps in and you feel long enough has passed, and I'll reply to the rest of your comments.

[Lhurgyof]

Ok, I'mma go on a bit of a rant here.

It's not the math, it's not the inequality, it's not that I can't do it, it's not the inanity of competing with my own party that makes me hate High Optimization.

It's simple aesthetics.

Let's look at the inspiration for Fantasy heroes. I grew up reading Conan, Elric, Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser and Zelazny's Amber series and Lord of the Rings. Back when men were real men, women were real women, and small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri were real small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri.

How many of those heroes ran around tripping people with spiked chains? Or using a combo like Guisarme and spiked armor? How totally lame would Excalibur be if it were a two bladed sword? Would it need to be stuck in two stones?

No, heroes use swords dammit. And one handed swords, so you can swing from a rope or carry off a damsel in distress with the other hand. Maybe, just maybe a henchman of the evil overlord would carry something silly like a chain or spiked armor, but that was just so the hero could have an interesting fight scene and deliver a good one liner about fancy oddball weapons after shanking the guy.

And magic items? Treasure? Ha! Sure there were a few magic swords and a handful of other powerful items, but they were rare and they inspired awe. The heroes survived by strength and skill and wits, or at least low animal cunning, not by having a magic weapon, magic armor, magic cloak, magic boots, magic belt, magic gloves, two magic rings, a magic headband, and a magic sack to carry the rest of their magic junk around in.

In fact, most of the really awesome heroes lost their stuff between adventures and had to start from scratch.

So when I play a Fantasy RPG, I want to play that kind of guy. A character so skilled or strong or devious or charming that he radiates cool. I want to play Conan or Ash or Indy or Corwin, not a Min-maxed elven subrace who starts out Ancient for a cheap bonus to his casting stats, who glows like a Christmas tree when caught in a Detect Magic.

There was an old humor file going around the gaming community in the 1e days, taking about Real Men, Real Roleplayers, and Munchkins. How Real Men used a Two Handed Sword, Real Roleplayers used Rapier and Main Gauche and Munchkins used whatever gave the most bonuses, that kind of thing.

Well, it seem the heavy optimizers take whatever Feats, Weapons, classes races, etc give the most bonuses.

That's why the Magic Mart and characters who can mathematically prove they are more optimal leave me cold.

Ah yes, nothing's more fun than playing a fun character. But it's considerable less fun when there's one character that can obliterate any encounter if he wins at initiative.

[Salbazier]

Actually no. It is very common for marines to bring their own personal weapons to war, although in his case it was shipped over in a container labeled "Sports Equipment."

He used a katana because the relative newbie in their group wasted their last remaining rocket round (it missed) and they were desperate. He got a medal of some sort for his heroics, but unfortunately the government did not reimburse him for his now useless katana.

Oh, okay. I can believe that now, I think. :smallsmile:

[monkey3]

Half that rant seems directed at the aesthetics of DnD, not optimization. One doesn't take 20 different magic items because it's optimal, it's because you need those bonuses, and there really isn't a good way to combine items, or go without them.

Agreed. I'd stay 3.5 Dnd to be more specific.

By the way, I had the same rant (complete with King Arthur example) as my beef with 3.5 when it first came out. I talked about how poor King Arthur would go down to a spiked chain barbarian, and how I had a problem with that.

So in short, this is not a problem with optimization, but 3.x.

[Scorpina]

Agreed. I'd stay 3.5 Dnd to be more specific.

By the way, I had the same rant (complete with King Arthur example) as my beef with 3.5 when it first came out. I talked about how poor King Arthur would go down to a spiked chain barbarian, and how I had a problem with that.

So in short, this is not a problem with optimization, but 3.x.

I just figured Arthur was Epic level in a world were very few people cracked level 10, personally.

[DragoonWraith]

No, Arthur was a level 4-6-ish PC class in a world where it was rare for anyone to be anything but a level 1 Commoner, or if they joined an army, a level 1 Warrior.

[Rokurai]

Sounds like you're playing the wrong game.

That sums it up.
+1

[Gametime]

No, Arthur was a level 4-6-ish PC class in a world where it was rare for anyone to be anything but a level 1 Commoner, or if they joined an army, a level 1 Warrior.

Don't forget his homebrewed magic item that made him invulnerable to bleeding wounds! That could make anyone capable of standing up to armies.

[Lans]

I think their might be Irish or Scottish myths about a hero with a sword that cut through mountains and made rainbows. That might be getting up a little bit.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

I think their might be Irish or Scottish myths about a hero with a sword that cut through mountains and made rainbows. That might be getting up a little bit.

Is that him cutting the mountains, or the sword?

[ScionoftheVoid]

Is that him cutting the mountains, or the sword?

That was the sword, Caladbolg, IIRC.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

That was the sword, Caladbolg, IIRC.

That was a rhetorical question, actually, the point being that if you have an item letting you do all this fancy stuff, that says nothing about what your level is (i.e. if you have a +2 sword of mountain-cutting you can chop through mountains whether you're 2nd level or 22nd). There are stories where heroes perform epic and/or impossible tasks like that with any weapon, but this isn't one of those cases.

[Mike_G]

So, what was the straw that broke this particular camel's back, Mike_G, and made you post this particular rant after so much time has passed since you joined GitP, and after 3.5's heyday has passed us by?

It was the millionth "Help me show my group how silly they are to play S&B fighters, or Blaster Wizard" threads.

I think the cracks may have existed in the system, but t'was Optimization that stressed them until they broke.

As Matthew says in his post, at first 3 e was played by us veterans just like AD&D, but better, (in my opinion) since it removed many of the silly, arbitrary rules (only demihumans could multiclass, racial level caps, THACO, the madness that was dual classing, etc). It worked fine at portraying the "classic" D&D party. The "flawed design" slipped through because the designers assumed that this would be the standard of play, and it worked fine that way.

Then, once people started crunching the numbers, and discovered that tripping people with a length of chain was better mechanically than wielding a sword and shield, the Arms Race was on.

My point, such that I ever had one, is that I will happily take a weaker mechanical option if it fits my concept, rather than play something I don't like which may be "more effective" and not "a burden to the party." And that choice has everything to do with aesthetics.

I'm unconcerned that many of you disagree. I am concerned at the callous suggestion that a fondness for some swords in my Sword and Sorcery means I'm "playing the wrong game."

[PairO'Dice Lost]

I think the cracks may have existed in the system, but t'was Optimization that stressed them until they broke.

As Matthew says in his post, at first 3 e was played by us veterans just like AD&D, but better, (in my opinion) since it removed many of the silly, arbitrary rules (only demihumans could multiclass, racial level caps, THACO, the madness that was dual classing, etc). It worked fine at portraying the "classic" D&D party. The "flawed design" slipped through because the designers assumed that this would be the standard of play, and it worked fine that way.

Then, once people started crunching the numbers, and discovered that tripping people with a length of chain was better mechanically than wielding a sword and shield, the Arms Race was on.

You know, it's not as if optimization and number-crunching are secret arts known only to a chosen few. When my group switched to 3e, a friend of mine who'd been playing AD&D for about 2 years and who wasn't really the optimizing sort took a look at the equipment section for the first time and basically said "Wait, this chain lets you attack things next to you and a few feet away, and does the same damage range of a longsword? If I'm not using a shield, why would I want anything else?" We didn't even grok AoOs and the benefits/drawbacks of shields yet, but the better options weren't exactly obscure if you just looked at the rules. We still played with the usual blaster/healer/tank/sneak party for a while, and do quite often these days, because my group likes that kind of party more often than not, but even the least optimization-savvy among us figured out that clerics and druids can do more than heal, fireball got critted with the nerf bat, and such fairly rapidly, and we weren't the only ones in our area.

Finding out what works in general and what doesn't is relatively easy, though of course specific strategies can take longer to work out, and it doesn't at all mean that suddenly you're forced to play completely differently. Most "Help me show why S&B sucks!" threads are, as others have noted, concerned not with waving superior optimization skills in someone's face but rather concerned with someone in a group who claims S&B is better than anything else, is often complaining that the optimizer isn't "playing right," and refuses to listen to the optimizer's counter-arguments. If someone is just trying to put down someone wanting to play a blaster wizard because they think the blaster's player is "playing wrong," most threads I've seen have said to leave well enough alone.


My point, such that I ever had one, is that I will happily take a weaker mechanical option if it fits my concept, rather than play something I don't like which may be "more effective" and not "a burden to the party." And that choice has everything to do with aesthetics.

I'm unconcerned that many of you disagree. I am concerned at the callous suggestion that a fondness for some swords in my Sword and Sorcery means I'm "playing the wrong game."

As much as I hate to say it, I have to agree that 3e is the wrong game for swords and sorcery by default. As I've said numerous times, you can easily make it work for swords and sorcery if you go out of your way before the game to make it work, but expecting the rules as they are to support swords and sorcery more than high fantasy just isn't going to work. You can always make D&D do what you want with the right changes/gentlemen's agreements, but there are other games that do S&S by default.

[Jorda75]

I take a bit of a middle road as far as this whole conversation is concerned, some optimization is sort of a given for me, but I also balance it with the flavor of my character.

I think saying D&D is the wrong game for S&S is giving too much credit to the rules and not enough to the DM. I have never had a problem presenting high fantasy and sword and sorcery with the 3.5 rules, there may be systems that you like better or you think fit better but for me and my group 3.5 was right on the money.

Besides, as the DM no amount of number crunching can overcome my secret control of the rules. If any of my players ever dared to try something like "I drop a bag of rats and use great cleave" I'd have a dragon eat them. Call it old fashioned but when I'm the DM I want everyone to have fun and that means not making a character on your calculator instead of in your head.

[Mystic Muse]

I'm unconcerned that many of you disagree. I am concerned at the callous suggestion that a fondness for some swords in my Sword and Sorcery means I'm "playing the wrong game."

We;re not saying "If you want to play sword and board play a different game because it's bad in D&D" we're saying "If you want sword and board to be the optimal choice like it is in legends play a different game" Or at least that's what I've been trying to say.


Call it old fashioned but when I'm the DM I want everyone to have fun and that means not making a character on your calculator instead of in your head.
There's nothing wrong with this*. Some people enjoy playing optimized characters you know. I usually make the character and then the concept because it takes me longer to think up a concept than it does a character.

*This is assuming it's being done for fun and not to destroy the fun of other players.

[Jorda75]

We;re not saying "If you want to play sword and board play a different game because it's bad in D&D" we're saying "If you want sword and board to be the optimal choice like it is in legends play a different game" Or at least that's what I've been trying to say.


There's nothing wrong with this*. Some people enjoy playing optimized characters you know. I usually make the character and then the concept because it takes me longer to think up a concept than it does a character.

*This is assuming it's being done for fun and not to destroy the fun of other players.

Fun for the players is always my number one concern, it just really burns me when a player says to me "Hey it's in the rules so it's legal." My general response is something like, "That's true, okay I'll give it to you. Your character gets hit by a meteor, make a reflex save. You failed, you're dead. Hey, it's in the rules." Bwa ha ha ha! It always surprises me when a player thinks they can "one up" the DM, who literally controls the universe you're playing in. I've never really had to DO something so heavy handed, I just tell my players before hand not to try anything like that cause it'll always come back to bite them.

[Tavar]

I'm unconcerned that many of you disagree. I am concerned at the callous suggestion that a fondness for some swords in my Sword and Sorcery means I'm "playing the wrong game."

Let's have an analogy. There's a small mom&pop restaurant that made some great... I don't know, homemade Italian food. They go out of business, and some sort of chain store buys the place, and makes it into a good steak joint. If someone complained how that you couldn't get good Italian food there, you'd probably point out that that's not what they sell, right? Same here.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Let's have an analogy. There's a small mom&pop restaurant that made some great... I don't know, homemade Italian food. They go out of business, and some sort of chain store buys the place, and makes it into a good steak joint. If someone complained how that you couldn't get good Italian food there, you'd probably point out that that's not what they sell, right? Same here.

I'd modify that analogy somewhat. There's a small mom & pop Italian restaurant down the street that made some amazing pizza and some good pasta dishes. They go out of business, and a chain buys the place, and makes it into a a fancy-pants Italian restaurant that does amazing pasta and good pizza. Now that it doesn't do pizza as well as it used to, a Papa John's and a Pizza Hut have opened up across the street. If someone complained how that you couldn't get as good pizza there anymore, you'd probably tell them that you can still get pizza there, but they might want to check out the pizza joints instead.

[Jorda75]

Let's have an analogy. There's a small mom&pop restaurant that made some great... I don't know, homemade Italian food. They go out of business, and some sort of chain store buys the place, and makes it into a good steak joint. If someone complained how that you couldn't get good Italian food there, you'd probably point out that that's not what they sell, right? Same here.

I think the complaint would be summerized in the above analogy as walking into a restaurant that has a sign outside that reads "old fashioned pasta" and has a picture of a guy eating spagetti. When you enter however the waiter says, "Oh I'm sorry this is a steak house now, we don't serve italian food."

Not that I agree, that's just the complaint.

[Mystic Muse]

Fun for the players is always my number one concern, it just really burns me when a player says to me "Hey it's in the rules so it's legal."

You know, you don't have to be using a stupid exploit for this to be a valid point.


I think the complaint would be summerized in the above analogy as walking into a restaurant that has a sign outside that reads "old fashioned pasta" and has a picture of a guy eating spagetti. When you enter however the waiter says, "Oh I'm sorry this is a steak house now, we don't serve italian food."

Not that I agree, that's just the complaint.

I wouldn't even put it like that. It still gives you the option of "Italian food" it's just that there are more options and many of them are higher quality.

[Jorda75]

You know, you don't have to be using a stupid exploit for this to be a valid point.

Well no, I said before that some optimization is just fine, hell I do it. Why do all my fighters use 2 handed greatswords and not a two handed long sword? Because it would be stupid not to, just doesn't make sense to me from a meta game perspective. That doesn't mean I'm going to always use a spiked chain however, I want me a good sword and I want my barbarian to have a big axe, but some is unavoidable. What makes my piss boil is rampant and ridiculous exploitation of the rules, not the occasional min/max.

[Mystic Muse]

Well no, I said before that some optimization is just fine, hell I do it. Why do all my fighters use 2 handed greatswords and not a two handed long sword? Because it would be stupid not to, just doesn't make sense to me from a meta game perspective. That doesn't mean I'm going to always use a spiked chain however, I want me a good sword and I want my barbarian to have a big axe, but some is unavoidable. What makes my piss boil is rampant and ridiculous exploitation of the rules, not the occasional min/max.

Ah, okay. That's what I expected but I wanted to hear it (or read it I guess) from you personally.

It makes me feel slightly better about the state of humanity.

[Jorda75]

Ah, okay. That's what I expected but I wanted to hear it (or read it I guess) from you personally.

It makes me feel slightly better about the state of humanity.

I'm not totally evil, but then I do DM so I have to be a little evil :smallamused:

[Mystic Muse]

I'm not totally evil, but then I do DM so I have to be a little evil :smallamused:

And it's so easy when you're evil, This is the life you see, the devil tips his hat to me. I do it all because I'm evil, and I do it all for free, your tears are all the pay I'll ever need.

Okay, back to the topic at hand. Feel free to play whatever you want. Just don't blame us because your favorite options aren't the best. I'm disappointed with a few things in 3.5 (I want a laser sword dangit!) but you should take this up with a GM. Not rant about how optimization ruins the game to a board that's probably at least 50% optimizers. Yes, you shouldn't have to homebrew to make your favorite option viable. I completely agree with you on that point, heck my favorite class is Paladin, but I think you should take it up with GMs or look for some homebrew to help make your favorite options better.

[DragoonWraith]

Now that it doesn't do pizza as well as it used to, a Papa John's and a Pizza Hut have opened up across the street. If someone complained how that you couldn't get as good pizza there anymore, you'd probably tell them that you can still get pizza there, but they might want to check out the pizza joints instead.
Except that would make you insane, because you consider Papa John's or Pizza Hut in any way "good pizza" :smallamused:

I'm from New York City, and I can get downright snobbish about my pizza. Brick oven, thin crust, from the oldest family-owned Italian place you can find.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Except that would make you insane, because you consider Papa John's or Pizza Hut in any way "good pizza" :smallamused:

I'm from New York City, and I can get downright snobbish about my pizza. Brick oven, thin crust, from the oldest family-owned Italian place you can find.

Hey, the guy in this analogy has turned down pizza from an upscale family-owned Italian restaurant because it's different from what they remember; someone that twisted might very well find Pizza Hut good eatin'. :smallbiggrin:

[mjames]

Except that would make you insane, because you consider Papa John's or Pizza Hut in any way "good pizza" :smallamused:

I'm from New York City, and I can get downright snobbish about my pizza. Brick oven, thin crust, from the oldest family-owned Italian place you can find.

I'm a Chicago native, so I agree with the statement about those chains, but hate your thin crust pizza... Deep dish all the way.

On a side note, because frankly the argument of optimized/not is a person by person and game by game choice this has become a really huge thread... We all play differently abd all groups game differently, otherwise we'd there'd be one RPG and one RPG version of said videogame... Oh and one set of gods or one singular god which/who picked that game... And all clerics would worship him/her/them. *smile* this argument is slightly entertaining, but I think instead of optiming my character for a new game night starting tomorrow I'll go play Elder Scrolls. Yay for choices.

[quiet1mi]

I know that I was not here in the beginning but I am sure this wasn't about Pizza.

[Jerthanis]

I really don't see what the problem is with someone saying that Optimization is okay, except that it tends to turn the archetypes which form the basis for the classes on their ears. This whole thread seems to be for someone stating a preference, so I'm not entirely sure why it's gone on 15 pages and wandered into the realm of pizza simile.

It's like... Paladins are all about being Noble Knights on Mighty Chargers... but they're better as gnomes riding fearsome dogs. Not that a gnome can't be noble, but they more immediately spring to mind as sort of tricksters.

It's all well and good to say that creation of a character within the world in an organic manner can be impeded by the archetypes presented, but then I would have to ask... why are you playing D&D? All it does well is archetypal fantasy, and even that only so-so. You'd be better served with another system to create non-archetypal characters.

I find that the trouble is that it's the classes which are the most sucky without optimization that hurt the most from this. A fighter could decide to play suboptimally to more closely follow the legendary ideals, but will go from Cleanup Duty Guy to Sir Not Contributing. Meanwhile a Cleric can play suboptimally and still be pretty good.

So... I guess I'm suggesting to play really good classes in which you have the room to play them suboptimally. Otherwise, play older editions of D&D, which were much better at promoting archetypes. Well... they were okay.

[jseah]

It's all well and good to say that creation of a character within the world in an organic manner can be impeded by the archetypes presented, but then I would have to ask... why are you playing D&D? All it does well is archetypal fantasy, and even that only so-so. You'd be better served with another system to create non-archetypal characters.
It is precisely this reason, that functional characters aren't archetypal, that I play D&D.

In fact, if I DM, my rulings and houserules tend to emphasize the strategic part of the game over bigger numbers. If I could bend the system however I liked and still have players, combat would be even more rocket tag than it is now.
There was a time, when I was green and dps was king, that I considered making a houserule that no one got hp increase from HD. (ie. 20th level wizard has 7hp...)

[Kaiyanwang]

I'm from New York City, and I can get downright snobbish about my pizza. Brick oven, thin crust, from the oldest family-owned Italian place you can find.


I'm a Chicago native, so I agree with the statement about those chains, but hate your thin crust pizza... Deep dish all the way.


AFAIK, Pizza "optimizers" from Naples say that the pizza must be thin at the center (3 mm) but thick at the border (up to 2cm). But pizza changes alot from place to place in my country. Even definition of pizza.

/pizza optimization threadjack

[Matthew]

No, no, it has got nothing to do with pizza. It is more like Greggs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greggs), where it used to be local and individually made before turning into a big chain of bakers everywhere. It was good for a time, then you start to miss the old stuff when you smell other local bakeries and sample their pastries. Mr Gregg, of course, is no longer involved, and the company has passed outside the family (if I remember rightly). The final straw is when you see a Greggs outside of Northumberland and discover that they do not sell stottie cake (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stottie_cake)! WTF? Greggs without stottie cake? The world has gone mad, and you have fooled and disappointed me! Greggs is no longer Greggs!

[Salbazier]

What is greggs? :smalltongue:

[Matthew]

I do not even know any more, but this website is run by the company that owns the brand name: Greggs (http://www.greggs.co.uk/). :smallbiggrin:

[Totally Guy]

What is greggs? :smalltongue:

In the North of England Greggs Bakeries outnumber McDonalds and Burger Kings combined in most cities.

[Mike_G]

Actually, the Pizza example works.

The old pizza joint which was the only place in town, for which I have a nostalgic affection, re-opened under new managment, and now offers pasta, and meatloaf and fried cheese, melted cheese, spray cheese, pretty much lots and lots of cheese.

But you can still get the old style pizza. And now you can custom order the topping, and the cranky old waiter who wouldn't let you make combos unless you were short, or do a Half pepperoni, half sausage, or put meat and veggies on the same pie, is gone.

But any time someone orders a slice of pepperoni, those meddling kids in the booths start ranting about how this is the wrong restaurant for pizza, and we should have the cheese filled ravioli with cheese sauce and grated cheese with fried mozzarella, cheescake for dessert and a glass of Velveeta.

So, the pizza is still delicious, but the atmosphere is irritating.

[Amphetryon]

But any time someone orders a slice of pepperoni, those meddling kids in the booths start ranting about how this is the wrong restaurant for pizza, and we should have the cheese filled ravioli with cheese sauce and grated cheese with fried mozzarella, cheescake for dessert and a glass of Velveeta.
That's one of the funniest things I've seen here in quite a while. A glass of Velveeta, mmmm.

[Mike_G]

That's one of the funniest things I've seen here in quite a while. A glass of Velveeta, mmmm.


And it comes with free refills! Who wouldn't order it? Help me explain to my friend why it's better than Coke!

[huttj509]

And it comes with free refills! Who wouldn't order it? Help me explain to my friend why it's better than Coke!

Many things are better for you than Coke.

Velveeta is not one of them, sadly.

[DragoonWraith]

Personally I find the pizza conversation much more interesting...

I'm a Chicago native, so I agree with the statement about those chains, but hate your thin crust pizza... Deep dish all the way.
Oh, one other requirement I forgot to mention: the place has to be physically located in New York City :smallbiggrin:

I'm serious, though, between the fact that the oldest pizzerias in the country are in New York (this makes a very big difference), and there is apparently something to do with the tap water here (we have our water from reservoirs in the Adirondacks, it's rather close to what you'd get in a bottle of Poland Spring, but in our taps), that makes it impossible to find good pizza outside of New York, even if the person making them honestly knows how to make a killer New York pizza.

The only city in the country I won't argue with is Chicago - you're the home of the deep-dish pizza, which I really don't like, but I can't argue with the fact that a lot of people prefer it, and if you want deep-dish, Chicago's the place to go.


AFAIK, Pizza "optimizers" from Naples say that the pizza must be thin at the center (3 mm) but thick at the border (up to 2cm). But pizza changes alot from place to place in my country. Even definition of pizza.

/pizza optimization threadjack
Yeah, and I'm really not arguing with an Italian, heh. But then, as you say, American pizza is quite different from Italian pizza - I do know people who prefer New York City pizza over Italian pizza, but that's probably just preferences to do with which style they like better.

I imagine that it varies from place to place in Italy, too, right? I mean, we have "Sicilian pizza" which is square and thick-crusted, and then the standard New York City pizza is sometimes called "Neapolitan", so I'm guessing Sicily has thicker pizza and Naples has thinner? Or it's just marketing.

It's kind of odd how the standard in New York is "Neapolitan" and "Sicilian" is the "other" type of pizza, when the vast majority of Italians in New York are Sicilian...

[Kaiyanwang]

Yeah, and I'm really not arguing with an Italian, heh. But then, as you say, American pizza is quite different from Italian pizza - I do know people who prefer New York City pizza over Italian pizza, but that's probably just preferences to do with which style they like better.

I imagine that it varies from place to place in Italy, too, right? I mean, we have "Sicilian pizza" which is square and thick-crusted, and then the standard New York City pizza is sometimes called "Neapolitan", so I'm guessing Sicily has thicker pizza and Naples has thinner? Or it's just marketing.

It's kind of odd how the standard in New York is "Neapolitan" and "Sicilian" is the "other" type of pizza, when the vast majority of Italians in New York are Sicilian...

Is not a matter of marketing, but of zone origin. People from Naples state that the real Pizza is the Naples one, and other kind of pizza (like the square one - that in my zone is called "al taglio", cut -"opposed to "al piatto", served on the dish -that should be, at best, a "focaccia", and not a real pizza.

Consider that even thickness is highly debated, at a Monk vs Wizard rate. Not everyone like the Naples Pizza measuers stated above.

And don't let me start on condiment.

Side note on Italian immigrants: as far as I know, it started with North regions, and south ones followed (10-20 years after). Sicily was the region with most emigrants, but Campania was shortly thereafter, so Naples could be very well represented. But I'm not sure.

[Umael]

Actually, the Pizza example works.

:smalleek:

Maybe for you...

I don't know guys. Comparing gaming to pizza is kinda cheesing me off. Hut if you want to keep this going 'round instead of tabling it, olive.

[DragoonWraith]

Is not a matter of marketing, but of zone origin. People from Naples state that the real Pizza is the Naples one, and other kind of pizza (like the square one - that in my zone is called "al taglio", cut -"opposed to "al piatto", served on the dish -that should be, at best, a "focaccia", and not a real pizza.
Focaccia I usually hear in reference to a type of bread with cheese on it - but usually not hot, like the cheese has been melted on but it's not served hot, and usually without sauce. *shrug*


Consider that even thickness is highly debated, at a Monk vs Wizard rate. Not everyone like the Naples Pizza measuers stated above.
Heh, the Wikipedia pizza article listed a series of mandated-by-law requirements for Italian pizza, which I found amusing. New York City pizza is more mandated-by-economics - we're picky about our pizza, and the rent is just too high to survive without good pizza.


And don't let me start on condiment.
See, this is my biggest complaint about pizza outside of New York - especially in California, where I went to school. A lot of people think that a "good pizza" is one with interesting/good toppings. Which is absolutely wrong - a good pizza is a good pizza no matter what you put on it, or even plain. In New York, plain (crust, tomato sauce, mozzarella cheese) is the most common choice of pizza, because it's just good, you don't need toppings. Outside of New York, no one orders plain because it's just not that good, so they have all kinds of weird toppings to hide the mediocrity of the pizza. It's not that toppings are bad, it's just that they are entirely secondary when it comes to judging the quality of the pizza.


Side note on Italian immigrants: as far as I know, it started with North regions, and south ones followed (10-20 years after). Sicily was the region with most emigrants, but Campania was shortly thereafter, so Naples could be very well represented. But I'm not sure.
Well, that may be, but at least as far as the cultural consciousness in New York City, "Italian American" = "Sicilian". We may have plenty of Italians from other places, but they've apparently assimilated into our culture more, as opposed to the Sicilians who have really shaped our culture, as opposed to the other way around. New York City has been heavily influenced by the Sicilians (along with the Irish and the Jews, and more recently by Africans and Hispanics). I have a friend who is from Naples, and people are surprised when she says she is Italian, because she is tall, skinny, and has lighter skin and every expects the short, stocky, olive of Sicily.

[Rixx]

I think it's more like wanting a pizza with pepperoni, but all your friends say that you should have the more
optimal anchovies instead, and pretend that it's pepperoni if it upsets you.

See? Because you're disregarding the flavor!

:D



:D

[Fax Celestis]

See? Because you're disregarding the flavor!

That, right there, is what we call a "groaner".

[Hadrian_Emrys]

I think it's more like wanting a pizza with pepperoni, but all your friends say that you should have the more
optimal anchovies instead, and pretend that it's pepperoni if it upsets you.

See? Because you're disregarding the flavor!

:D



:D

Horrible pun aside, a more accurate analogy would be for everyone to call a cat "a dog" because the box it came in was labeled "dog". No amount of evidence will ever convince them otherwise. No, not even when the shipping company sends another "dog" box, that actually contains a dog and an apology letter for the mix up. That feline is a canine damn it, and you are somehow a lesser person for treating it like the cat it is. I mean, what kind of weirdo gives a dog catnip and a scratching post? :smallsigh:

[Kaiyanwang]

Focaccia I usually hear in reference to a type of bread with cheese on it - but usually not hot, like the cheese has been melted on but it's not served hot, and usually without sauce. *shrug*

Correct. The "focaccia" above was a pejorative, TRUE focaccia is more like that. Barring cheese: is not mandatory. You can find places where they call foccia some sort of tomatoeless squared pizza with onion and/or garlic and/or olives and/or rosemary..



Heh, the Wikipedia pizza article listed a series of mandated-by-law requirements for Italian pizza, which I found amusing. New York City pizza is more mandated-by-economics - we're picky about our pizza, and the rent is just too high to survive without good pizza.


Barring powergamers, even in italy you find one million kind of true and "false" - but indeed good pizza :smalltongue:



See, this is my biggest complaint about pizza outside of New York - especially in California, where I went to school. A lot of people think that a "good pizza" is one with interesting/good toppings. Which is absolutely wrong - a good pizza is a good pizza no matter what you put on it, or even plain. In New York, plain (crust, tomato sauce, mozzarella cheese) is the most common choice of pizza, because it's just good, you don't need toppings. Outside of New York, no one orders plain because it's just not that good, so they have all kinds of weird toppings to hide the mediocrity of the pizza. It's not that toppings are bad, it's just that they are entirely secondary when it comes to judging the quality of the pizza.

See above - this counts for us too.



Well, that may be, but at least as far as the cultural consciousness in New York City, "Italian American" = "Sicilian". We may have plenty of Italians from other places, but they've apparently assimilated into our culture more, as opposed to the Sicilians who have really shaped our culture, as opposed to the other way around. New York City has been heavily influenced by the Sicilians (along with the Irish and the Jews, and more recently by Africans and Hispanics). I have a friend who is from Naples, and people are surprised when she says she is Italian, because she is tall, skinny, and has lighter skin and every expects the short, stocky, olive of Sicily.

More common than one can think. Italy has been invaded one hundred times (well, after all that times Romans messed things around, I can accept we went for it). Visigoths and Norse were not dark skinned for sure.

And celtic populations were present in the north at roman times (Gallia Cisalpina). In sicily you can find two cousin, one tall and red haired, the other one resembling super mario :smalltongue:

Myself, consider that I'm fair-haired, my skin is almost white... and happened that people mistake me for a German or a Polish. An ENGLISH mistook me for a german. An iranian mistook me for a german. Macedonians mistook me for a polish. Eh. Whatever.

[Mystic Muse]

Actually, the Pizza example works.

The old pizza joint which was the only place in town, for which I have a nostalgic affection, re-opened under new managment, and now offers pasta, and meatloaf and fried cheese, melted cheese, spray cheese, pretty much lots and lots of cheese.

But you can still get the old style pizza. And now you can custom order the topping, and the cranky old waiter who wouldn't let you make combos unless you were short, or do a Half pepperoni, half sausage, or put meat and veggies on the same pie, is gone.

But any time someone orders a slice of pepperoni, those meddling kids in the booths start ranting about how this is the wrong restaurant for pizza, and we should have the cheese filled ravioli with cheese sauce and grated cheese with fried mozzarella, cheescake for dessert and a glass of Velveeta.

So, the pizza is still delicious, but the atmosphere is irritating.

As others have said, most of the time this happens, it's a jerk player with an unoptimized concept telling the other player they're doing it wrong because it's not optimized. It's not just a "Stop having fun!" guy.

[Totally Guy]

It sounds like peer pressure to me. That's only as bad as you let be. You have a lot more power than you think in this situation.

[DragoonWraith]

One person refusing to play with a certain modicum of optimization, either out of laziness, disinterest, or refusal to use optimal classes/feats/abilities for whatever reason, can be as out of place and problematic as a single optimizer in a group of non-optimizers. In a group that enjoys building strong characters and throwing them against similarly strong characters, one deadweight character can pull them down. It's all about working things out with your fellow players through compromise so that everyone's happy.

[Totally Guy]

It's all about working things out with your fellow players through compromise so that everyone's happy.

Pretty much.

[Mystic Muse]

It's all about working things out with your fellow players through compromise so that everyone's happy.

I wholeheartedly agree with this.

Just because I can make a character that's better than everybody else in my group doesn't mean I will. I want them to have fun too.

[Knaight]

I wholeheartedly agree with this.

Just because I can make a character that's better than everybody else in my group doesn't mean I will. I want them to have fun too.

/thread

Ignoring being able to do this by accident, though to a far lesser extent.

[Sliver]

Gah, I once tasted one of the worse pizzas ever. Perhaps it was the cheese that I remember everything else with pure rage. A street corner bakery that sold 2 pizzas at a discount price. It felt like the just covered a circle of bread with old molten cheese. It didn't fit there, the texture was wrong, and the taste was just horrible. Also, I believe there was no sauce. No amount of toppings changed the horribleness of that monster.

So what do we learn? No matter how cheap and accessible your concept is, no mater how much you try to cover it up with random flavors, if you shove some old tasteless cheese on it, it's gonna suck

[Mike_G]

I think it's more like wanting a pizza with pepperoni, but all your friends say that you should have the more
optimal anchovies instead, and pretend that it's pepperoni if it upsets you.

See? Because you're disregarding the flavor!

:D



:D

THAT'S IT!!!!!!

[Mystic Muse]

THAT'S IT!!!!!!

This is when you chip in a few extra bucks to get another pizza so you and your friends are happy.:smalltongue:

That or get some new friends who're willing to occasionally get pepperoni.

The problem in this equation isn't the anchovies and the fact you don't like them. It's that your friends aren't willing to get anything you like instead.

There's a reason they offer pizzas that are half one topping and half another.

[Knaight]

Horrible pun aside, a more accurate analogy would be for everyone to call a cat "a dog" because the box it came in was labeled "dog". No amount of evidence will ever convince them otherwise. No, not even when the shipping company sends another "dog" box, that actually contains a dog and an apology letter for the mix up. That feline is a canine damn it, and you are somehow a lesser person for treating it like the cat it is. I mean, what kind of weirdo gives a dog catnip and a scratching post? :smallsigh:

I would consider this more accurate.

[Matthew]

There's a reason they offer pizzas that are half one topping and half another.
Yikes! That's no solution. The pineapple intrudes! That said...

Went along to a game night this evening at my local game shop. Played an hour of D20/4e and two hours of AD&D, everybody had great fun, including me.

[Gametime]

This is when you chip in a few extra bucks to get another pizza so you and your friends are happy.:smalltongue:

That or get some new friends who're willing to occasionally get pepperoni.

The problem in this equation isn't the anchovies and the fact you don't like them. It's that your friends aren't willing to get anything you like instead.

There's a reason they offer pizzas that are half one topping and half another.

I think, to carry an already-strained metaphor even farther, that the complaint is more that people are trying to discuss the pizzas they like and asking (on, I don't know, an internet forum dedicated to pizzerias) where they can get good pepperoni pizza, only to be informed that pepperoni is outdated and that Buffalo chicken pizza is a much better way to satisfy your friends.

[Mystic Muse]

Yikes! That's no solution. The pineapple intrudes! That said...


Well, luckily, in this situation it was anchovies not pineapple. Plus, it's unlikely the OP would be eating half a pizza. I'm not saying it's impossible, but most people don't eat half a pizza if anybody else wants any. ant they can have the slices with bits of anchovies on them.

pineapple is better as a side dish in my opinion.


I think, to carry an already-strained metaphor even farther, that the complaint is more that people are trying to discuss the pizzas they like and asking (on, I don't know, an internet forum dedicated to pizzerias) where they can get good pepperoni pizza, only to be informed that pepperoni is outdated and that Buffalo chicken pizza is a much better way to satisfy your friends.

Usually, it's just the one poster who says something like this on here and then the rest will tell you where to get good pepperoni.

[DragoonWraith]

Correct. The "focaccia" above was a pejorative, TRUE focaccia is more like that. Barring cheese: is not mandatory. You can find places where they call foccia some sort of tomatoeless squared pizza with onion and/or garlic and/or olives and/or rosemary..
Oh yeah, we have sauce-but-no-cheese slices that I've heard called foccacia, too. Usually they're just called marinara slices for obvious reasons, though. They're always Sicilian style (square, thicker crust) in my experience...


More common than one can think. Italy has been invaded one hundred times (well, after all that times Romans messed things around, I can accept we went for it). Visigoths and Norse were not dark skinned for sure.

And celtic populations were present in the north at roman times (Gallia Cisalpina). In sicily you can find two cousin, one tall and red haired, the other one resembling super mario :smalltongue:

Myself, consider that I'm fair-haired, my skin is almost white... and happened that people mistake me for a German or a Polish. An ENGLISH mistook me for a german. An iranian mistook me for a german. Macedonians mistook me for a polish. Eh. Whatever.
Yeah, they all think she's German or something. She does have dark hair, though.


Gah, I once tasted one of the worse pizzas ever. Perhaps it was the cheese that I remember everything else with pure rage. A street corner bakery that sold 2 pizzas at a discount price. It felt like the just covered a circle of bread with old molten cheese. It didn't fit there, the texture was wrong, and the taste was just horrible. Also, I believe there was no sauce. No amount of toppings changed the horribleness of that monster.

So what do we learn? No matter how cheap and accessible your concept is, no mater how much you try to cover it up with random flavors, if you shove some old tasteless cheese on it, it's gonna suck
Heh, to be fair, I've had very good pizzas out of bakeries - the crust is the most important part, and bakeries know their bread. Obviously, bad cheese is going to make a bad pizza, but a good crust can compensate for average cheese or average sauce better than good cheese or good sauce can cover for an average crust. And no-cheese pizzas - often called white pizzas because they have ricotta cheese in dollops around the mozzarella - are pretty common. *shrug* But yeah, pizzas have to be well made.

[Jorda75]

An amusing example of this problem can be seen in the novel "Master of Chains" (SPOILER ALERT). In the desperate attempt to fulfill the promise made by the title of the book the character fight one battle with his slave chains that are still attached to his wrist and then just happens to find a powerful Spiked Chain sitting around in a treasure chest and uses it for one more battle (maybe two).

The author even goes so far as to refer to him in the book as "the master of chains", uhg. The spiked chain is a good weapon, we know that, but this book attempts to glorify it even further and fails miserably.

I hope this post doesn't make anyone curious about the book, it was an ill conceived and even more poorly executed attempt to make what should have been a fringe weapon and make it seem "cool". One of the other novels in the series however, "Ghostwalker" by Erik Scott DeBie is a wonderful revenge/ghost story.

[Gametime]

I don't actually mind the spiked chain's flavor, if you're playing a fairly over-the-top action-oriented game. I think it fits fine into pop-cultural perceptions of, say, ninjas, and that can be a fun game to play.

My problem with it, and I suspect Mike's problem with it, as well, is that it doesn't fit into most fantasy settings but its stats are vastly superior in multiple ways to the other weapon choices. It's the ubiquity that irks me.

[Jorda75]

I don't actually mind the spiked chain's flavor, if you're playing a fairly over-the-top action-oriented game. I think it fits fine into pop-cultural perceptions of, say, ninjas, and that can be a fun game to play.

My problem with it, and I suspect Mike's problem with it, as well, is that it doesn't fit into most fantasy settings but its stats are vastly superior in multiple ways to the other weapon choices. It's the ubiquity that irks me.

Ah I can see that, but then again I still think my barbarian with his great axe and some insane PA feats and weapon qualities can beat any wuss with a Spiked Chain. :smallbiggrin:

[Zovc]

Ah I can see that, but then again I still think my barbarian with his great axe and some insane PA feats and weapon qualities can beat any wuss with a Spiked Chain. :smallbiggrin:

Sure, but I'd hope any "barbarian" could "beat" any "wuss".

[Gametime]

Ah I can see that, but then again I still think my barbarian with his great axe and some insane PA feats and weapon qualities can beat any wuss with a Spiked Chain. :smallbiggrin:

Unless he gets tripped when he provokes an attack of opportunity for moving adjacent to the chain wielder.

One of the things I like about Iron Heroes is that it makes all reach weapons much better, which means you can use significantly less silly polearms if you want the mechanical advantage! :smallbiggrin:

[Sliver]

There's a reason they offer pizzas that are half one topping and half another.

But if you want X topping and you order pizza with 3 more guys who want Y topping and can't stand X, would you expect each of them to eat 1/6th of the pizza while you eat half, and still all of you pay the same?

That's the problem with different levels of optimization. You play the same game but you have different methods, it's so happens that you are the odd one, so the other members of the party feel the strain of needing to cover for you/feel they are constantly overshadowed. So by caring only for your slice of fun, you take away from others'. Compromise. Get some nuclear fusion of anchovies and pepperoni.


its stats are vastly superior in multiple ways to the other weapon choices.

My problem is that other exotic weapons aren't just as good in different areas! If I pay a feat for it, I don't expect to wield a fancy looking martial weapon! That's just fluff that I can ask my DM to change the look of my weapon without changing it's stats. I want my exotic weapons which I spent a feat on to be better. At least more versatile (without stupid self-defeating bonuses like a light disarming weapon)

[Procyonpi]

I just have to say that I totally agree with the OP here. That's actually why I prefer games at low levels, because optimization doesn't matter as much there.

[Gnaeus]

I just have to say that I totally agree with the OP here. That's actually why I prefer games at low levels, because optimization doesn't matter as much there.

False. It just takes different forms.

[Weimann]

So, regarding the whole "spiked chain" discussion, would you allow a character to take the stats of a spiked chain and fluff it as a broadsword?

Also, would it be an idea to just have a few standard weapon types, such as "one-handed weapon", "two-handed weapon" and maybe "light" and "heavy" and a few other attributes, and leave the looks up to the player?

[Scorpina]

So, regarding the whole "spiked chain" discussion, would you allow a character to take the stats of a spiked chain and fluff it as a broadsword?

I don't think that really makes a lot of sense. How can you justify being able to dual wield said broadsword?


Also, would it be an idea to just have a few standard weapon types, such as "one-handed weapon", "two-handed weapon" and maybe "light" and "heavy" and a few other attributes, and leave the looks up to the player?

I think that's a really cool idea. Oftentimes I'd love to take a less generic weapon but I can't get past the fact that it's better to just have a boring old sword.

[Mike_G]

So, regarding the whole "spiked chain" discussion, would you allow a character to take the stats of a spiked chain and fluff it as a broadsword?


I would not. Flavor matters. That's why we are playing D&D and not Squad Leader, just pretending that the German infantry are orcs and the Panzers are Ogres and Giants. Heck, we could play Chess and "re-fluff" the pieces as monsters and PC classes.

You are suggesting we eat the anchovies but pretend they taste like delicious pepperoni instead of low tide and salt flats.



Also, would it be an idea to just have a few standard weapon types, such as "one-handed weapon", "two-handed weapon" and maybe "light" and "heavy" and a few other attributes, and leave the looks up to the player?

Half the point, actually most of the point, of an RPG is the window dressing. It's not the same if there's no difference between a sword and a spear.

[balistafreak]

So, regarding the whole "spiked chain" discussion, would you allow a character to take the stats of a spiked chain and fluff it as a broadsword?

That's a bit of a stretch, personally. Reach is one weapon attribute that I think you can't reflavor no matter what. However...


Also, would it be an idea to just have a few standard weapon types, such as "one-handed weapon", "two-handed weapon" and maybe "light" and "heavy" and a few other attributes, and leave the looks up to the player?

I've done something like this. A (Cleric) player of mine really wanted to wield a punching dagger... despite the fact that it was basically strictly worse than a morningstar. My solution: "Screw it, you're wielding a punching dagger that deals 1d8 damage with a x2 crit range."

Similar concepts involve calling guisarmes halberds, longswords katanas, and bows crossbows. Basically, they're all taking the "optimal" weapons that they can (guisarmes are generally better than halberds due to tripping, katanas are totally not worth EWP, and if you have martial weapon proficency there's little reason to use a crossbow when you can use a plain old bow) but calling them what they like. (There's no real "looks" when it's all in your head. :smalltongue:)

[Gametime]

Half the point, actually most of the point, of an RPG is the window dressing. It's not the same if there's no difference between a sword and a spear.

I think there's a continuum of "important" flavor and "negligible" flavor. The spiked chain's abilities don't really translate well to other weapons - reach in general, actually, doesn't translate well. But the reasons for distinguishing between, say, a greatsword and a greataxe are pretty flimsy, and the flavor less distinct to begin with.

How would you feel about letting a player use a greataxe that dealt 2d6 damage but with a 19-20/x2 crit range, for example? That's something I've got no problem with, but I'm interested in how you'd view it.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Half the point, actually most of the point, of an RPG is the window dressing. It's not the same if there's no difference between a sword and a spear.

In Basic and 1e, every weapon dealt the same 1d6. If it worked for Gygax....:smallwink:

Seriously, to begin with there was no distinction between weapons and armor. Weapons were whatever you wanted to wield because they were all the same mechanically, and while the different Armor Classes technically were different armor types, unless you used the damage-types-vs.-armor-types rules (which, trust me, you didn't) you could call whatever armor any other armor and it worked out fine. It wasn't until you got to 2e and Player Options that weapon speeds, weapon specialization, the specific-weapon-vs.-specific-armor THAC0 option, and such that choice of weapon actually mattered mechanically; since that expansion of weapon and armor options is what lead directly to the "Every 3e fighter has a spiked chain and mithral chain shirt" problem," I'd think you'd be all for reflavoring weapons.

[Matthew]

In Basic and 1e, every weapon dealt the same 1d6. If it worked for Gygax....:smallwink:

Negatory. In OD&D (1974) weapons all did 1d6, but it soon proved unsatisfactory, so variable damage was introduced in Greyhawk (1976), which was the normal case from then on. Holmes (1977) may have had 1d6 damage, I am not familiar with it.



Seriously, to begin with there was no distinction between weapons and armour. Weapons were whatever you wanted to wield because they were all the same mechanically, and while the different Armour Classes technically were different armour types, unless you used the damage-types-vs.-armour-types rules (which, trust me, you didn't) you could call whatever armour any other armour and it worked out fine. It wasn't until you got to 2e and Player Options that weapon speeds, weapon specialization, the specific-weapon-vs.-specific-armour THAC0 option, and such that choice of weapon actually mattered mechanically; since that expansion of weapon and armour options is what lead directly to the "Every 3e fighter has a spiked chain and mithral chain shirt" problem," I'd think you'd be all for reflavouring weapons.
This is very inaccurate and somewhat revisionist. Even OD&D was meant to be used in conjunction with Chainmail, which distinguished between all weapons and armour types that eventually appeared in first edition AD&D (1977); weapon speeds, length, space within which they can be used, encumbrance, movement in armour types all featured heavily in AD&D (1977-9), and are prefigured or evident in OD&D; weapon specialisation appeared in Unearthed Arcana (1985), but initially several years earlier in Gygax's regular Dragon column. You may find this thread useful: Weapon Type versus Armour Class (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=34417&p=685166).

In short, right from the beginning D&D was interested in giving weapons specific and abstract characteristics that reflected their actual or imagined capabilities as best they could be determined within the limits of the game system (however inaccurately).

[Math_Mage]

I would not. Flavor matters. That's why we are playing D&D and not Squad Leader, just pretending that the German infantry are orcs and the Panzers are Ogres and Giants. Heck, we could play Chess and "re-fluff" the pieces as monsters and PC classes.

You are suggesting we eat the anchovies but pretend they taste like delicious pepperoni instead of low tide and salt flats.



Half the point, actually most of the point, of an RPG is the window dressing. It's not the same if there's no difference between a sword and a spear.

I think you're exaggerating a bit if you compare calling a sword an axe to playing chess and calling it D&D. And it seems like for all you don't like certain aesthetic elements of D&D like the spiked chain, you're absolutely opposed to houserules that might fix things. Part of being DM is having the authority to decree that you will eat pepperoni today. Part of being a player is being able to ask the DM if you can eat pepperoni today.

And really, I'm tired of the pizza analogy. There's nothing about "2d4 damage, reach and melee range, can make trip attacks" that's intrinsic to spiked chains the way an anchovy's taste is intrinsic to the anchovy. In fact, if you handed me those stats in abstract, the first weapon I'd think of is a quarterstaff--or maybe one of the longer quarterstaff-like stick weapons used in East Asia. There's nothing wrong with saying that for this campaign, you'll attach these stats to a different weapon that makes more flavor sense to you. It's okay.

[Mystic Muse]

I would not. Flavor matters. That's why we are playing D&D and not Squad Leader, just pretending that the German infantry are orcs and the Panzers are Ogres and Giants. Heck, we could play Chess and "re-fluff" the pieces as monsters and PC classes.

You are suggesting we eat the anchovies but pretend they taste like delicious pepperoni instead of low tide and salt flats.

Actually, we're suggesting you buy the higher quality topping (anchovies) and use a special machine (The DM) to turn them into the topping you like better (pepperoni)




Half the point, actually most of the point, of an RPG is the window dressing. It's not the same if there's no difference between a sword and a spear.

So, what you want is your favorite option to be better than everybody else's?

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Negatory. In OD&D (1974) weapons all did 1d6, but it soon proved unsatisfactory, so variable damage was introduced in Greyhawk (1976), which was the normal case from then on. Holmes (1977) may have had 1d6 damage, I am not familiar with it. This is very inaccurate and somewhat revisionist. Even OD&D was meant to be used in conjunction with Chainmail, which distinguished between all weapons and armour types that eventually appeared in first edition AD&D (1977);

I see; my group only played a few games of 0e and never got the supplements or Chainmail, so I was unaware that they changed weapon damage.


weapon speeds, length, space within which they can be used, encumbrance, movement in armour types all featured heavily in AD&D (1977-9), and are prefigured or evident in OD&D; weapon specialisation appeared in Unearthed Arcana (1985), but initially several years earlier in Gygax's regular Dragon column. You may find this thread useful: Weapon Type versus Armour Class (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=34417&p=685166).

I don't have my 1e PHB at the moment, so I'll have take your word for it. I don't remember my group or my friends' groups using them, so it's entirely possible that they just houseruled them out.


In short, right from the beginning D&D was interested in giving weapons specific and abstract characteristics that reflected their actual or imagined capabilities as best they could be determined within the limits of the game system (however inaccurately).

It seems I'm entirely mistaken about how AD&D handled things; comment retracted. However, I still don't see why saying "I don't have a spiked chain, I have a spear that does 2d4 damage and trips well" or "my barbarian's not actually wearing hide armor, it's just sheer adrenaline that lets him shrug off blows" is a bad thing. 3e doesn't do weapon speeds or weapon/armor charts or any reach more complex than +5 feet reach, so the only differences are base damage, crit range, and crit multiplier, and dropping a greatsword's damage for more reach doesn't seem too big of a deal.

[Mike_G]

Actually, we're suggesting you buy the higher quality topping (anchovies) and use a special machine (The DM) to turn them into the topping you like better (pepperoni)




So, what you want is your favorite option to be better than everybody else's?


No.

I have said that I don't mind a weaker option if I like the concept better. That's what makes me the exact opposite of a powergamer. I don't like that a weapon that would stink in real life is great in D&D.

And a light, two handed, TWF, reach, tripping broadsword is not the answer.

[Mystic Muse]

No.

I have said that I don't mind a weaker option if I like the concept better. That's what makes me the exact opposite of a powergamer. I don't like that a weapon that would stink in real life is great in D&D.

And a light, two handed, TWF, reach, tripping broadsword is not the answer.

Well then what do you want us to do? We've offered you everything we can. You don't want to try a different system, you don't want to refluff a better weapon, and You don't want to houserule. We can't do anything else.

And once again, D&D 3.5 does not model real life well at all and never will except by turning it into an entirely different game.

[Mike_G]

Well then what do you want us to do?



I want you to get off my lawn!!!!



We've offered you everything we can. You don't want to try a different system, you don't want to refluff a better weapon, and You don't want to houserule. We can't do anything else.

And once again, D&D 3.5 does not model real life well at all and never will except by turning it into an entirely different game.

I don't really expect you to do anything.

And I am happy to play my S&B fighter and keep the enemy off my buddy the blaster wizard. I just don't want to hear how I'm wrong.

I am merely (and I did say so up front) ranting that the attitude of needing to have the biggest bonuses has altered the feel of the game to one I don't like.

[balistafreak]

I want you to get off my lawn!!!!

:smallconfused:


I don't really expect you to do anything.

And I am happy to play my S&B fighter and keep the enemy off my buddy the blaster wizard. I just don't want to hear how I'm wrong.

I am merely (and I did say so up front) ranting that the attitude of needing to have the biggest bonuses has altered the feel of the game to one I don't like.

This is probably definitely beating the proverbial horse to death so hard it crosses the line twice and comes back as a skeleton nightmare, but:

As long as there is a choice that clearly offers mechanical benefit, people will gravitate towards it, regardless of "feel", "flavor", or "tradition". It's called progress, and it's how society and civilization march forward. To complain about it is, well, being the proverbial old man on his porch, saying, well... :smallamused:

I understand your point of view, but I cannot endorse it.

[Mystic Muse]

I want you to get off my lawn!!!! I'm not on your lawn.:smalltongue:




I don't really expect you to do anything.

And I am happy to play my S&B fighter and keep the enemy off my buddy the blaster wizard. I just don't want to hear how I'm wrong.

I am merely ranting that the attitude of needing to have the biggest bonuses has altered the feel of the game to one I don't like.

This is not the case on this board. Unless somebody specifically asks for a way to optimize an ambiguous concept most on this board will tell you how to make the character you want to play more effective. If the person didn't want to optimize their character they wouldn't be asking for it. When players ask how to show that a class is weak it's usually because some other player is talking about how strong it is and they won't shut up about how the "weak" player is doing it wrong. Otherwise, they'll tell the OP to just leave them alone.

You don't need the biggest bonuses unless you play in a group like that. But if you play in an optimized group and play a character that's purely flavor you are going to be behind. The only way to avoid this is to make every weapon and concept the same which you've already said you don't want to do.

[Umael]

I'm not on your lawn.:smalltongue:

Metaphorically, you are.

He said, this is the way I like to do it, and you and half a dozen others questioned him on it and offered suggestions (in a few cases, being kinda snide and rude about it too).

All he wants is to sit in his metaphorical rocking chair on his metaphorical porch and complain about people like you when you get on his metaphorical lawn, while never mentioning he probably did the same thing when he was a whipper-snapper like you.



This is not the case on this board.

Well, directly, no. But indirectly, yes. We have a lot of threads about optimization going on where people discuss the math behind the game and how it is better to go with option (A) instead of option (B), where option (B) happens to be what he wants.

[Mystic Muse]

Well, directly, no. But indirectly, yes. We have a lot of threads about optimization going on where people discuss the math behind the game and how it is better to go with option (A) instead of option (B), where option (B) happens to be what he wants.

Could you point me to a few of these discussions? I haven't read any lately. I think the only time I've seen this suggested was in a thread where the DM only gave 22 point buy. Even then, the player said he wanted to play something else so they were just giving suggestions on what to play.


Metaphorically, you are.

He said, this is the way I like to do it, and you and half a dozen others questioned him on it and offered suggestions (in a few cases, being kinda snide and rude about it too).

All he wants is to sit in his metaphorical rocking chair on his metaphorical porch and complain about people like you when you get on his metaphorical lawn, while never mentioning he probably did the same thing when he was a whipper-snapper like you. If all he wants to do is rant he should probably do it somewhere else or make a thread about it (Like the bad DMs/players thread). If somebody has a problem we are going to offer solutions to that problem.

[Mike_G]

Could you point me to a few of these discussions? I haven't read any lately. I think the only time I've seen this suggested was in a thread where the DM only gave 22 point buy. Even then, the player said he wanted to play something else so they were just giving suggestions on what to play.

If all he wants to do is rant he should probably do it somewhere else or make a thread about it (Like the bad DMs/players thread). If somebody has a problem we are going to offer solutions to that problem.

Read the first 7 words of the original post.

If you want to argue about it for 17 pages, that's fine by me, but I've repeatedly stated this is a crabby old man rant.

I'm sorry if you missed the dozen or so times I've said it, but I'm not looking for a solution. I was done about 16 pages ago, but I've had to keep coming back and defending myself from people with poor comprehension skills who think I want an S&B fix, or want to ban WBL or "just want my options to be better than everyone else's."

[Mystic Muse]

Read the first 7 words of the original post.

If you want to argue about it for 17 pages, that's fine by me, but I've repeatedly stated this is a crabby old man rant.

I'm sorry if you missed the dozen or so times I've said it, but I'm not looking for a solution. I was done about 16 pages ago, but I've had to keep coming back and defending myself from people with poor comprehension skills who think I want an S&B fix, or want to ban WBL or "just want my options to be better than everyone else's."

I did. Excuse me for thinking you wanted to accomplish something with that rant rather than it being an entirely pointless thread that should have been locked before anybody posted.

[Mike_G]

I did. Excuse me for thinking you wanted to accomplish something with that rant rather than it being an entirely pointless thread that should have been locked before anybody posted.

Glad to oblige.

Honestly, I don't see how I could have been more upfront about it.

[Umael]

I did. Excuse me for thinking you wanted to accomplish something with that rant rather than it being an entirely pointless thread that should have been locked before anybody posted.

*snort*

And with that comment of yours, I'm going to ignore you.

[Mystic Muse]

Glad to oblige.

Honestly, I don't see how I could have been more upfront about it.

"I'm just complaining here. Please don't respond." then report the thread for the mods to lock it?


*snort*

And with that comment of yours, I'm going to ignore you.

feel free but a thread where no discussion is supposed to take place is considered spam by the mods.

[Tavar]

Glad to oblige.

Honestly, I don't see how I could have been more upfront about it.

Actually labeling it as something not to respond to or discuss would be a good start. Also, not essentially posting a big "You all suck" would be even better. People tend to respond when they're attacked.

[Mike_G]

Actually labeling it as something not to respond to or discuss would be a good start.


I'm fine with discussion. I welcome discussion.

I just don't want to be mischaracterized as wanting my favorite stuff to be better than everyone else's, or that I want to ban all magic or whatever.

There were a number of good points, and interesting options. Once it became "Just use the stuff you hate, but pretend it's the stuff you like" I had to push back. Part of my complaints were the "For a better Fighter, just play a Cleric" threads in the first place.

Discussion doesn't have to lead to resolution, nor do we have to agree to have a fruitful exchange.




Also, not essentially posting a big "You all suck" would be even better. People tend to respond when they're attacked.

I'm sorry if that's how it came across. I will be perfectly clear, I think only most of you suck. :smallbiggrin:


And people need to chill out on "being attacked." If you feel you were, then first of all, you are way too sensetive, and second, if we are all thin skinned, it becomes too tough to discuss anything as we all need to try too hard not to offend anyone to get anything said.