PDA

View Full Version : The impact optimization has on your playstyle?



Pages : [1] 2

Typewriter
2011-02-09, 10:53 AM
So, I've been reading these forums for a while now and there are certain things that come up a lot. Monks suck, wizards rule, fighters/melee can't have nice things, etc. etc.

All of these are true. If you disagree then I am fine with that, but I don't intend for this thread to be about those old arguments. I'm curious about something completely differently, and I'll explain:

Do the rules of optimization and RAW determine your actual playstyle?

I know that, by comparing optimizations, monks suck and are the worst of the core classes, but because nobody in my group really optimizes they do just fine. The wizard is a blaster with occasional spells to do something else. Clerics are healers. Nobody worries about scrolls/wands/UMD because nobody wants the hassle of dealing with those items.

So, in your games, do the wizards always prepare spells like Batman, or do they just grab a random mish-mash? If you want to post your spell list I'd be interested in reading it :P

Do the melee in your games constantly get outclassed by everyone else, or are they just as fun and effective to play as the party wizard or cleric? Do you play melee but heavily houserule it?

These may be weird questions, but I've just been getting more and more curious the more time I spend on these forums. Almost every conversation is made from the viewpoint of easy access to WBL/RAW rules/optimization, yet I occasionally see people making comments about playing these things that they say elsewhere suck.

mootoall
2011-02-09, 11:02 AM
It's really all dependent on play style, really. There's a journal on here by Zaq where even the Truespeaker can be relevant throughout a campaign. It required a buttload of optimization, but he did it. Most people, however, will say that it's unplayable. That's pretty exemplary of the question you're asking.

Typewriter
2011-02-09, 11:06 AM
It's really all dependent on play style, really. There's a journal on here by Zaq where even the Truespeaker can be relevant throughout a campaign. It required a buttload of optimization, but he did it. Most people, however, will say that it's unplayable. That's pretty exemplary of the question you're asking.

That's not really what I was asking. You answered "Can anything be made to work within a group" when my question was "Do the conversations people have here on the forum where RAW is law, and optimization is king actually represent the ways they play".

Obviously the answer is going to be different for different people, but I'm curious to see what people say/how many people say what.

valadil
2011-02-09, 11:14 AM
So, in your games, do the wizards always prepare spells like Batman, or do they just grab a random mish-mash?

This is where my group differs the most from theoretical optimization. I have a fudge happy group. They would never let a single spell shut down 3/4 of the enemies. SoD is even less effective. The first time I played a caster with this group, I was told not to bother with control spells because the GM would all but ignore them. Damage didn't get fudged as much, so those kinds of spells were encouraged.

This group also didn't have a magic mart. And item prices weren't always by the book. This made it very hard for wizards to learn all the spells they'd ever need.

To be honest, I didn't really mind those changes. It was annoying to be unintentionally gimpy because I didn't know what I was getting into. But I liked that it was a new environment to play in. I enjoy having to reevaluate instead of relying on the spells that the internet told me to take.

Tyndmyr
2011-02-09, 11:18 AM
That's not really what I was asking. You answered "Can anything be made to work within a group" when my question was "Do the conversations people have here on the forum where RAW is law, and optimization is king actually represent the ways they play".

Obviously the answer is going to be different for different people, but I'm curious to see what people say/how many people say what.

I have in fact played a long running campaign in which I was an Incantatrix/Iot7v who used things like invisible solid fog, and the entire party could be assumed to be flying at any given point in time. We had a pair of invisibile, blinking, flying assassins as probably the lowest tier characters in the group.

It was epic. The group broke up around level 15 due to lots of people moving/deployed elsewhere. Started at level 1.

big teej
2011-02-09, 11:23 AM
Do the rules of optimization and RAW determine your actual playstyle?

I know that, by comparing optimizations, monks suck and are the worst of the core classes, but because nobody in my group really optimizes they do just fine. The wizard is a blaster with occasional spells to do something else. Clerics are healers. Nobody worries about scrolls/wands/UMD because nobody wants the hassle of dealing with those items.

So, in your games, do the wizards always prepare spells like Batman, or do they just grab a random mish-mash? If you want to post your spell list I'd be interested in reading it :P

Do the melee in your games constantly get outclassed by everyone else, or are they just as fun and effective to play as the party wizard or cleric? Do you play melee but heavily houserule it?

These may be weird questions, but I've just been getting more and more curious the more time I spend on these forums. Almost every conversation is made from the viewpoint of easy access to WBL/RAW rules/optimization, yet I occasionally see people making comments about playing these things that they say elsewhere suck.


point 1: do the rules of optimization and RAW affect playstyle

Not in the slightest, I'm the only one in the group who even crunches the numbers enough to find best armor, but I'll still pick something that fits the character better if necessary (mammoth leather vs chain shirt for example)*

*despite our super-low-op group, I plan on optimizing my upcoming monk a bit, just to be safe.


point 2: wizards

so far the only casters our group has ever had are 1) a Elf Druid (which is being outclassed by the rest of the melee centered party) and 2) a cleric that does NOTHING but heal.
in combat

I plan on playing a sorc/wiz (haven't decided yet) soon (after the monk dies) at which point, I'll play a blaster, because that is more fun for me than to play batman.

also, given our games, batman is UTTERLY uncalled for.

point 3: our group plays almost exclusively melee
we have 2 campaigns going
my campaign
party:
Human Paladin
Dwarf Fighter
Half-Elf Ranger
Human Barbarian
Human Ranger
Human Ranger
Elf Druid
and maaaaaaaaaaaybe a Dwarf Barbarian, pending player commitment.

alt campaign
Human Knight - me
Pathfinder Alchemist - considered OP/strongest member by entire group
Halfling rogue
Half-Orc Barbarian
Dwarf Fighter
Human Cleric
Halfling Fighter

so given that we have no casters, no, they do not outstrip melee, and despite the differences in capabilities, the meleers consistently (always) out-perform the casters

the druid occaisionally casts entangle, thus making life easier (happened 3 times I think)

the Cleric hides behind the knight, half orc, and dwarf and heals them. refusing to wage into combat.

point 4: wierd questions
no, not at all, I often feel the same thing. but to be fair, unless someone posts in EXQUISITE detail about their campaign, build, spending power, op level etc.

the boards can't help but assume average WBL, and thus make suggestions accordingly

granted. occaisionally the suggestions are not helpful at all.
but other times they're an absolute goldmine of information.

for example, My first wizard is coming up soon, and I asked the playground several questions about how to play a wizard,
this got me mixed responses of
a) things I were actually looking for, such as: how I add spells to my spellbook, how many spells I start with, etc
b) things I will never read if I can help it, such as: links to "the guide to being batman", "so-and-so's guide to being a god"

the things in B have 0 interest to me whatsoever

in another thread, about monks, I also recieved polarized responses
response type a) you should do xyzabcaopsdfoig to make your monk more effective

response type b) don't play a monk.

it's at this point I'd like to go on a quick tangent
"don't do that, do x instead is THE MOST USELESS RESPONSE IN EXISTENCE, PLEASE STOP

*that can be: build, class, spell choice, etc.
** x can be: anything not already stated that the poster is GOING to do.
such as play a monk. or a blaster wizard.


/ramble.

The Rabbler
2011-02-09, 11:26 AM
That's not really what I was asking. You answered "Can anything be made to work within a group" when my question was "Do the conversations people have here on the forum where RAW is law, and optimization is king actually represent the ways they play".

I always made effective characters (usually with terrible combinations of classes, feats, and PrCs) but since joining the forum, I've noticed a change in the way I play. I don't pick the terrible combinations anymore, rather I pick strong combinations and underplay them. My group is incredibly unoptimized (monks and fighter/rogues applenty) and they have a habit of making spontaneous and facepalm-inciting plans. I've started building my characters around having a lot of options so I can be prepared for when absolutely everything goes wrong all at once (not uncommon).

TL;DR: I'll make the wizard but not play him like batman until everything goes wrong.

Earthwalker
2011-02-09, 11:28 AM
My DnD game was 3.5 now slowly turning pathfinder.
The group
Forest Gnome Druid level 6.
Human Monk level 6
Human Ranger 5/barbarian 1 (I suggested he take one level of barb, this is the base barb not the lion totem)
Me – Rogue 3 / Wizard(spec divination) 3 / arcane trikster 1.
Spells know for me wizard (going from memory)

Level 1
Mage armour
Sheild
Minor image
True strike
Identify
Comprhend language

Level 2
Cats grace
Detect thoughts
See Invis
Spider Climb
I think most people will see this isn’t optimized at all. The GM does not allow scrolls to be copied to my spell book, so far no other wizard has been willing to trade spells.

So far the ranger does the most damage and is most effective. Then the druid then the monk, then me as a rogue wizard. Of course I am always doing something, just it doesn’t effect much.

Tyndmyr
2011-02-09, 11:37 AM
In my experience, everyone optimizes. It might be at the level of, "ooh, you shouldn't take elf if you're going fighter. You need that con", but it's still optimization.

The higher the average optimization in a game, the more fun it has generally been for me. Why? Because people who know games well enough to optimize decently, well...they know the game well. It means you're all familiar with the game and on the same page as far as tactics and things.

Practical Optimization is just fine. The only problem is when you've got people at wildly different levels of it.

Aemoh87
2011-02-09, 11:39 AM
Pathfinder is good if your group optimizes alot.

But the key is your playing a game that isn't incredibly challenging, it is not a show of your mental fortitude based on your character build. What it really is a way to create a character with role play ideas, which game mechanics to help you express them. So many players build mechanics first, but the game is much more fun if you do it the other way around as well as it adds a unique challenge.

I am playing a cleric right now who is essentially Tier one. I build him on my own based on flavor ideas and he even has a fiend of possession cohort. I appear guilty of OP'ing it up but really he is a cleric seeking acention with the help of demons. I know that if I go full power with this character there could be some very serious issues, so I tend to focus more on what he would do, not what is optimal. (He is a bestial fury/delay death cleric with lots of deathward effects... but he has some serious bestial fury being a half-minotaur)

Devils_Blind
2011-02-09, 11:39 AM
My group has two kinds of campaigns. We have our low to bid optimization campaigns where fighter 20 is common. Then we have our campaigns run by that guy. "10 pages of character devolpment and racial culture that I asked you to write? Excellent! We'll never use it, and BTW, you're a mercenary now. Never mind that you were a paladin, you're a merc. And your god of valor and righteousness totally doesn't give a flip about what you do. Slaughter everything."

No one warned me in the first campaign I played that he was a hack and slash high optimizing sort of guy. So I came with a character, a son of a noble family who was looking to make his mark on the world. "Okay, so, you're all on the slave ship." Wait, what? "You've been captured and sold into slavery." But... my character wasn't. "He is now. Anyway there's a storm..." Blah blah. After that, and spending several three hour fights literally waiting for the session to end because he didn't think consider the non-magic, non-geared character when sending us against a flying wizard, I stopped trusting my DMs to pull me into the story.

Now, I optimize. I don't optimize for ultimate power, I don't batman. But, all of my characters, all of them, have the ability, in some form or another, to tell the DM "No. The campaign goes down like this." Other than thay, I tend to build solid tier three. I buff up fighters. I lock doors. Only when the DM stops playing a game about the party do I run tier one.

Yora
2011-02-09, 11:45 AM
Do the rules of optimization and RAW determine your actual playstyle?
Hell, no!!! :smalleek:

I don't care for optimization and usually play with players who have only few to none experience with RPGs and are happy to go with the plot without looking into any books. So we play really plain old vanilla.

And I always use the core rules by RAIPT. Rules as I prefer them. There's a huge bunch of feats and spells I kicked completely out and I handwave most of the RAW exploits as "this does not work in this game".

You can not cast rope trick and freedom of movement does not apply to grapple. I decide that, end of story.

Typewriter
2011-02-09, 11:48 AM
I have in fact played a long running campaign in which I was an Incantatrix/Iot7v who used things like invisible solid fog, and the entire party could be assumed to be flying at any given point in time. We had a pair of invisibile, blinking, flying assassins as probably the lowest tier characters in the group.

It was epic. The group broke up around level 15 due to lots of people moving/deployed elsewhere. Started at level 1.

Group breaking up sucks. I've often wanted to try getting my group more into optimization, but I fear that once I get them down that road I'll never be able to go back, and right now it's nice having monsters at the appropriate CR actually be a challenge at times :P


Long post

Yeah, I understand why people talk the way they do on the forums, you have to assume RAW/WBL and the like, but you can never tell. I often wondered if my group was some kind of anomoly for playing the way we do.

And yes, I hate it that when asking about a specific thing you often get answers that are completely off. Q: "How do I be a good healer", A:"Don't bother!". Q:"What feats make a monks XYZ better?", A: "Play a swordsage". That's actually the main reason I never ask for advice in builds on these forums. Even when I see someone explain they're class isn't up for negotiation and certain things are off limits, people will still try to tell them to switch class and/or use disallowed books.


I always made effective characters (usually with terrible combinations of classes, feats, and PrCs) but since joining the forum, I've noticed a change in the way I play. I don't pick the terrible combinations anymore, rather I pick strong combinations and underplay them. My group is incredibly unoptimized (monks and fighter/rogues applenty) and they have a habit of making spontaneous and facepalm-inciting plans. I've started building my characters around having a lot of options so I can be prepared for when absolutely everything goes wrong all at once (not uncommon).

TL;DR: I'll make the wizard but not play him like batman until everything goes wrong.

I've found that these forums have affected my DMing more than my playstyle personally. I like creating baddies that are a bigger challenge, and when I get to play I almost always jump towards my favorite class(Monk...).

@Earthwalker

That looks kind of similar to what you would find from some of my players. Of course the only thing that would be prepared is damage, but they would have several known :P

Saph
2011-02-09, 11:48 AM
That's not really what I was asking. You answered "Can anything be made to work within a group" when my question was "Do the conversations people have here on the forum where RAW is law, and optimization is king actually represent the ways they play".

No, and I suspect the same is true for virtually all games. No-one I'm aware of plays by RAW, firstly because it's impossible (oh hey, turns out 90% of the terms in the D&D rules aren't precisely defined, have fun deciding the 'correct' interpretation) and secondly because no-one except for a small minority actually cares.

As for optimisation, the conversations on this board again have little relevance to actual games, because optimisation discussions usually assume that the character's only goal is to be as powerful as possible, which doesn't reflect the priorities of most players.

This is why my groups have been running mixed parties of casters and meleers (who have plenty of nice things, thank you very much) with no real problems for years.

Zaydos
2011-02-09, 11:51 AM
In my experience, everyone optimizes. It might be at the level of, "ooh, you shouldn't take elf if you're going fighter. You need that con", but it's still optimization.

The higher the average optimization in a game, the more fun it has generally been for me. Why? Because people who know games well enough to optimize decently, well...they know the game well. It means you're all familiar with the game and on the same page as far as tactics and things.

Practical Optimization is just fine. The only problem is when you've got people at wildly different levels of it.

While I'm not sure if the second paragraph is true for me (it's been a while since I've played long term; I'm usually the one behind the screen) the 1st and 3rd are definitely true.

Do I let RAW affect my playstyle? If the big bad fails his Will save he fails his Will save. I might give him stuff so that he doesn't fail his Will save, but I'm not going to fudge the dice so he doesn't... I'm actually a little too fudge happy to save the players though. I'm cutting down on that (I lack a killer DM instinct). Edit: To clarify no it doesn't, but that doesn't mean I ignore it to help my monsters.

Wizards? Casters are my preference; even in the older editions I liked casters. Blaster mages are my most common although I've found (due to a DMPC :smallredface:) that I actually prefer buffing an ally, myself, or my animal companion/familiar/pet and then letting loose. A fully buffed tiger and :smallbiggrin: A polymorphed familiar makes me go :smallbiggrin:

On that note I've only really built for power once and the character is fun; mostly because he's a crazy CG conjurer with an imaginary friend who just so happens to be very much real. I only played him in 2 sessions and one he cast Orb of Fire once and other wise did nothing (I had followed the batman's guide and didn't get a chance to use any of the all-powerful spells in it); thankfully it was a test to see which of 3 character ideas I'd actually enjoy playing the most and he beat out Red Dragon and Dwarf with Talking Armor. The second time I threw Polymorph and blasting onto him and he and the druid took out the CR 12 dragon with Fly and Bite of the Weretiger respectively, he took out the magic redirecting wall with a little help from the sorceress, and he was the exact middle of the group when it came to killing incorporeal creatures (the ghost touch unarmed swordsage, and the force specced sorceress beat him there). It was fun to go all out, but I could only do it because the DM requested it and everyone else did too (by which I mean my girlfriend had me make her character, and everyone else asked me for help in making theirs).

@Rabbler: Yeah I like wizards; I don't enjoy playing Batman. I can, but... I only do it when it's a :smalleek: moment. Unfortunately my above wizard only played with his finished spell list in an adventure that was, in order, a list of types of encounters that should be most difficult for him (I'd given it to the DM in case I unbalanced the game; I also knew he liked incorporeal creatures so I avoided most force effects).

Tyndmyr
2011-02-09, 11:57 AM
Group breaking up sucks. I've often wanted to try getting my group more into optimization, but I fear that once I get them down that road I'll never be able to go back, and right now it's nice having monsters at the appropriate CR actually be a challenge at times :P

Ideally, it's more of a slow slide. A lot of us had played together for a few years, at least, so it was just an evolution of us saying "hey, check out this combo" and so forth. Everyone liked having decent characters, and finding cool new tricks was regarded as interesting.

I do agree that there is another type of player...the one what doesn't actually understand optimization, and just copies builds off the internet. These are bad, and should be avoided like the plague.


Yeah, I understand why people talk the way they do on the forums, you have to assume RAW/WBL and the like, but you can never tell. I often wondered if my group was some kind of anomoly for playing the way we do.

Honestly, it's also because it's a common ground. Almost everyone has *some* house rules, but what they are varies pretty wildly. That group tended to be slightly over WBL in most, but not all cases. Interparty conflict was also considered legitimate, so people did steal from each other on occasion, so WBL might not be equal. Other games I've played have varied pretty widely. Still, WBL makes a decent base assumption, and many games have used it for starting at any point after 1st level.


And yes, I hate it that when asking about a specific thing you often get answers that are completely off. Q: "How do I be a good healer", A:"Don't bother!". Q:"What feats make a monks XYZ better?", A: "Play a swordsage". That's actually the main reason I never ask for advice in builds on these forums. Even when I see someone explain they're class isn't up for negotiation and certain things are off limits, people will still try to tell them to switch class and/or use disallowed books.

Those are good bits of advice for people who are new, and do not yet understand the issues involved with them. For people who do know the issues, and are doing it anyhow(challenges are fun, after all), they are spectacularly unhelpful. Unfortunately, sometimes the post doesn't clarify which is which, and sometimes people don't read posts. *shrug*


I've found that these forums have affected my DMing more than my playstyle personally. I like creating baddies that are a bigger challenge, and when I get to play I almost always jump towards my favorite class(Monk...).

One of the fun things about getting good at optimization is being better able to play sub-par concepts.

Cogidubnus
2011-02-09, 12:12 PM
Before I came to these forums, I used to love wizards. Loved 'em. Just thought they were cool. Now I find it hard to touch them because either I'm thinking too hard about how to make them awesome or I'm worried I'll ruin everyone else's fun. All sorts of feats and classes seem to lose their cool factor for me cos of the optimisation discussions I've had.

This is especially true because I've played a lot of PbP here, and the last thing I want to do is be left out of/left behind in a game I really like the idea of because of my power level. This is sad.

To fix the fact that I ended up thinking only about level 20+ Gestalt with ACs of 60-70 minimum, I am now running a level 1 campaign as DM, where the PCs are simply trying to survive a local apocalypse. Totally different ball game, having loads of fun planning it.

bokodasu
2011-02-09, 12:13 PM
One of the fun things about getting good at optimization is being better able to play sub-par concepts.

Oh yeah, this. Go right ahead and put how you're an expert swordsman in your backstory, see how that works for you when you've got a +1 to hit and are up against something with an AC of 40.

I've played in groups that range from "we're using the names of stuff but the only rule is the Rule of Cool" to near-Curmudgeon levels of RAW. And if that doesn't affect your playstyle, then you're not going to have much fun. (UGH, THAT GUY who always picks bad spells on purpose and then refuses to use them on the rare occasion when they would be useful because "I hate ROLL playing!", I am LOOKING AT YOU. Also at you, Mr. Blastsfirsts McPunchyfist, who insists on starting bar fights in our high-diplomacy political intrigue game.)

Less rantily, I have too many character concepts to be able to just pick one and write it up; I'm much more inspired by the limitations of picking a class and feats first and then writing a character that explains those things. So yeah, that too. I'd never play a (D&D) monk or paladin because I've never been interested in playing either of those things, but I certainly put together and play low-op characters when they sound like fun.

Aharon
2011-02-09, 12:13 PM
I have more fun playing :smallbiggrin:

My first serious 3e character was a Psychic Warrior. 3e, mind you, not 3.5. I didn't know what to focus on to make them work. Predictably, he sucked, couldn't contribute, and was killed.

My second character (still 3e) was a cleric. 1hour/level Bull's strength? Divine Favor? Hell yes!

The difference was extreme. Not succeeding isn't fun. And holding back is more reliably possibly than achieving success through lucky rolls.

Tyndmyr
2011-02-09, 12:18 PM
(UGH, THAT GUY who always picks bad spells on purpose and then refuses to use them on the rare occasion when they would be useful because "I hate ROLL playing!", I am LOOKING AT YOU. Also at you, Mr. Blastsfirsts McPunchyfist, who insists on starting bar fights in our high-diplomacy political intrigue game.)

Yes, these people, in all their many forms, have caused me far more grief than any optimization ever has.

PairO'Dice Lost
2011-02-09, 02:10 PM
When I DM, I DM as close to RAW as possible, with the caveats that (A) if everyone in the group votes to ignore something we all think is stupid and pointless (currently, just the multiclass XP penalties and the CPsi power nerfs) we will houserule them and (B) anything the PCs do the NPCs can do, so while I've run one game with chain-gating solars and infinite loops and several with slightly lower optimization levels, my players have never done anything too "out there" like drown-healing or the Omniscifier or things like that. (Though once one player asked what would happen if he were to abuse the drown-healing loophole, and I told him I was perfectly willing to make the BBEG and his minions fanatical followers of a new goddess, She of the Healing Waters in the Bottom of a Bucket, with new tactics to match if he so desired. He declined. :smallamused:)

All of my current players played Guild Wars, WoW, and other games where builds are paramount, so after I convinced everyone to give D&D a try, every one of them was looking for combos and and optimal spells before you could say "If you want to go beyond the PHB, there are several expansion books...." without any input on my part. We had two people freshman year who had played D&D before and initially disliked this "power-gamey" attitude, but after one of them mentioned that he really liked playing fighters and rogues but tended to feel outclassed by the blaster casters in his home group, I showed him how he could build warblades to feel like he wanted his fighters to feel and how he could make sneak attack work better for him. After that, they gave some of those builds a spin in a one-shot I ran and they found it more fun that way; now they can build with the best of them.

And lest you think it's my particular DMing style that forces them to play that way, this semester I'm actually taking a break from DMing to play for once. In our current party we have:
The archer (a mystic ranger with Sword of the Arcane Order, going into abjurant champion by way of an Abrupt Jaunt focused specialist conjurer dip)
The summoner (a shaper psion with all the shaper ACFs and the constructor PrC, ignoring the CPsi astral construct nerf for the usual reasons, with manifester arrows to keep his PP up)
The sniper (a pixie hellfire warlock/legacy champion with Shape Soulmeld [Strongheart Vest] and several sources of sneak attack; this PC's player is one of the people mentioned above who thought us too power-gamey before)
The scout (a changeling UMD rogue/binder with Darkstalker, Mindsight, Lifesense, and a Hide/MS in the stratosphere)
The tank (a bard/anima mage focusing on debuffing and melee combat)
The face (an artificer with a dip into incarnate who does a very nice Iron Man impression)
The buffer (my character, a cleric/Hathran/war weaver/Spellguard of Silverymoon with an acorn of far travel)
We're all having fun and our "rollplaying" doesn't overshadow our roleplaying in the least (the tank is a crotchety old guy, the sniper is chaos incarnate, and I'm a very sanctimonious paladin-type, so our current negotiations with the githyanki are always...interesting), but optimization definitely has an impact on our playstyle.

Unrest
2011-02-09, 02:10 PM
@bokodasu: "near-Curmudgeon levels of RAW" :smallbiggrin:

@OP: Aaaaghaww! When I first came to read the "Roleplaying" section here on the forum, do you think I knew that Dodge was a terrible feat? Did I know that the fighter is outclassed by the wizard by level 3? Could I have ever determined what tier the OA Samurai is just by looking at the picture? NO!

AND I WAS HAPPY!

Now... now, if I'm up for some PbP, I try to optimize. I mean, nothing I would ever see as not elegant or not making sense by fluff for the character... but then the fluff mayget a bit changed around to well, accomodate the crunch. I will read ALL spells from Spell Compendium and PHB - and any other book that's explicitly stated to be available - if building a mage; and would NEVER be able to play any melee class other than ToB. S***! I hate you, Playground, for making me know what minmaxed and optimized power is, and making me LOVE IT while I lash out at its enslaving chains in my soul-burning hatred!

Typewriter
2011-02-09, 02:21 PM
Yes, these people, in all their many forms, have caused me far more grief than any optimization ever has.

In one of my games recently I was playing a Bard. When it came to my turn I said, "I cast haste centered on myself". Another player pointed out that if I cast on another person it would affect the entire party, to which I responded, "If you think my character would ever cast an AoE buff centered anywhere other than himself you have not been paying attention".

So, yeah, I guess I'm that guy to a certain degree :P

Eldariel
2011-02-09, 03:02 PM
To answer the question in the topic:
- Optimization has lead to me realizing the inherent flaws in the system alongside the awesomeness of Psionics and ToB.
- These realizations have lead to me using the system in a heavily houseruled manner with plenty of homebrew content (mostly ToB saturation to bring all the basic classes up to speed, and Psionic expansion to replace vancian casting as desired; oh, and some sweet PrCs).
- Most characters we play are competent at what they do; that is to say, we design characters together, discuss the fluff we want and then work out the best mechanical representation (be it homebrew or official, single-class or a multiclass monstrosity) for it. Generally, our non-casters are ToB-base, half-casters are ToB/Psionic homebrew with occasional Incarnum or Binding thrown in, and casters are Psionic or ToM-based. Though with other groups and online I still play games with Vancian casting and all that and don't usually mind what others play but tend to play some stronger classes myself just so I have lots of leeway in adjusting to how powerful I need to be.

gourdcaptain
2011-02-09, 03:03 PM
I play the closest thing to an optimizer in the two in person groups I'm in (4e/Pathfinder), where the rest of the players are pretty non-build focused in what they do. I mostly take the opportunity to go with the occasional weird choices and try to catch up with the abilities be relevant to them playing unoptimized full casters. (Currently, I'm trying this with in a Pathfinder game with an end goal Kobold Fighter 2 /Rogue 8 /Duelist 10. Yeah, this will be interesting once we get to higher levels (LV 3 currently). Yes, I realize this will probably work terribly.)

I've only ever gone too far over power level of the rest of the party (and the DM) once, in a 4e game with a Revenant Tempest Fighter who took on half the enemy force by himself and won every fight. That character got retired quickly for other reasons, but still...

Zanatos777
2011-02-09, 03:13 PM
In one of my games recently I was playing a Bard. When it came to my turn I said, "I cast haste centered on myself". Another player pointed out that if I cast on another person it would affect the entire party, to which I responded, "If you think my character would ever cast an AoE buff centered anywhere other than himself you have not been paying attention".

So, yeah, I guess I'm that guy to a certain degree :P

That is an acceptable degree though. I know people who would refuse to play a warblade over a fighter simply because the warblade is a better class. No flavor reasons (the warblade would actually fit better) just spite.

Edit: On topic though I tend to play casters who do not focus on damage (though I try to always have some to fall back on) but on messing with the bad guys or powering up the good guys. I have always liked casters (not so much clerics though) so knowing how best to use my spells is something I love. I don't get into the TO and don't make use of ridiculously broken things though the people I play which assume I am simply because I know how to use them.

Aemoh87
2011-02-09, 03:21 PM
That's awful that some one would pick fighter over warblade. I recommend ToB to everyone since it makes combat much more interesting. Also they balance better. If some one decides after looking at that to play fight that is good for them, but usually a ToB class has something to offer them.

Draz74
2011-02-09, 03:23 PM
My previous group used a moderate amount of houserules but was pretty wary of any non-Core material. At least half the group (newbies and old veterans alike) didn't care at all for optimization (we had a bastard-sword-and-board Fighter going into Horizon Walker, but I don't think he even cared about the HW's Dimension Door ability. He had Power Attack but seldom used it. We also had, for example, a Half-Elf Bard with the Run feat and mostly utility spells).

So I had to reign in my natural powergaming inclinations with this group. That being said, I definitely used some optimization principles to come up with characters that I would actually find interesting to play -- no Archer-Rangers whose turns always consist of "I shoot the monsters again," thank you.

My two characters with this group were a Dwarf Rogue with a Fighter 2 dip, who used a Waraxe and a Spiked Shield to TWF; and a Wizard who focused on battlefield control and buffing, but I nerfed him a bit by dipping a level of Rogue and avoiding any "violent" spells.

aquaticrna
2011-02-09, 03:25 PM
I play in a group that optimizes pretty heavily, but because we all know what we're doing we can get away with making subpar characters and still have fun with them. Though we usually worry more having fun through role playing... our current group:

Favored soul of st cuthbert (heavily obsessed with justice) mostly melee

Bard w/ monk cohort (all about the role play, party face, though the monk has been built to work reasonably well via lots of money investment and some tattooed monk levels)

Wizard (enchanter, effective, occasionally dominates or insta ends combat but we usually enjoy what he's doing and play off each other's victories)

Fighter/rogue (brand new to the game, can't say much about him)

and me the swash/fighter/dervish (usually primary damage dealer, mostly due to a combination of dervish dance and bardic music, though is really awesome because of his character)

basically the more we've gotten into optimizing the more we choose to play weird or sub-optimal classes for the challenge, and then role play the **** out of them making them all the better.

Typewriter
2011-02-09, 03:27 PM
That's awful that some one would pick fighter over warblade. I recommend ToB to everyone since it makes combat much more interesting. Also they balance better. If some one decides after looking at that to play fight that is good for them, but usually a ToB class has something to offer them.

I actually have to go the other direction in my group most of the time. I allow people to use ToB if they want, but I try to get people to avoid it for balance issues.

Yes, yes, I know the immediate response to that is "If your DM thinkg ToB is broken, roll up a core only wizard/cleric/druid, blah blah blah". In a group where no one optimizes one person playing a class that makes them awesome with zero optimization needed does tend to make things unbalanced.

Aemoh87
2011-02-09, 03:28 PM
Draz I am so jealous of what you have... cherish it. Chhhhheeeeeerish iiiiit!

Also going back to the ToB issue. It's not broken compared to OP Tier 1. But it just so happens that not every group contains a plethora of Tier 1. So balance issues are more situational than standardized.

Starbuck_II
2011-02-09, 03:33 PM
I use:
Basic optimization is use a wand of CLW, don't waste healing in combat except emergencies.
Clerics should never prepare healing spells unless channel negative energy as they can spontaneous convert.
Granted that is if I'm a cleric. I will note to partyies I'm in that CLW wands are useful if level 3 when they are affordable. But really, it seems like a better deal.
Plus, this way Clerics can prepare whatever he wants. He can still be bandaid if he wants, but in combat he can cast whatever he wishes.
I'd suggest Shield of Faith, bless, prayer, etc.

Wizards should use scrolls (it is a class feature).

Now after that it depends on what you mean by optimization.

Zuljita
2011-02-09, 03:39 PM
one of my groups hadn't heard of optimization till I joined it, and when i heard what everyone else was doing i decided to keep it low key, barb (not even lion totem)/champion of gwynhawrf (sp?).... and i still outclass everyone but the cleric in combat. I'm glad i didnt play the beguiler ive been craving a chance to play though because the GM *ignores* control abilities, everything makes its save, always. As such most of the players focus on direct damage, which works i guess.

Dust
2011-02-09, 03:39 PM
We've stopped playing 3.5 entirely because of the enormous amount of work/research required to be a competent character without being made fun of.

It was horrible.

4e was a godsend in that regard.

Draz74
2011-02-09, 03:41 PM
Draz I am so jealous of what you have... cherish it. Chhhhheeeeeerish iiiiit!

Haha :smallamused: Too late ... I moved to a different state, so I'm long-gone from that group.

Aemoh87
2011-02-09, 03:48 PM
one of my groups hadn't heard of optimization till I joined it, and when i heard what everyone else was doing i decided to keep it low key, barb (not even lion totem)/champion of gwynhawrf (sp?).... and i still outclass everyone but the cleric in combat. I'm glad i didnt play the beguiler ive been craving a chance to play though because the GM *ignores* control abilities, everything makes its save, always. As such most of the players focus on direct damage, which works i guess.

I hate when DM's ignore control. Did you know it says in the DMG you can give experience without them killing the monster!?!?!?!?

That just shattered several DM's worlds. I pref control over damage when I DM.

Darth Stabber
2011-02-09, 03:50 PM
I've played in Very RAW games where Optimizing = life, and in games where monk ain't bad. Ultimately in my current group I have the most raw optimizing skill, but make little use of it, since i have a whimsical streak a mile wide (and I GM the vast bulk of the time). I have a preference for killing things with sword and board, and that alone keeps me from using lots of optitrix (though it does work well in 4e).

Now I still have issues with people playing wizards as blasters . I cringe when the cleric prepares a cureX wounds (and by cringe i mean flip the F out). And I keep wondering why the druid still has a badger companion at lvl 12, and has yet to assume wildshape, and instead continues to fight with scimitars. And it bothers me when the rogue doesn't even consider taking a few ranks in UMD. And CW Samurai still existing as something other than a joke, just sad.

Tyndmyr
2011-02-09, 03:51 PM
I'm glad i didnt play the beguiler ive been craving a chance to play though because the GM *ignores* control abilities, everything makes its save, always. As such most of the players focus on direct damage, which works i guess.

Oddly enough, this is still optimizing. I've seen this happen many times...and I hate it, because it invariably means the players all focus on damage, since it's unoptimal to use a strategy that will be ignored. So, the most optimal character is the one that tosses up the most physical damage, and combats are mostly "stand around the mob and hit him a lot".

It leads to terrible combats.

Aemoh87
2011-02-09, 03:53 PM
I've played in Very RAW games where Optimizing = life, and in games where monk ain't bad. Ultimately in my current group I have the most raw optimizing skill, but make little use of it, since i have a whimsical streak a mile wide (and I GM the vast bulk of the time). I have a preference for killing things with sword and board, and that alone keeps me from using lots of optitrix (though it does work well in 4e).

Now I still have issues with people playing wizards as blasters . I cringe when the cleric prepares a cureX wounds (and by cringe i mean flip the F out). And I keep wondering why the druid still has a badger companion at lvl 12, and has yet to assume wildshape, and instead continues to fight with scimitars. And it bothers me when the rogue doesn't even consider taking a few ranks in UMD. And CW Samurai still existing as something other than a joke, just sad.

I have a problem not optimizing sword and board with everything I have just because I want to be godly at beating things to death with my shield.

Typewriter
2011-02-09, 03:58 PM
I can't stand making enemies auto immune to things like enchantments. There are so many templates/feats/races/abilities that you can use to not have to worry about it just saying, "No", is lazy. I did have a campaign end once because a player thought I was cheating. I wound up having to show him the BBEG character sheet to make him happy, and that wound up ending the campaign because the character design was a pretty hardcore spoiler.

Alternatively I'd prefer it if a DM just said, "There is no enchantment school in this world". My current DM outlawed summoning and teleportation magic in the current campaign, and while that sucks, it's still better than just having spells fail randomly :/

Aemoh87
2011-02-09, 04:03 PM
I don't understand why the game is so much about damage? You take away a huge aspect of the game if it's all damage based.

Typewriter
2011-02-09, 04:08 PM
I don't understand why the game is so much about damage? You take away a huge aspect of the game if it's all damage based.

I'm not 100% sure what you mean by this? Are you responding to a specific post?

If you're just meaning in general I will say that damage is one of the only metrics that you can judge all characters across neutrally.

JonestheSpy
2011-02-09, 04:12 PM
That's not really what I was asking. You answered "Can anything be made to work within a group" when my question was "Do the conversations people have here on the forum where RAW is law, and optimization is king actually represent the ways they play".


Nope, not even close. Partly because I have no qualms about having my own houserules to create a more balanced game, partly because I run low-magic games where every spell and item in the books is NOT automatically available, and partly because we're a weird, iconoclastic group.

The the party in the current game I'm running consists of a Aasimar wilder, a construct fighter-monk, a construct rogue, a human cleric, and a were-ostrich. The last one is new and still finding her ground, but everyone else has no problem contributing equally (the clericzilla phenomenon pretty much vanishes in a campaign where you can't simply by all the healing potions and wands you want).

LordBlades
2011-02-09, 04:13 PM
To the OP: yes, in my group we pay quite a lot of attention to optimization. It's not that we try to make the ultimate OP characters, but rather we optimize for a power level we agree upon beforehand.

Noe of us likes to suck, or having to pick up the idiot ball, so you won't really see stuff like wizard and fighter in the same party.

For example:
Our last game (that ended at lvl 15 or 16 before the winter holiday) we played for high power, and the party was something like:

wizard/incantatrix (me, typical Batman wizard)
spellthief/wizard/unseen seer/incantatrix (our sneaky dude/skill monkey, focusing on persistent polymorph+hunter's eye)
cleric/ordained champion (typical DMM persist CoDzilla focused on charging with leap attack+shock trooper)
ardent/cleric/psychic theurge (only 1 CL lost on cleric, general buffer&party support, good blaster with ardent powers)
factotum/bard/sublime chord (party face, dragonfire inspiration, snokwflake wardance, would alternate between casting and melee as needed)

Our new campaign is about to begin in about 2 weeks (once we're all done with exams), and we're aiming for a much lower power level) I'm playing a straight goliath totemist, and the only other guy that decided on his char wants to go sword&board crusader.

Gnoman
2011-02-09, 04:34 PM
Right now, my party's (I'm DM) Composition is as follows, ranked in order of "power" (by which I mean how effective they've been in combat)


Cerrad: By far the most optimised. A human rouge/swashbuckler/(ToB class i can't remember). Level 12. Died once
Gurk: Orc Barbarian/Bear Warrior. Level 11. Has not died, but was involuntarily plane shifted.
Dharsus: Human Monk. Level 11. Has not died once. Is third in damage dealing.
Eafoth: Templated Human cleric. Level 9 (ECL 11). Has not died, but is only effective against constructs and undead. Keeps the party alive.
Reese: Human wizard. Level 11. Died twice. Most imaginative caster, specializing in Telekinesis.
Beyni: Human Wizard: Level 11. Just joined. power level difficult to gauge
Zook Flamespit. Gnome Wizard. Level 11. Pyromaniac. Died once
Aryana: Human Sorcerer. Level 12. Focuses on summoning and conjuration. Died twice. Planeshifted once. Largely a DMPC due to player loss.

Optimization has little effect on my party, I think.

ScionoftheVoid
2011-02-09, 04:37 PM
I always wanted to optimise, though I'm a lot better at it now than I used to be. I try to encourage my players to optimise, because I am a rather new DM and being able to not hold back takes off a lot of stress. I like the fact that a first level party took down a CR 6 encounter (Entangle is awesome against melee, particularly when that melee is being peppered by blowgun darts covered in Drow sleeping poison/having Doom cast on it until it runs away... into the town and helpless villagers) using teamwork and some mechanical realisation of synergy, even if they did make it up on the spot. Doom is now one of their favourite spells, and I doubt Entangle is leaving the spell list for a while. I would not have as much fun if they had blasters and healbots (worse, healbots preparing Cure X Wounds. I cringe at the thought), and I could guess that they wouldn't, either. Videogames can handle those things. I want a party that can do cool, interesting things whilst still being effective, and optimisation allows that. So does cool description, but past about level 3 you need to try at least a bit to back up that description).

Note: the above is probably slightly rambling and unfocused. This is not intentional, but nor is it worth the time to fix. Sorry.

On DMs ignoring control/SoD: that really sucks. I can play Final Fantasy if I wanted bosses immune to SoD and enemies whose movements I can't halt easily in ways other than hitting them, having more options is half the point of tabletop games (I use the term "half" very loosely here, given that the other "half" is interactive roleplaying with other people in ways which give infinite possible storylines, or close to it).

Typewriter
2011-02-09, 04:41 PM
So that's the third person I've seen specifically mention clerics preparing their cure spells. Unless they're evil that makes no sense, and I will say that I do not consider not preparing cure spells as optimization.

Ozreth
2011-02-09, 04:44 PM
Meh, neither myself or anybody I play with even know how to optimize. We pick a class that sounds fun fluffwise, we picks spells that sound fun to cast. I don't think the words "optimize", "over powered", "broken", or "balance" even cross a single persons mind ha.

I like it that way : )

Darth Stabber
2011-02-09, 04:44 PM
I will say that if you plan on applying metamagic to cures, some gms will make you prepare the meta-version (i won't) as opposed to converting one up, but honestly you're better off just using the higher level version, making the question academic at best, asinine at worst.

navar100
2011-02-09, 04:51 PM
When I joined my current group, aside from the DM I was the only one who really knew the rules well. As such, I knew how to optimize my characters to be powerful. The other players did not resent me but rather would soon start asking me how to improve their characters as the levels and campaigns progressed. Now they rarely need my help. They will make the occasional choice I wouldn't have, but it's their character so that's how it should be. Their choice isn't terrible or sub-optimal, just not my particular taste. They're really enjoying all the stuff they can do now that they're about as familiar with the rules as I am.

There is no sin in optimizing. If one player has an optimized character while another doesn't, the optimizer is not wrong and should not be punished for it. The solution is to help the non-optimizer improve his character. Bring his character up so that everyone is equally happy rather than bring the optimizer's character down so that everyone is equally miserable.

ScionoftheVoid
2011-02-09, 04:52 PM
So that's the third person I've seen specifically mention clerics preparing their cure spells. Unless they're evil that makes no sense, and I will say that I do not consider not preparing cure spells as optimization.

I make an exception for Evil clerics who wish to heal, but I'm glad the party currently has a Good cleric not preparing Cures at all and an Evil one preparing only Cure Minor, saving first level slots for better things (Doom, at the moment, though a few Undead will be a refreshing and enlightening excercise for them :evillaugh:).

I have once, and it was with one of the more experienced (by only a few months, though) players even, had to talk a Good cleric out of preparing Cures. It was an awkward and very exasperating minute or so (he was rather slow to realise what I was saying).

Typewriter
2011-02-09, 05:00 PM
There is no sin in optimizing. If one player has an optimized character while another doesn't, the optimizer is not wrong and should not be punished for it. The solution is to help the non-optimizer improve his character. Bring his character up so that everyone is equally happy rather than bring the optimizer's character down so that everyone is equally miserable.

I kind of agree and disagree with that statement. If you join a group that works a certain way and optimize excessively then you're not integrating into that group as well as you could. No, you haven't done anything wrong, but purposefully, knowingly outdoing the rest of the party isn't very polite. If the other players want to change to a more optimized playstyle that makes sense, but not everyone wants that.

Your making the assumption that people would prefer to play optimized, when some groups enjoy the CR system to be somewhat applicable to the game they're playing. You saying that everyone changing their playstyle would make everyone equally happy is a pretty big assumption that I don't think is universally true(my group generally prefers new players to match them rather than the wother way around).

Typewriter
2011-02-09, 05:08 PM
I make an exception for Evil clerics who wish to heal, but I'm glad the party currently has a Good cleric not preparing Cures at all and an Evil one preparing only Cure Minor, saving first level slots for better things (Doom, at the moment, though a few Undead will be a refreshing and enlightening excercise for them :evillaugh:).

I have once, and it was with one of the more experienced (by only a few months, though) players even, had to talk a Good cleric out of preparing Cures. It was an awkward and very exasperating minute or so (he was rather slow to realise what I was saying).

I had a DMPC once that was dumb as a rock, and was only there because the party had no healers. I specifically told the party to just ignore him as he wasn't harmless, he wasn't secretly the BBEG, he wasn't useful, and trying to find a use for him besides band-aid would just go poorly for them. This DMPC was named Adrian, and the inevitable conversation went like this:

Party is breaking camp:
Seton: Adrian, you finished prepping spells man? We got to go.
Adrian: Yep. Just finished preparing all my cures for the day.
Seton: You only prepare cure spells?
Adrian: No I also prepare some spells to buff my prowess in combat!
Seton: Wait, what? I've never seen you do anything but heal in combat. What combat buffs do you use?
Adrian: None usually, I generally convert them into healing!!! Yay!!!
Seton: You can convert any spell into healing?
Adrian: Yep.
Seton: Then why prepare spells that heal when you can do it dynamically?
Adrian: Fine, if you don't like it you don't get no heals!
Seton: Wait, wha? No that's...Adrian I'm sorry, man...

I told the player he broke two rules. Rule 1 - don't talk to Adrian. Nothing bad would have happened if he had only broken rule 1, but he also broke rule 2 - Don't try to make Adrian useful. For that reason he got no healing for 1 in game week. After that Adrian forgot he was angry with Seton and went back to healing him.

Cogidubnus
2011-02-09, 05:11 PM
I had a DMPC once that was dumb as a rock, and was only there because the party had no healers. I specifically told the party to just ignore him as he wasn't harmless, he wasn't secretly the BBEG, he wasn't useful, and trying to find a use for him besides band-aid would just go poorly for them. This DMPC was named Adrian, and the inevitable conversation went like this:

Party is breaking camp:
Seton: Adrian, you finished prepping spells man? We got to go.
Adrian: Yep. Just finished preparing all my cures for the day.
Seton: You only prepare cure spells?
Adrian: No I also prepare some spells to buff my prowess in combat!
Seton: Wait, what? I've never seen you do anything but heal in combat. What combat buffs do you use?
Adrian: None usually, I generally convert them into healing!!! Yay!!!
Seton: You can convert any spell into healing?
Adrian: Yep.
Seton: Then why prepare spells that heal when you can do it dynamically?
Adrian: Fine, if you don't like it you don't get no heals!
Seton: Wait, wha? No that's...Adrian I'm sorry, man...

I told the player he broke two rules. Rule 1 - don't talk to Adrian. Nothing bad would have happened if he had only broken rule 1, but he also broke rule 2 - Don't try to make Adrian useful. For that reason he got no healing for 1 in game week. After that Adrian forgot he was angry with Seton and went back to healing him.

You are my idol. That's hilarious.

GoodbyeSoberDay
2011-02-09, 05:17 PM
I'd like to point out that though an optimized wizard can be designed to outshine and obviate everyone else, the original TLN Batman wizard was designed to work really well with a standard party. TLN told you to avoid Polymorph, Incantatrix, and other more extreme abuses of the system.

Right now I'm playing a focused specialist conjurer (specializing in area debuffs and battlefield control) in a group with a psywar/warblade, heal-focused druid, trapmonkey rogue and a pretty standard barbarian. Somehow the psychic warblade gets most of the "OP" flak because he can do some d6s of damage by using psionic weapon and mountain hammer, and apparently the greatest thing my wizard has is Fiery Burst. Sure, Sculpted Glitterdust is powerful, but it is (and spells like that are) usually subtle enough to fit within parties of varied optimization levels.

And IMO optimized casters should give melee nice things.

Saint GoH
2011-02-09, 05:30 PM
I find in my groups I was the largest optimizer, by a good stretch. Most people never even looked at the books before coming to session, and used only PHB and SRD to make their characters (even then, we had a druid who used a sling because Wildshaping was too complicated, and a Cleric that PREPARED heal spells despite my insistence they didnt have to).

Then we had some new players come in, and they were much in teh same vein as the original players. I was DM at the time so I never played much, but when they finally saw one of my characters in play (Monk/Ardent/Ur-Priest/Pyschic Theurge) they kicked it into high gear.

Consequently, a few members of the original group left when they began to see that 3/4's of the players liked to optimize, and they were the odd players out. The group grew and now has 7 PC's (:smalleek:) who are a mix of mid to high optimizers. However, they still play a majority of melee, and one person has "optimized" in combat healing with a cleric, so while they optimize melee fairly well I am still the only person that plays any sort of arcane caster (or spellcaster in general) to their full potential.

tl;dr
I am really the only optimizer, and yes it shows in my playstyle. When I DM enemies are just as intelligent as PC's, and when I am a PC I run a Batman/DFI Opt Bard/CoDzilla/Uber-Charger/Urpriest whatever suits my current fancy. I optimize on teh boards and in real life. Consequently, I usually don't get to be a PC because I often overshadow the group.

The Glyphstone
2011-02-09, 05:35 PM
I had a DMPC once that was dumb as a rock, and was only there because the party had no healers. I specifically told the party to just ignore him as he wasn't harmless, he wasn't secretly the BBEG, he wasn't useful, and trying to find a use for him besides band-aid would just go poorly for them. This DMPC was named Adrian, and the inevitable conversation went like this:

Party is breaking camp:
Seton: Adrian, you finished prepping spells man? We got to go.
Adrian: Yep. Just finished preparing all my cures for the day.
Seton: You only prepare cure spells?
Adrian: No I also prepare some spells to buff my prowess in combat!
Seton: Wait, what? I've never seen you do anything but heal in combat. What combat buffs do you use?
Adrian: None usually, I generally convert them into healing!!! Yay!!!
Seton: You can convert any spell into healing?
Adrian: Yep.
Seton: Then why prepare spells that heal when you can do it dynamically?
Adrian: Fine, if you don't like it you don't get no heals!
Seton: Wait, wha? No that's...Adrian I'm sorry, man...

I told the player he broke two rules. Rule 1 - don't talk to Adrian. Nothing bad would have happened if he had only broken rule 1, but he also broke rule 2 - Don't try to make Adrian useful. For that reason he got no healing for 1 in game week. After that Adrian forgot he was angry with Seton and went back to healing him.

Excellent.

Wings of Peace
2011-02-09, 05:47 PM
I've noticed a definite impact on my play-style. I used to favor Sorcerer's over Wizards where as now it's the opposite. For melee characters the main thing that has changed is my builds (example: how I play a power attacker).

This doesn't mean I always play the strongest option though. I used to play Sorcerer's because I liked magic and thought they were the strongest caster, now that I have a broader knowledge of optimization and can make most any concept I like functional I tend to play whatever concept appeals to me the most, rather than the concept which appeals the most without sucking too hard compared to my group. It's liberating for me as a player because I can focus on my role play and less on figuring out how to make my concept not suck mechanically.

Greenish
2011-02-09, 06:39 PM
(Though once one player asked what would happen if he were to abuse the drown-healing loophole, and I told him I was perfectly willing to make the BBEG and his minions fanatical followers of a new goddess, She of the Healing Waters in the Bottom of a Bucket, with new tactics to match if he so desired. He declined. :smallamused:)You should have just said "sure", then if they tried it in game, pointed out how there's no way whatsoever to cure a character from drowning. Three rounds, then you die, and there's by RAW nothing that can save you. :smallwink:

@bokodasu: "near-Curmudgeon levels of RAW" :smallbiggrin:Well, that's not a bad description, the man has less than 10 or so houserules including stuff like "monks are proficient with unarmed strikes". :smallcool:

In one of my games recently I was playing a Bard. When it came to my turn I said, "I cast haste centered on myself". Another player pointed out that if I cast on another person it would affect the entire party, to which I responded, "If you think my character would ever cast an AoE buff centered anywhere other than himself you have not been paying attention".Well, if the bard was exceptionally stupid and selfish, it makes sense. Sort of.

Typewriter
2011-02-09, 06:49 PM
Well, if the bard was exceptionally stupid and selfish, it makes sense. Sort of.

Considers himself to be the center of the universe, so about what you said :P

big teej
2011-02-09, 09:30 PM
. What it really is a way to create a character with role play ideas, which game mechanics to help you express them. .


that's our groups design philosophy (one that I do my best to enforce whenever I sit behind a screen)



Yes, yes, I know the immediate response to that is "If your DM thinkg ToB is broken, roll up a core only wizard/cleric/druid, blah blah blah". In a group where no one optimizes one person playing a class that makes them awesome with zero optimization needed does tend to make things unbalanced.

see my post about the pathfinder alchemist being considered OP by our group



Meh, neither myself or anybody I play with even know how to optimize. We pick a class that sounds fun fluffwise, we picks spells that sound fun to cast. I don't think the words "optimize", "over powered", "broken", or "balance" even cross a single persons mind ha.

I like it that way : )

amen!



Your making the assumption that people would prefer to play optimized, when some groups enjoy the CR system to be somewhat applicable to the game they're playing. You saying that everyone changing their playstyle would make everyone equally happy is a pretty big assumption that I don't think is universally true(my group generally prefers new players to match them rather than the wother way around).

I second this.

I get the feel from some of my players that 'the less effort that goes into my character the better'*


I personally like low op, everything is useful and relevant.
even the monk (dun dun dun!!!) can be used to good effect in as low op a group as I've got (BLASPHEMY!)


*:smallfrown: it saddens me sometimes,

Endarire
2011-02-10, 05:06 AM
My playstyle is to play smart and be the best.

Using 3.5's ruleset or another game's, this is true.

Another member of my group lamented that, as a DM and player, I raised the optimization standards of the group so high.

I played a Hood (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19872838/Little_Red_Raiding_Hood_A_Tale_of_38_Guide_to_the_ 35_Dragoon) cohort in Red Hand of Doom, based on the Hood guide I made. She one-rounded everything but two dragons.

Having her confused against my main character really hurt. What's a resurrection between friends?

Endarire
2011-02-10, 05:09 AM
EDIT: Double post due to timeout and error 500.

LordBlades
2011-02-10, 05:28 AM
I kind of agree and disagree with that statement. If you join a group that works a certain way and optimize excessively then you're not integrating into that group as well as you could. No, you haven't done anything wrong, but purposefully, knowingly outdoing the rest of the party isn't very polite. If the other players want to change to a more optimized playstyle that makes sense, but not everyone wants that.


Purposefully outdoing the optimization level of the rest of the party is bad manners, I agree, but purposefully making an under-performing character is equally bad manners as well, especially when asked by the other players not to.
When the main problem in combat shifts from 'how to win the encounter' to 'how to keep character X from dying', it's a bit tedious (been there, done that).

starwoof
2011-02-10, 06:00 AM
I'm considered the powergamer in both of my groups, which is odd to me because I've never really considered myself one. I am really too lazy to take optimization to the extremes. Last time I played a cleric he was a total waste of character sheet. Fun to roleplay though! My last warlock was a terror though. I dug through all the books I could looking for stuff to make him better at nuking.

I don't even consider weak options anymore. I need to be strong, otherwise I will get bored. When I make a character that is too powerful I try to downplay it as much as possible so that nobody else feels like I am more powerful. I still feel powerful, and they feel powerful. Everyone is powerful. Everyone wins.

Pigkappa
2011-02-10, 12:49 PM
Do the rules of optimization and RAW determine your actual playstyle?

In the current game (in which I'm the DM), no. The experienced players are nice enough to be using low tiers classes and avoid crazy strategies (e.g. "Bard" doesn't mean "Diplomacy abuse"...), and the new ones are unable to optimize.

Boci
2011-02-10, 01:09 PM
In the current game (in which I'm the DM), no. The experienced players are nice enough to be using low tiers classes and avoid crazy strategies (e.g. "Bard" doesn't mean "Diplomacy abuse"...), and the new ones are unable to optimize.

To be fair, bard doesn't mean diplomacy abuse amougst optimizers either. It does however mean dragon fire inspiration.

Draz74
2011-02-10, 02:29 PM
Several people are praising low-op as if it had no downsides (as long as everyone is playing that way together), only upsides like the CR system "working." I'd like to point out there are several potential problems with this low-op style, which I like to hope were the original motivations for higher-op developing:

1) Boring non-caster characters. I'm not talking about your typical out-of-the-box Fighter being weak; that's actually often not true in low-op games. (The DM gives them nicer equipment unconsciously; the DM uses monsters that they have a way to handle; etc. The bastard-sword-and-board Fighter from the campaign I talked about earlier was usually a dominant force in combat.) However, for many players, just saying "I swing at the monster to do some damage" every combat round is boring, even if the damage dealt is plenty of a contribution to the fight.

2) Accidental overpoweredness. Even if everyone is playing low-op style, there's always a chance that someone will accidentally play an optimized character and dominate the game. Druids are often pointed at in this capacity, but I'm talking just as much about the DM accidentally picking out under-CR'ed monsters and TPKing by accident. The CR system doesn't "work" in low-op games, it works for a subset of monsters in low-op games.

3) This borders on metagaming, but ... you've got to wonder, haven't the armies in your campaign setting noticed by now that Power Attacking with a greatsword is more effective than fighting with a sword and shield? And wouldn't they, economically, have adapted to such a style? So how does a low-op campaign setting still have armies that use shields? (And so forth; this problem isn't limited to Fighter styles.) To the thoughtful player who knows some optimization principles, it becomes a matter of verisimilitude -- and therefore good roleplaying -- to include at least a bit of Practical Optimization in his characters.

Not saying D&D groups who all play low-op together are wrong, or aren't fun. They are great. But they're not inherently superior to groups who are uniformly at other optimization levels, and these are three points in favor of the more high-op style. Note that none of them is just "because I want my character to kick @$$ more," which is often the motivation that high-op gets branded with.

Boci
2011-02-10, 02:47 PM
3) This borders on metagaming, but ... you've got to wonder, haven't the armies in your campaign setting noticed by now that Power Attacking with a greatsword is more effective than fighting with a sword and shield? And wouldn't they, economically, have adapted to such a style? So how does a low-op campaign setting still have armies that use shields? (And so forth; this problem isn't limited to Fighter styles.) To the thoughtful player who knows some optimization principles, it becomes a matter of verisimilitude -- and therefore good roleplaying -- to include at least a bit of Practical Optimization in his characters.

I wouldn't call that metagaming. In my current game there are practically no fighters because that teaching style has died out in favour of martial adepts.

Typewriter
2011-02-10, 02:47 PM
1) Boring non-caster characters. I'm not talking about your typical out-of-the-box Fighter being weak; that's actually often not true in low-op games. (The DM gives them nicer equipment unconsciously; the DM uses monsters that they have a way to handle; etc. The bastard-sword-and-board Fighter from the campaign I talked about earlier was usually a dominant force in combat.) However, for many players, just saying "I swing at the monster to do some damage" every combat round is boring, even if the damage dealt is plenty of a contribution to the fight.

True, but that's a problem that's going to exist regardless of optimization. Most players will either not play classes they think are boring, or will find ways to make it more interesting to themselves. I personally enjoy playing simple things in D&D because it's faster and I can do random stuff from time to time, plus I care more about RP. That being said, I hate, hate, hate playing plain melee in video games. It gets boring as hell most of the time.



2) Accidental overpoweredness. Even if everyone is playing low-op style, there's always a chance that someone will accidentally play an optimized character and dominate the game. Druids are often pointed at in this capacity, but I'm talking just as much about the DM accidentally picking out under-CR'ed monsters and TPKing by accident. The CR system doesn't "work" in low-op games, it works for a subset of monsters in low-op games.


This happens sometimes, I'll agree, and different people handle it in different ways. I've had DMs who would apply templates to lagging characters to rebalance things, I've personally retired characters who were too OP for the group at the time.



3) This borders on metagaming, but ... you've got to wonder, haven't the armies in your campaign setting noticed by now that Power Attacking with a greatsword is more effective than fighting with a sword and shield? And wouldn't they, economically, have adapted to such a style? So how does a low-op campaign setting still have armies that use shields? (And so forth; this problem isn't limited to Fighter styles.) To the thoughtful player who knows some optimization principles, it becomes a matter of verisimilitude -- and therefore good roleplaying -- to include at least a bit of Practical Optimization in his characters.

Whenever I build NPCs I build from the viewpoint of the NPC. If I'm a knight I'm going to take a sword and shield. I don't know PA exists, I don't know any feats exist. I just know that when I create NPCs there is a direct connection between what they've done and what they can do. That's how I create NPCs, which is more preference than anything. I also play characters in this way which sometimes leads to good builds, and sometimes leads to atrocious builds.



Not saying D&D groups who all play low-op together are wrong, or aren't fun. They are great. But they're not inherently superior to groups who are uniformly at other optimization levels, and these are three points in favor of the more high-op style. Note that none of them is just "because I want my character to kick @$$ more," which is often the motivation that high-op gets branded with.

No, and I'm not trying to say any group is better than another. My curiosity was more about whether people who say "Monk is worthless" are people who are talking RAW or in-game. As I said, I acknowledge monks suck. By RAW that's true. They blow. Compare them to any other class and they fall behind. Playing one of them, however, and it's often the opposite because my group doesn't optimize at all.

What I've seen a lot of is exactly what I thought: some of both. Some groups play heavily optimized games where the discussions they take part in are examples of how they play, and other times people don't play the way they talk, but on a forum like this talking RAW/optimization is the only safe/neutral ground.

Typewriter
2011-02-10, 02:54 PM
I wouldn't call that metagaming. In my current game there are practically no fighters because that teaching style has died out in favour of martial adepts.

I'd call that metagaming, but that's just me. Just because something is better than something else doesn't mean everyone is going to be able to do it. Fighters would still be the most common melee class and teachers would look for exceptional students to turn into martial adepts. Building a worlds inhabitants around the concepts of people being able to pick and choose their abilities from a book with no requisite training, and effort being level across all fields is very much metagaming, in my opinion.

Draz74
2011-02-10, 03:23 PM
True, but that's a problem that's going to exist regardless of optimization.
Not really, since Tome of Battle makes melee characters a lot more interesting to play, and Tome of Battle automatically gets you considered mid-to-high-op.


Most players will either not play classes they think are boring, or will find ways to make it more interesting to themselves.
Yeah, but if the group needs a certain role filled (healbot), or if you think the flavor of a certain type of character is interesting (as I do, with melee) but its mechanics are boring ...


Whenever I build NPCs I build from the viewpoint of the NPC. If I'm a knight I'm going to take a sword and shield. I don't know PA exists, I don't know any feats exist. I just know that when I create NPCs there is a direct connection between what they've done and what they can do. That's how I create NPCs, which is more preference than anything. I also play characters in this way which sometimes leads to good builds, and sometimes leads to atrocious builds.
I'm not saying people know Power Attack or other feats exist, or think in terms of character mechanics. Even without knowing PA exists, you can notice that big strong guys who hit hard with a greatsword always beat guys with a shield. Or that certain martial arts are better than others. Or that magicians who never cast Fireball (i.e. Wizards who ban Evocation) make up a disproportionate amount of history's successful casters.

Optimization would happen over time in a campaign world just through survival of the fittest, regardless of whether the people involved know what a "Feat" is.


No, and I'm not trying to say any group is better than another. My curiosity was more about whether people who say "Monk is worthless" are people who are talking RAW or in-game. As I said, I acknowledge monks suck. By RAW that's true. They blow. Compare them to any other class and they fall behind. Playing one of them, however, and it's often the opposite because my group doesn't optimize at all.

Yep, that's true. There are a LOT of games out there where the Fighter can hold his own just fine, because of the ways the group plays (unconsciously) different from its RAW potential. (Or even the Monk, although personally I've never seen that one work out well.)

Boci
2011-02-10, 03:23 PM
I'd call that metagaming, but that's just me. Just because something is better than something else doesn't mean everyone is going to be able to do it.

I know. Such people would then either not be a fighter (this represents 1-2 level dips) or a warrior.


Fighters would still be the most common melee class

They were, but over the course of 100 years they were replaced by warblades since many fighters were unable to cope with the harsh place the world was becoming.


teachers would look for exceptional students to turn into martial adepts.

Nope. There is nothing exceptional about a martial adept, beyond the fact that they have class levels. They just proved to be more adaptable than the fighter.


Building a worlds inhabitants around the concepts of people being able to pick and choose their abilities from a book

Its not based around that, its based around fighters as weapon masters having died out. The fighter class still exists, it represents someone doing a series of simple weapon drills and psysical excercises to boost their physical performance.



with no requisite training

Huh? Where did you get that from?

Typewriter
2011-02-10, 03:28 PM
The optimization of NPCs and whether or not it's metagaming isn't really what I was looking for in this conversation, and it's the kind of conversation where I don't think two people with differing opinion could really agree. Suffice it to say I disagree.

Gnaeus
2011-02-10, 04:00 PM
We are a pretty optimization conscious group. We don't have hard and fast rules on what classes to play, but we range between tiers 2 and 4 by agreement. (When my last character died, DM suggested that I could play a tier 1, but to dip another class to lower power level).

The DM & I both offer suggestions to the less optimization savvy players. DM offers suggestions to me on what items to craft. But he treats us as an optimized mid-high level party, and he doesn't pull many punches just because there was some area of offense or defense that we neglected to account for. His monsters are also optimized. Most have had feats swapped out. Many have unusual class levels. If I see an enemy with Fighter levels, you can bet he is a Dungeoncrasher optimized for bull rushing.

We also run with gentlemans agreements. That generally means that I don't run with spells and effects that I think are broken until I see an NPC use them against us.

Arillius
2011-02-10, 04:03 PM
During my first campaign the first 3 characters I had were basically story made characters, picked because they were fun characters to play. In maybe 7 sessions they all got player killed either for being useless, or because one player got drunk, or finally because I played stupid evil as my first character and did not do it well. So my newest character is optimized, and will be till 5th level where I will start feeling comfortable enough that hes still alive to start taking class levels for roleplaying reasons instead of making him strong enough that the two player killers in our group can't kill him.

During my second campaign I chose a class and a role, 4e, because I wanted to play that. I have a strike/defender paladin who the DM says is also a little like a controller, I mark like crazy on so many targets per battle. He hits real hard like and the campaign won't be going much past level 15 so I don't really have to worry about him getting outclassed to much. Its fun though, and I'm not going to optimize him the way the forums would suggest, which is already pretty clear since the forums suggest striker pal;adin is usually bad.

Dr. Steve
2011-02-10, 04:14 PM
I have to say that reading the optimization boards has affected my play somewhat.

I am happy to say though that I take it into account so it doesn't matter. My characters all start out as an idea and I just use the core books from whatever set to make it as close as I can (In some cases I have to DM house rule in stuff with the rule of cool, but mostly because neither of us want to mine pdfs for the right rules.).

I commonly play characters that are travesties by standards of optimizations, mostly because they're terrible by everyone elses standards. e.g. the wizard who very badly wanted to be a fighter, complete with plate armor and a 2 handed sword. Granted my party was confused as to how my fighter was so bad (we play without showing each other our character sheets). But when I pulled out the fireball, well... That made it all worth it.

nyarlathotep
2011-02-10, 04:20 PM
As a DM I just have to ignore CR system when making encounters for an optimized group, but other than that I find it easier to work with an optimized than an unoptimized group. I don't have to be constantly worrying that I will kill them, combat is actually fun because everyone can do something, and non-combat encounters have more creative solutions because optimizers are in my experience far more able to think outside the box based on the tools provided them than Stormwinders, who then to need to have a solution already made for them.

Also I have found God casters are far closer to those of literature than a blaster wizard or healbot cleric. For instance Gandalf cast 1 blasting spell in the entirety of Lord of the Rings, his spells were likely all just precombat buffs like a Clericzilla.

Typewriter
2011-02-10, 04:34 PM
As a DM I just have to ignore CR system when making encounters for an optimized group, but other than that I find it easier to work with an optimized than an unoptimized group. I don't have to be constantly worrying that I will kill them, combat is actually fun because everyone can do something, and non-combat encounters have more creative solutions because optimizers are in my experience far more able to think outside the box based on the tools provided them than Stormwinders, who then to need to have a solution already made for them.

Also I have found God casters are far closer to those of literature than a blaster wizard or healbot cleric. For instance Gandalf cast 1 blasting spell in the entirety of Lord of the Rings, his spells were likely all just precombat buffs like a Clericzilla.

I've never had the group go especially high powered, but I did have one campaign where I allowed them WBL at their discretion. Essentially I created a crafting system, and they got a certain amount of points every time they leveled they could spend to craft stuff. That caused me some trouble because I was having to rebalance things completely. Much weirder than what I was used to, and I imagine them going optimization would have a similar affect.

Gnaeus
2011-02-10, 04:36 PM
Also I have found God casters are far closer to those of literature than a blaster wizard or healbot cleric. For instance Gandalf cast 1 blasting spell in the entirety of Lord of the Rings, his spells were likely all just precombat buffs like a Clericzilla.

Or unused SLA's, since he was an Outsider.

Endarire
2011-02-10, 10:42 PM
Before I played any 3.x tabletop campaigns, I read the Ye Olde Min/Max board and other boards for 3.0 optimization advice. I had not idea how to build a level 30 character, and it was thrust upon our group.

I normally read guides for video RPGs on how to build the best characters, since I know just how important they are.

Regarding NPC optimization, I assume the NPCs are generally smart and know what the best things are. They use those. For example, crit fishers use Aptitude Kukris. Most front-liners use greatswords or polearms. The non-casting/manifesting classes are martial adepts (including martial Ranger and martial Marshal) and Factotums because they work.

Also, I optimize both sides of the game. I advocate making everything the most powerful it can be within the rules. This way, people can play the heroic and interesting things they want to play.

NichG
2011-02-10, 11:05 PM
Recently I've been running and playing in a lot of campaigns that do weird things that change the optimization landscape. Normally I find optimization is sort of a 'the standard tricks have been discovered already' thing, but when the rules are so markedly altered, it makes things fresh again. Optimum E6 Fort-casting characters are very different than optimum 'party effective CR 120 living in a world with Final Fantasy mathematics (damage and hp in the thousands)' characters are very different than 'party of ghosts in the lands of the dead with weird spirit magics' characters are very different than ...

LordBlades
2011-02-11, 03:03 AM
True, but that's a problem that's going to exist regardless of optimization. Most players will either not play classes they think are boring, or will find ways to make it more interesting to themselves. I personally enjoy playing simple things in D&D because it's faster and I can do random stuff from time to time, plus I care more about RP. That being said, I hate, hate, hate playing plain melee in video games. It gets boring as hell most of the time.

RP is pretty much class independent. They guy that plays the wizard can RP just as well as the guy who plays the monk, but has the added bonus of not sucking in combat.
Some people might not find it boring, but let's admit it, the only option a non-ToB melee charater has in combat is to hit things.




This happens sometimes, I'll agree, and different people handle it in different ways. I've had DMs who would apply templates to lagging characters to rebalance things, I've personally retired characters who were too OP for the group at the time.

The only balance that really matters in the game is intra-party balance. As long as all the chars work at a similar power level(practical optimization level that is, not 'I break the game tricks'), a good DM can provide challenging encounters for the party, be it Tier 1 or Tier 6. The biggest balance issues is when what's challenging for character A equals 'no save, just die' for character B, and what's challenging for character B equals 'minor annoyance I'd just solve in 1 round max' for character A.




Whenever I build NPCs I build from the viewpoint of the NPC. If I'm a knight I'm going to take a sword and shield. I don't know PA exists, I don't know any feats exist. I just know that when I create NPCs there is a direct connection between what they've done and what they can do. That's how I create NPCs, which is more preference than anything. I also play characters in this way which sometimes leads to good builds, and sometimes leads to atrocious builds.

RL people optimize, especially in war, when their lives depends on it. I'm a fan of military history, and I can tell you that people will evolve and adapt pretty quickly to superior equipment/tactics. For example, romans adopted the spanish Gladius after seeing it was better than their sword. they also adopted the manipular formation after it proved superior to the hoplite phalanx. Also, many peoples that came into contact with celts adopted the chain mail because it was superior to the armors they were using.

So it seems pretty logical that in the D&D world, where fighting with a two-handed weapon is clearly superior in any way to sword&board, most warriors would prefer two-handed weapons.

NichG
2011-02-11, 03:34 AM
RL people optimize, especially in war, when their lives depends on it. I'm a fan of military history, and I can tell you that people will evolve and adapt pretty quickly to superior equipment/tactics. For example, romans adopted the spanish Gladius after seeing it was better than their sword. they also adopted the manipular formation after it proved superior to the hoplite phalanx. Also, many peoples that came into contact with celts adopted the chain mail because it was superior to the armors they were using.

So it seems pretty logical that in the D&D world, where fighting with a two-handed weapon is clearly superior in any way to sword&board, most warriors would prefer two-handed weapons.

This is a little tricky since many character options are not things that logically extend from actual in-character choices. On the strict level of optimization, everyone in a D&D world should aspire to be a wizard, cleric, or druid with high stats in the prime requisite for those things. But a person can't choose their Int (you could argue that stats derive from childhold training or something, but you could just as well argue that they're fixed properties of a being since they're so hard to alter after chargen). Similarly, a lot of feats are things like 'you unlock nascent power' or 'you gain the blessing of an outsider' or ... These are hard to justify as in-character choices like wielding a 2-handed weapon.

Add to that that a lot of optimization tricks involve in some sense knowing the entry points for things like PrCs, and how to make them in time. It seems a little odd that characters would consciously realize that their improvements are organized in levels, and that every three levels something special happens that could let them suddenly receive a surge of insight and figure out advanced techniques (PrC abilities) but only if they time it exactly right in their training.

At the least, I'd only expect that out of very specialized training-based environments where hundreds of people are taking that exact same path. If there are only 100 level 20 characters in the world, most of those paths simply would not have not been explored before the PCs do it.

LordBlades
2011-02-11, 03:46 AM
This is a little tricky since many character options are not things that logically extend from actual in-character choices. On the strict level of optimization, everyone in a D&D world should aspire to be a wizard, cleric, or druid with high stats in the prime requisite for those things. But a person can't choose their Int (you could argue that stats derive from childhold training or something, but you could just as well argue that they're fixed properties of a being since they're so hard to alter after chargen). Similarly, a lot of feats are things like 'you unlock nascent power' or 'you gain the blessing of an outsider' or ... These are hard to justify as in-character choices like wielding a 2-handed weapon.

Add to that that a lot of optimization tricks involve in some sense knowing the entry points for things like PrCs, and how to make them in time. It seems a little odd that characters would consciously realize that their improvements are organized in levels, and that every three levels something special happens that could let them suddenly receive a surge of insight and figure out advanced techniques (PrC abilities) but only if they time it exactly right in their training.

At the least, I'd only expect that out of very specialized training-based environments where hundreds of people are taking that exact same path. If there are only 100 level 20 characters in the world, most of those paths simply would not have not been explored before the PCs do it.

My point was more in regard to simple optimization choices, that one could think about in char (like two-hander vs sword and board, or picking BFC spells vs. blasting spells).

More complicated choices involve metagaming because that's how the system works. When certain things have specific, mechanical prerequisites that you would need to fulfill, it's just no other way. Take PrCs with skill requirements, let's say 5 ranks in knowledge (whatever). Even if your char wants to take that PrC for in-game reasons, there is no way, in game, he would know the precise amount he needs to study whatever in order to be admitted.

jseah
2011-02-11, 06:40 AM
Do the rules of optimization and RAW determine your actual playstyle?
<..>
So, in your games, do the wizards always prepare spells like Batman, or do they just grab a random mish-mash? If you want to post your spell list I'd be interested in reading it :P
Yes, my characters tend to be the insanely powerful casters because I have a tendency to play weird stuff. Like this guy:

Spell to power Erudite 5 / Metamind 5 (Hyperconscious)
T1 class...

Power List
# are the ones that are sequestered and can't be used
LEVEL 0 (DC: 15) no cost, 5/day
*Amaunensis (Wizard)
*Read Magic (Wizard)
*Detect Magic (Wizard)
*Arcane Mark (Wizard)
*Light (Wizard)

LEVEL 1 (DC: 16)
Precognition, Defensive
Precognition, Offensive
Synchronicity
Mind Vault (Hyperconscious)
**Eidetic Lock
**Know Direction and Location
**Energy Ray
*Control Object (Kineticist)
*Mindlink (Telepath)
*Arcane Sight (Trapsmith) (Dungeonscape)
*Clairaudience/Clairvoyance (Trapsmith) (Dungeonscape)
*Cure Light Wounds (Bard)
*Dispel Magic (Trapsmith) (Dungeonscape)
*Identify (Wizard)
*Summon Monster I (Wizard)
*Improvisation (Bard)
*Magic Aura (Wizard)
*Scholar's Touch (Wizard) (Races of Destiny)

LEVEL 2 (DC: 17)
Bestow Power
Sense Link, Forced
Damp Power
Detect Hostile Intent
*Control Air (Kineticist)
*Energy Missile (Kineticist)
*Clairvoyant Sense (Seer)
*Object Reading (Seer)
*Sensitivity to Psychic Impressions (Seer)
*Arcane Eye (Trapsmith) (Dungeonscape)
*Dimension Door (Trapsmith) (Dungeonscape)
*Dark Way (Wizard)
*Resilient Sphere (Trapsmith) (Dungeonscape)
*Sonorous Hum (Bard)
*Wings of Cover (Sorceror) (Races of the Dragon)

LEVEL 3 (DC: 18)
Causal Loop (Hyperconscious)
Solicit Psicrystal
Time Hop
Dimension Twister
**Telekinetic Thrust
**Touchsight
**Glyph of Warding, Psionic
**Energy Bolt#
**Body Adjustment#
*Greater Dispel Magic (Trapsmith) (Dungeonscape)
*Hustle (Egoist)
*Create Fetch (Bard) (CScr)
*Clearstone (Wizard) (LEoF)
*Elemental Eye (Wu Jen) (CMage)
*Shatterfloor (Wizard) (MoF)
*Wall of Stone (Trapsmith) (Dungeonscape)

LEVEL 4 (DC: 19)
Divination, Psionic
Psychic Reformation
Trace Teleport
Personality Parasite#
**Telekinetic Maneuver#
*Control Body (Kineticist)
*Schism (Telepath)
*Quintessence (Shaper)
*Anchored Navigation (Seer)
*Remote Viewing (Seer)
*Celerity (Wizard) (PHBII)

LEVEL 5 (DC: 20)
Ethereal Agent (CPsi)
True Seeing, Psionic
Psychic Crush#
Tower of Iron Will#
...But not exactly a T1 spell selection, even though I use trapsmith spells (!!)

Tyndmyr
2011-02-11, 09:18 AM
Or unused SLA's, since he was an Outsider.

Look, if the claim is "lol, gandalf is only fifth level.....but he's a solar!", then the whole claim of D&D representing LOTR chars in six levels is already pretty much worthless.

Eldariel
2011-02-11, 09:56 AM
Look, if the claim is "lol, gandalf is only fifth level.....but he's a solar!", then the whole claim of D&D representing LOTR chars in six levels is already pretty much worthless.

Given Arda is a world of practically infinite power potential for any individual (Morgoth, a Vala, was actually afraid of Turin Turambar, a human, growing so mighty as to cast aside the "curse" Morgoth had lain on him [Morgoth "laying a curse" means, of course, a terrible fate which Morgoth would bring to happen with his might rather than any of that unluck/negative energy/ill omen/cursing Witches do - being among the strongest beings in the creation grants you some privileges like making your curses happen yourself]; and he was severely wounded in a single fight with the Elven king Fingolfin), placing any kinds of level restrictions on any system describing it is pretty ridiculous.

Of course, any kind of system with a round-based combat would pretty much fall flat on its face describing any of the more powerful beings in the world since many of the battles last days. Hell, even LoTR itself has one: Gandalf fought the Balrog "for two days and nights".

Typewriter
2011-02-11, 10:14 AM
RP is pretty much class independent. They guy that plays the wizard can RP just as well as the guy who plays the monk, but has the added bonus of not sucking in combat.
Some people might not find it boring, but let's admit it, the only option a non-ToB melee charater has in combat is to hit things.


Fighters hitting things is something that is independant of optimization. Melee classes are going to swing their swords. I personally often find ways to do things other than 'just swing a sword', and no it doesn't require ToB.



The only balance that really matters in the game is intra-party balance. As long as all the chars work at a similar power level(practical optimization level that is, not 'I break the game tricks'), a good DM can provide challenging encounters for the party, be it Tier 1 or Tier 6. The biggest balance issues is when what's challenging for character A equals 'no save, just die' for character B, and what's challenging for character B equals 'minor annoyance I'd just solve in 1 round max' for character A.


I don't think I said otherwise. My point was exactly the same as yours - a party needs to be balanced within itself. If one player is lagging the DM will sometimes help him get better, if one player is OP the DM might nerf him (I generall avoid this, personally)



RL people optimize, especially in war, when their lives depends on it. I'm a fan of military history, and I can tell you that people will evolve and adapt pretty quickly to superior equipment/tactics. For example, romans adopted the spanish Gladius after seeing it was better than their sword. they also adopted the manipular formation after it proved superior to the hoplite phalanx. Also, many peoples that came into contact with celts adopted the chain mail because it was superior to the armors they were using.

So it seems pretty logical that in the D&D world, where fighting with a two-handed weapon is clearly superior in any way to sword&board, most warriors would prefer two-handed weapons.

Yes and no. Luckily real life mimics physics and logic, but in an RPG common sense and logic are not mirrored by the mechanics they live in. People have adapted through time because we have the capability to look at something and know how it will work based off of its capabilities.

You say that two-handed weapons are clearly superior, but how would that become so obvious? People don't know about HP or anything like that. The majority of people would wear armor and shields because that seems logical. More protection = less death. That makes sense. Sure, every now and then someone will come around who doesn't wear armor and has a huge sword and he'll do a really good job, but nobody is going to look at that situation and say, "Oh, it's because he has a bigger sword", because from a "I'm looking at the situation" viewpoint that doesn't make sense. You'd think that guy was really good at what he did, and continue doing what makes sense from a non-mechanics viewpoint.

Real life example:
There was a guy who won the medal of honor a few years ago. He led a charge up a hill against enemy gunfire and all the people with him died. He killed a bunch of people, ran back down the hill to grab some more ammo, then ran back up the hill to kill some more. All in all he made around 4 trips up and down the hill. All of them alone except the first one. And he didn't get hit, even though he was under constant fire (including at one point a turret that he blew up with a grenade).

We are not changing military tactics to copy someone who did really well because it doesn't make sense. He did a fine job, no one would ever say otherwise, but nobody is going to want to mimic that just becasue it went well. People are going to continue to go along with what is safe.

If this had happened in a D&D setting people would copy his build and get the same affect as him, but people in an RPG shouldn't know that.

Typewriter
2011-02-11, 10:17 AM
Hell, even LoTR itself has one: Gandalf fought the Balrog "for two days and nights".

My theory was always that they both had DR and AC higher than the others to-hit + 20, so it went forever because they rarely critted. I'm guessing they used the variant rule where trip 20s kill and Gandalf finally just got lucky.

Eldariel
2011-02-11, 10:27 AM
My theory was always that they both had DR and AC higher than the others to-hit + 20, so it went forever because they rarely critted. I'm guessing they used the variant rule where trip 20s kill and Gandalf finally just got lucky.

Actually, he used magic mostly. Lightning struck and fire burst, and so on. And he was hacking out at the thing while it was strangling him. But really, that happened a lot. Ëarendil vs. Ancalagon was days-long affair too and many of the fight between the Vala and such lasted for long, long times.

If you wanted to, you could make an approximation by just giving each side obscene amounts of HP but really, the system doesn't bend to such power lightly. In D&D, power is very different; most of the power is just having the ability to cast certain spells. Given magic is so much different and requires something to work with (like, Gandalf explaining why he cannot simply melt the snows of Caradhras: "If Elves could fly over mountains, they might fetch the Sun to save us, answered Gandalf. But I must have something to work on. I cannot burn snow."), much of the magic of D&D would have to be different or dysfunctional altogether.

And hell, what "magic" is is never explained too deeply; only that the word "magic" covers many different things of the elder tongue and that not all the power is alike; apparently the Enemy's power, while "magical", is not the same power employed by e.g. the Elves or the Istari.


Overall, any attempt to portray LoTR in a system that's anything like D&D is a fool's errand at best. It might produce an enjoyable game but it won't be anywhere akin to the world itself, at least as portrayed in the Silmarillion, Lord of the Rings and company.

LordBlades
2011-02-11, 10:40 AM
Fighters hitting things is something that is independant of optimization. Melee classes are going to swing their swords. I personally often find ways to do things other than 'just swing a sword', and no it doesn't require ToB.

If you find other stuff to do, you find them due to your own creativity as a player. Melee classes(especially fighter) are built around hitting things and little else (little else useful anyway).




I don't think I said otherwise. My point was exactly the same as yours - a party needs to be balanced within itself. If one player is lagging the DM will sometimes help him get better, if one player is OP the DM might nerf him (I generall avoid this, personally)

that part of my post was meant to say that I agree with you on that issue. Sorry if it wasn't obvious.:smallsmile:




Yes and no. Luckily real life mimics physics and logic, but in an RPG common sense and logic are not mirrored by the mechanics they live in. People have adapted through time because we have the capability to look at something and know how it will work based off of its capabilities.

You say that two-handed weapons are clearly superior, but how would that become so obvious? People don't know about HP or anything like that. The majority of people would wear armor and shields because that seems logical. More protection = less death. That makes sense. Sure, every now and then someone will come around who doesn't wear armor and has a huge sword and he'll do a really good job, but nobody is going to look at that situation and say, "Oh, it's because he has a bigger sword", because from a "I'm looking at the situation" viewpoint that doesn't make sense. You'd think that guy was really good at what he did, and continue doing what makes sense from a non-mechanics viewpoint.

Wearing shields seems logical in our, real world, where a shield provides a pretty great deal of protection because is basically a big thing that you can deflect stuff with.

In the D&D world, shields are not nearly as useful. Let's take a hypothetical 1st level human warrior(16 str, 10 dex, 14 con; irrelevant others) with decent non-magical gear (weapon, banded mail and heavy steel shield). His AC is 16 (10 base+6 armor) without a shield, and 18 with the shield. His attack bonus is +4. Which means he'd have to roll 12+ (40% hit chance) vs an identical duplicate of him without shield and 14+ (30% hit chance) to hit the same identical duplicate with shield.

So he could safely draw the conclusion that shields are not very effective(he managed to block only 10% of the incoming hits with the shield).

On the other hand, such a warrior would have 7 HP (as a NPC) and he'd deal 1d8+3(needs to roll +5 to kill) with a longsword and 2d6+4(needs to roll 4+ to kill) with a greatsword. Which means a longsword hit is lethal in 37.5 % of the cases, while as a greatsword hit is in 91.6% of the cases.

So a shield would only help him marginally, whereas a two-handed weapon would increase his kill chance by more than 50%.

What he knows 'in character': it's hard to hit an enemy (less than half of the time), shields only help a little bit, when he does hit with a longsword, more often than not his opponent isn't taken out of the fight by a single blow, unlike a greatsword, which kills almost on any hit.

So IMHO, if one was to act logically in the concordance with the laws that govern the D&D world, wearing a shield would be pretty pointless compared to using a two-handed weapon

Tyndmyr
2011-02-11, 11:35 AM
Of course, any kind of system with a round-based combat would pretty much fall flat on its face describing any of the more powerful beings in the world since many of the battles last days. Hell, even LoTR itself has one: Gandalf fought the Balrog "for two days and nights".

Agreed. Already referenced that myself as one excellent reason why Gandalf can't really be represented by a level 5 D&D wizard.

In fact, long, long combat is a common thing in epic literature. Certainly when compared to combat lengths in D&D. A combat that lasts a full minute is already extremely lengthy in 3.5.

Typewriter
2011-02-11, 12:08 PM
Wearing shields seems logical in our, real world, where a shield provides a pretty great deal of protection because is basically a big thing that you can deflect stuff with.

In the D&D world, shields are not nearly as useful. Let's take a hypothetical 1st level human warrior(16 str, 10 dex, 14 con; irrelevant others) with decent non-magical gear (weapon, banded mail and heavy steel shield). His AC is 16 (10 base+6 armor) without a shield, and 18 with the shield. His attack bonus is +4. Which means he'd have to roll 12+ (40% hit chance) vs an identical duplicate of him without shield and 14+ (30% hit chance) to hit the same identical duplicate with shield.

So he could safely draw the conclusion that shields are not very effective(he managed to block only 10% of the incoming hits with the shield).

On the other hand, such a warrior would have 7 HP (as a NPC) and he'd deal 1d8+3(needs to roll +5 to kill) with a longsword and 2d6+4(needs to roll 4+ to kill) with a greatsword. Which means a longsword hit is lethal in 37.5 % of the cases, while as a greatsword hit is in 91.6% of the cases.

So a shield would only help him marginally, whereas a two-handed weapon would increase his kill chance by more than 50%.

What he knows 'in character': it's hard to hit an enemy (less than half of the time), shields only help a little bit, when he does hit with a longsword, more often than not his opponent isn't taken out of the fight by a single blow, unlike a greatsword, which kills almost on any hit.

So IMHO, if one was to act logically in the concordance with the laws that govern the D&D world, wearing a shield would be pretty pointless compared to using a two-handed weapon

I think what your standard footsoldier type warrior would know is that "Shields protect me from enemies". If you think ye olden time peasants training to be 'great knights' would really think about it any more than that you're giving ye olden time peasants a lot more credit than I'm willing to.

Letting mechanics dictate logic is silly. That's how you get to things like the commoner cannon and infinite wishes.

And you're forgetting something else - you don't know your stats compared to somebody elses because there's no in-game measurable way to determine all that stuff. If you're that two-handed warrior and you just got stomped by a level 20 guy with a shield you have no idea that its' because he has AC 100 and 300 HP. You just know that guy is a much better warrior than you or your buddy(with a shield) who you trounced.

There are too many variables in an RPGs mechanics (some of which are completely random) to let that be the guiding force for their logic, in my opinion.

Tyndmyr
2011-02-11, 12:14 PM
Letting mechanics dictate logic is silly. That's how you get to things like the commoner cannon and infinite wishes.

This ain't the same. Those require a great deal of very specific rules knowledge, and killing of catgirls.

If a greatsword works a great deal better than sword and board, then units that use greatswords are more likely to win and survive. This will probably be noticed. Plus, people tend to get taught what to do by survivors.

Sometimes this leads to good advice, as with weapons.

Sometimes it leads to silly things, as with superstitions. You will never hear the story of the soldier who's lucky charm didn't work.

Typewriter
2011-02-11, 12:21 PM
This ain't the same. Those require a great deal of very specific rules knowledge, and killing of catgirls.

If a greatsword works a great deal better than sword and board, then units that use greatswords are more likely to win and survive. This will probably be noticed. Plus, people tend to get taught what to do by survivors.

Sometimes this leads to good advice, as with weapons.

Sometimes it leads to silly things, as with superstitions. You will never hear the story of the soldier who's lucky charm didn't work.

True, and for the record I'm not saying that there wouldn't be people training their personal guard/army this kind of thing. I just think that if you tell the average warrior in a village "Hey, screw the shield, just run at that guy with a big ol' sword" you'd get a lot more funny looks than you would people actually willing to do it.

The idea of hiding behind a piece of metal in a fight is going to appeal more logically to people, regardless of what broken physics dictate.

There's also the law of escalation in armed conflict. If your military has always used sword and shield warriors to defend its land it's probably going to stick by that. Sure, every now and then you'll get a guy whose much more effective, but that just means he gets promoted.

Why would anyone ever switch to two-handed if sword+shield work just fine, and even if someone displays that they're better with a two hander why would anyone think that means that they'd be better with a two hander?

Explain to me, in character, why I should give up my shield.

Tyndmyr
2011-02-11, 12:29 PM
Coz hiding behind that shield means you can't see wot's goin' on round you. Plus, you gots that little sword, wot barely reaches past the hilt of this 'ere blade. You do that, and I'm gonna hit you before you even get to swing at me, see? Why you think those knights use lances, eh? Coz they gets to hit you first afore you even gots a chance. That's why the boys wot uses a big sword comes back alive, see?

Typewriter
2011-02-11, 12:31 PM
Coz hiding behind that shield means you can't see wot's goin' on round you. Plus, you gots that little sword, wot barely reaches past the hilt of this 'ere blade. You do that, and I'm gonna hit you before you even get to swing at me, see? Why you think those knights use lances, eh? Coz they gets to hit you first afore you even gots a chance. That's why the boys wot uses a big sword comes back alive, see?

That made me happy.

"But it's my pappies shield, what he got from his grandaddy"

Sucrose
2011-02-11, 12:33 PM
True, and for the record I'm not saying that there wouldn't be people training their personal guard/army this kind of thing. I just think that if you tell the average warrior in a village "Hey, screw the shield, just run at that guy with a big ol' sword" you'd get a lot more funny looks than you would people actually willing to do it.

The idea of hiding behind a piece of metal in a fight is going to appeal more logically to people, regardless of what broken physics dictate.

There's also the law of escalation in armed conflict. If your military has always used sword and shield warriors to defend its land it's probably going to stick by that. Sure, every now and then you'll get a guy whose much more effective, but that just means he gets promoted.

Why would anyone ever switch to two-handed if sword+shield work just fine, and even if someone displays that they're better with a two hander why would anyone think that means that they'd be better with a two hander?

Explain to me, in character, why I should give up my shield.

It's a tiny little piece of metal that barely covers a quarter of your body, and dramatically restricts the size of your weapon. Thus, when you have to fight an ogre, the fact that you put a shield in front of you has a very low chance of preventing him from breaking your arm, then tearing your limbs off and eating you. Meanwhile, your sword has much less reach than his arm, and is too small and has too little force behind it to deal with him. If you use a greatsword, it might be big enough to chop his head off. If you use a glaive, you'll have the reach to be able to strike at him before he staves your skull in. But a shield? What's a shield going to do against half a ton of raging muscle?

Fighting enemy foot troops with a longsword and shield makes a fair degree of sense- you're probably fighting commoner conscripts, who will be taken out by a small weapon, and the protection could save your life. Against any of the actual fantastical elements that you have to deal with (like what most adventurers tend to fight) a shield is kinda pointless.

Typewriter
2011-02-11, 12:36 PM
It's a tiny little piece of metal that barely covers a quarter of your body, and dramatically restricts the size of your weapon. Thus, when you have to fight an ogre, the fact that you put a shield in front of you has a very low chance of preventing him from breaking your arm, then tearing your limbs off and eating you. Meanwhile, your sword has much less reach than his arm, and is too small and has too little force behind it to deal with him. If you use a greatsword, it might be big enough to chop his head off. If you use a glaive, you'll have the reach to be able to strike at him before he staves your skull in. But a shield? What's a shield going to do against half a ton of raging muscle?

Fighting enemy foot troops with a longsword and shield makes a fair degree of sense- you're probably fighting commoner conscripts, who will be taken out by a small weapon, and the protection could save your life. Against any of the actual fantastical elements that you have to deal with (like what most adventurers tend to fight) a shield is kinda pointless.

That's true, and I will concede that in some campaigns in makes more sense than in others. If people are under constant siege by monsters they're going to evolve faster. That goes back to the whole escalation of conflict thing though.

Tyndmyr
2011-02-11, 12:39 PM
That made me happy.

"But it's my pappies shield, what he got from his grandaddy"

I'm glad you like. =)

Yer pappy and grandpappy would want you to be alive son. Shields might 'ave been all well and good back in their day, but dya want to block a troll hit wif yer shield? Break yer arm, like as not. You best be sticking him fulla holes afore he does the same ta you.

Typewriter
2011-02-11, 12:42 PM
I'm glad you like. =)

Yer pappy and grandpappy would want you to be alive son. Shields might 'ave been all well and good back in their day, but dya want to block a troll hit wif yer shield? Break yer arm, like as not. You best be sticking him fulla holes afore he does the same ta you.

But I don't gonna fight no trolls. Is been training for taxation duties. Shields protect me right good from farmers pitchforms.

bokodasu
2011-02-11, 12:49 PM
But they don't. Saying "logically, shields are better than big weapons" is the same thing as saying "logically, women have fewer teeth than men." Ok, maybe logically (given some rather suspect premises), but anyone who actually bothers to look into the matter sees that it's not true. And when, eventually, someone does, the knowledge will spread to everyone else pretty quickly. See: 100th monkey theory.

(Or, alternatively, the stubborn holdouts will get killed by the new modern style of big-sword-wielding, and you'll have a two-year-old inheriting grandpa's shield vs. the trained warrior who stayed alive instead of passing down his equipment to his heirs.)

NichG
2011-02-11, 12:57 PM
So the optimization may end up still being different for a military in the case of D&D than for a skirmishing group.

Consider the goals of your average conscript. Their primary goal for them is not to kill the enemy, its to survive battle until one side or the other calls retreat. On the individual level, a shield is more optimal for that than a greatsword. You really really want to be that one guy using a tower shield and full-plate in an army of greatsword-wielding barbarians in chain.

Gnoman
2011-02-11, 01:00 PM
Here's the thing about that. You are assuming that in every D&D world, there are enough army-level engagements where a significant amount of one side used a greatsword, and that was adequate enough to make the difference in the battle in every case. This is a bad assumption.

Individual combat has little to do with army-level combat. In individual combat, a handgun is a pretty dangerous weapon. Take that handgun to a battlefield and you are going to be in trouble. Thus, the logic that "adventurers with greatswords" will cause everyone to abandon sword and shield is iffy.

Thus, only army-scale engagements matter for the purpose of this discussion. It is entirely plausible in most settings that these are fairly rare, as adventurers are usually cheaper.

Typewriter
2011-02-11, 01:02 PM
But they don't. Saying "logically, shields are better than big weapons" is the same thing as saying "logically, women have fewer teeth than men." Ok, maybe logically (given some rather suspect premises), but anyone who actually bothers to look into the matter sees that it's not true. And when, eventually, someone does, the knowledge will spread to everyone else pretty quickly. See: 100th monkey theory.

(Or, alternatively, the stubborn holdouts will get killed by the new modern style of big-sword-wielding, and you'll have a two-year-old inheriting grandpa's shield vs. the trained warrior who stayed alive instead of passing down his equipment to his heirs.)

But again I ask - does your world operate like this? There's just hundreds of warriors taking different feat paths, and periodically they go to war with each other? They compare maximum carrying capacity to get an idea of equal STR, and then take turns stabbing each themselves for minimum damage to determine sturdiness(HP), and then, if they're equal, they fight to see which of them is better?

The very concept of levels makes individual builds impossible to compare in any realistic way in game. Mechanics do not translate to logic, and trying to force them to creates inconsistencies.

Dave uses a greatsword.
Bob uses a sword and shield.
Steve has a sword and shield.

Dave kills Bob with a single swing.
The next day Steve kills Dave in a single swing.

Onlookers say, "Wow, I guess certain people do well at different times".

What happened?
A. Steve was level 30
B. Steve crit
C. Bob was flat footed, and Steve had a level of Rogue
D. Any and/or all of the above and there is no in-game way to know

Tyndmyr
2011-02-11, 01:03 PM
Not an army of greatswords, a unit of greatswords.

Look at the real world proliferation of tactics and weapons. This is historical. Things like pikes didn't entirely displace other things, but when they worked great, others did copy them and/or develop tactics to deal with them.

Shields would still exist...but sword and board just wouldn't be the standard. Things like tower shields would be great vs archers.

Typewriter
2011-02-11, 01:07 PM
Not an army of greatswords, a unit of greatswords.

Look at the real world proliferation of tactics and weapons. This is historical. Things like pikes didn't entirely displace other things, but when they worked great, others did copy them and/or develop tactics to deal with them.

Shields would still exist...but sword and board just wouldn't be the standard. Things like tower shields would be great vs archers.

And I think it makes sense for any army to have a varied group of tactics to choose from. Your standard foot soldier would be sword/shield, archers would use bows, and your groups that would attack an enemies flank while they're engaged in the footsoldiers would be the two-handers. The two-handers would take more casualties because they'd be a bigger threat and would have fewer defenses, but they would also do the best.

Everyone would have their place, but an entire army wouldn't restructure around the optimized build.

bokodasu
2011-02-11, 01:07 PM
There are levels between "army vs. army" and "adventurer vs. adventurer". What are the police/guard forces using? Private bodyguards? Mercenary squads? Bandit... um... whatever you call groups of bandits? All of these would be "fighters" whose goal *is* to kill (or disable) their enemy as quickly as possible, not hang around the back and hope someone else gets into battle first. And none of them (except maybe guard forces) would have any interest in fighting methods that are "traditional" vs "will leave me alive and my opponent not".

Tyndmyr
2011-02-11, 01:10 PM
And I think it makes sense for any army to have a varied group of tactics to choose from. Your standard foot soldier would be sword/shield, archers would use bows, and your groups that would attack an enemies flank while they're engaged in the footsoldiers would be the two-handers. The two-handers would take more casualties because they'd be a bigger threat and would have fewer defenses, but they would also do the best.

Everyone would have their place, but an entire army wouldn't restructure around the optimized build.

The optimal build changes the core of the army though. Also, two hander and shield are not entirely exclusive. A buckler with a two hander is quite doable, and walking in with a tower shield then dropping/strapping it to your back is also reasonable.

In a D&D world, two handers are going to be more popular, while other things fill more specialist roles.

Typewriter
2011-02-11, 01:13 PM
There are levels between "army vs. army" and "adventurer vs. adventurer". What are the police/guard forces using? Private bodyguards? Mercenary squads? Bandit... um... whatever you call groups of bandits? All of these would be "fighters" whose goal *is* to kill (or disable) their enemy as quickly as possible, not hang around the back and hope someone else gets into battle first. And none of them (except maybe guard forces) would have any interest in fighting methods that are "traditional" vs "will leave me alive and my opponent not".

But where do these mercenaries learn this stuff? They pick some up as they go along, maybe fight in an army or militia. A group of mercenaries would probably have a big tough guy in charge(PA two hander), and a bunch of misc. people under him including rogues, and shield warriors.

Oh crap, the guards found us and are breaking in! Pinky and thorn - you two hold them off while we get away.

Pinky and thorn are, of course, shield wearing warriors who will be able to hold off the 30 guards outside better than the boss because they have more AC. In a tight spot you'd want the boss, but that doesn't mean the boss is the only build to stick around.

NichG
2011-02-11, 01:27 PM
So there is an interesting aspect to all of this, which is that if you were to actually simulate a world on these principles, where the ones who lived got to teach their style to the next generation, and iterated, you could find various outcomes:

1. There is One Build. This is the solitary game-theory-stable build within the constraints you apply (say, no casters and fixed simple tactics) that just wins.

2. There are a couple of evolutionary niches depending on environmental factors: unit size, tendency of command to call a retreat, etc.

3. There are a couple of evolutionary niches that arise from support roles. This is the analogue of symbiosis. Things like, every 10th guy should be a marshal.

4. There are a couple of evolutionary niches because of underlying rock-paper-scissors interactions in the rules. An archer beats a guy in full plate with a movement speed of 10. The full plate guy beats a lightly armored barbarian with 40ft base move. The barbarian beats the archer...

Some of these have consequences that are hard to anticipate from analysis and experience deriving from actual play examples, since the environment in actual play is not necessarily the same as the environment for NPC combatants.

Tyndmyr
2011-02-11, 01:34 PM
2. There are a couple of evolutionary niches depending on environmental factors: unit size, tendency of command to call a retreat, etc.

3. There are a couple of evolutionary niches that arise from support roles. This is the analogue of symbiosis. Things like, every 10th guy should be a marshal.

These are the main two. For instance, dwarven defender being accessible to dwarves will likely affect the standard makeup of them. It's also a class that is mostly only useful in confined spaces. So...it makes sense for dwarves. Not so much in all contexts.

Support roles, definitely. Consider the bard. It's usefulness is fairly static...you only need so many bards in an army. You certainly wouldn't want all bards. However, you most certainly want enough to blanket your troops with the appropriate song buffs.

Gnaeus
2011-02-11, 02:06 PM
Dave kills Bob with a single swing.
The next day Steve kills Dave in a single swing.

Onlookers say, "Wow, I guess certain people do well at different times".

What happened?
A. Steve was level 30
B. Steve crit
C. Bob was flat footed, and Steve had a level of Rogue
D. Any and/or all of the above and there is no in-game way to know

That is fine and all, but it fails under observation. Pretty quickly, the typical guard unit is going to realize that none of the level 1 guards can beat their level 5 captain even if they have a greatsword and he only has a gauntlet. But when they fight equal level people (namely each other), which they would be doing a lot while practicing, they will quickly realize which weapons work better. Not "I hit him 47% of the time when I have an X and he is using Y" realize, but "It seems like I win more fights with my fellow guards when I use X."

Saph
2011-02-11, 02:22 PM
Actually, shields are pretty decent at low levels, for two reasons:

a) at low levels, most attacks target AC and every bit helps
b) many low-level enemies have such low HP that one hit with a one-handed weapon will kill them, making a two-handed weapon redundant.

There's also the issue of personal priorities. The guy with a chain shirt and a greataxe does more damage than the guy with full plate and sword and shield, and also has a lower AC. This means that given a choice, enemies are going to kill the guy with the greataxe first. In real life, most people consider being safer much more important than having a high kill count.

Typewriter
2011-02-11, 02:22 PM
That is fine and all, but it fails under observation. Pretty quickly, the typical guard unit is going to realize that none of the level 1 guards can beat their level 5 captain even if they have a greatsword and he only has a gauntlet. But when they fight equal level people (namely each other), which they would be doing a lot while practicing, they will quickly realize which weapons work better. Not "I hit him 47% of the time when I have an X and he is using Y" realize, but "It seems like I win more fights with my fellow guards when I use X."

But you're pretending that level dictates rank which is a metagame decision.

A shield/sword warrior with ranks in social skills, knowledges, and a 14 INT is going to be leader while the level 5 guy could be a grunt. Sure, any of those troops might be able to beat the commander because his build isn't optimum, but he would still be the best leader. Comparing yourself to any other members of your unit makes no sense. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, and there is no way to know what's causing the wildly varying outcomes.

Sucrose
2011-02-11, 02:28 PM
But you're pretending that level dictates rank which is a metagame decision.

A shield/sword warrior with ranks in social skills, knowledges, and a 14 INT is going to be leader while the level 5 guy could be a grunt. Sure, any of those troops might be able to beat the commander because his build isn't optimum, but he would still be the best leader. Comparing yourself to any other members of your unit makes no sense. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, and there is no way to know what's causing the wildly varying outcomes.

I think this is somewhat missing the point. In any situation where fights are going to be repeated (such as sparring) the cause of various outcomes can be sussed out, and often will be.

If the level 5 guy is a grunt, the others will know from experience that unless they get really lucky, there's nobody on the squad who's a match for the guy in hand-to-hand. From this, level, at least as a combatant, in general terms, can be deduced. Then, it gets to the same point as was made earlier- people will be able to see which combat styles are more effective, given the same amount of skill.

Typewriter
2011-02-11, 02:33 PM
I think this is somewhat missing the point. In any situation where fights are going to be repeated (such as sparring) the cause of various outcomes can be sussed out, and often will be.

If the level 5 guy is a grunt, the others will know from experience that unless they get really lucky, there's nobody on the squad who's a match for the guy in hand-to-hand. From this, level, at least as a combatant, in general terms, can be deduced. Then, it gets to the same point as was made earlier- people will be able to see which combat styles are more effective, given the same amount of skill.

What you deduce is that that guys better than you. What would you make you think that there's any difference between Joe beating you up with a greatsword, and Steve beating you up with a sword and shield. To you they are both simply better than you.

Greatsword guy beats everyone except Steve, who fights with a sword and shield. Steve beats everyone. What's the difference between them? Steve is better!

Gnaeus
2011-02-11, 02:38 PM
But you're pretending that level dictates rank which is a metagame decision.

A shield/sword warrior with ranks in social skills, knowledges, and a 14 INT is going to be leader while the level 5 guy could be a grunt. Sure, any of those troops might be able to beat the commander because his build isn't optimum, but he would still be the best leader. Comparing yourself to any other members of your unit makes no sense. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, and there is no way to know what's causing the wildly varying outcomes.

The group is going to know pretty darn soon that most people are about even, except for Bob, who is a badass. Who the group leader is is less important than who is about even in fighting skill, and it doesn't take a genius to figure that out. Don't be silly. Of course you compare yourself with the people you practice against, day in and day out. And if you do have a leader with a 14 int who is watching his people practice, maybe taking notes, it shouldn't take long to for him to figure out what the optimum weapons are if he has one available to watch people practice with. "Hmm. Bob wins all his matches, because he's Bob. Otherwise, whoever is practicing with the greatsword that day seems to be the favorite to win. Maybe I should order more greatswords!"

Typewriter
2011-02-11, 02:42 PM
The group is going to know pretty darn soon that most people are about even, except for Bob, who is a badass. Who the group leader is is less important than who is about even in fighting skill, and it doesn't take a genius to figure that out. Don't be silly. Of course you compare yourself with the people you practice against, day in and day out. And if you do have a leader with a 14 int who is watching his people practice, maybe taking notes, it shouldn't take long to for him to figure out what the optimum weapons are if he has one available to watch people practice with. "Hmm. Bob wins all his matches, because he's Bob. Otherwise, whoever is practicing with the greatsword that day seems to be the favorite to win. Maybe I should order more greatswords!"

So you decide to go to second best because you have magical insights into the leveling system?

There is no such thing as levels. There are simply those who are better and those who are worse.

"Hey man, Bob does really good with that sword/shield combo... why are you all training with greatswords?"
"Steve likes greatswords, and can beat us all up with them"
"Except Bob?"
"Yeah, Bob is a beast"
"So instead of trying to go for #1 you're going to start mimicking #2?"
"Yeah"

Draz74
2011-02-11, 02:43 PM
The very concept of levels makes individual builds impossible to compare in any realistic way in game. Mechanics do not translate to logic, and trying to force them to creates inconsistencies.

Dave uses a greatsword.
Bob uses a sword and shield.
Steve has a sword and shield.

Dave kills Bob with a single swing.
The next day Steve kills Dave in a single swing.

Onlookers say, "Wow, I guess certain people do well at different times".

What happened?
A. Steve was level 30
B. Steve crit
C. Bob was flat footed, and Steve had a level of Rogue
D. Any and/or all of the above and there is no in-game way to know
That's all very valid on the scale of an individual battle, but over time, all the uncertain factors you mention (such as level disparities) will average out and cease to be statistically relevant. Unless they're correlated with the active variable (greatswords vs. shields) by some external cause, which they aren't (as demonstrated by the way THF is the optimal style). For every time a Level 30 Steve kills a Level 1 Dave, there is also a time when a Level 30 John (with a greatsword) kills a Level 1 Bob. Take those two outliers out of consideration, and you still have Dave killing Bob even though other factors were equal between them.

So fast-forward a hundred years and ten thousand battles, and it will be clear that Dave killing Bob was a more normal occurrence than Steve killing Dave, all else being equal. And nations who are intelligent enough to survive will be emulating Dave's tactics.


Actually, shields are pretty decent at low levels, for two reasons:

a) at low levels, most attacks target AC and every bit helps
b) many low-level enemies have such low HP that one hit with a one-handed weapon will kill them, making a two-handed weapon redundant.

There's also the issue of personal priorities. The guy with a chain shirt and a greataxe does more damage than the guy with full plate and sword and shield, and also has a lower AC. This means that given a choice, enemies are going to kill the guy with the greataxe first. In real life, most people consider being safer much more important than having a high kill count.

That's actually a good point, and explains why shields might continue to be popular among military units of warriors who are never intending to get beyond low-level anyway. But I started the whole shields vs. greatswords example without meaning for the conversation to get so stuck on the one topic; the general principle that "survival of the fittest" will create optimized-build-filled worlds in time, still stands.

Typewriter
2011-02-11, 02:47 PM
That's actually a good point, and explains why shields might continue to be popular among military units of warriors who are never intending to get beyond low-level anyway.

NPCs shouldn't be 'intending' to do any leveling. They should do whatever seems sensible and work from there. At low levels as a footsoldier in an army that might mean using a shield. If it works well for him his advancement will obviously stay focused on the shield, if it doesn't he'll try something different.

Gnaeus
2011-02-11, 02:52 PM
So you decide to go to second best because you have magical insights into the leveling system?

There is no such thing as levels. There are simply those who are better and those who are worse.

"Hey man, Bob does really good with that sword/shield combo... why are you all training with greatswords?"
"Steve likes greatswords, and can beat us all up with them"
"Except Bob?"
"Yeah, Bob is a beast"
"So instead of trying to go for #1 you're going to start mimicking #2?"
"Yeah"

"Well, we tested it. Bob seems to be able to beat anyone else on the team with any weapon he uses. For everyone else, the greatsword gives them an advantage. Then I started testing a group armed with Greatswords Vs. a group armed with Swords and Shields, and whichever group had Bob in it won, but when Bob sat it out, the 10 guys with greatswords seem to always win. So I think having greatswords seems to help."

Also, there isn't anything wrong with mimicking #2. If they were actually mimicking number 1, they would all be in the chapel or the library trying to learn how to cast spells. I had an old chess coach who used to study Karpov. When people asked him why he studied Karpov, when Kasparov won more matches, he would answer that he won more matches against players of similar skill with a play style similar to Karpov, and if he could become as good as Karpov he could beat any chess player in the world except for one other guy. Real people, faced with repeatable data, DO OPTIMIZE.

Saph
2011-02-11, 02:53 PM
Yeah, it's a priority thing. Adventurers tend to fight big horrible monsters that want to kill and eat them, so a hefty weapon makes a lot of sense (a reach weapon even more so). You have to kill the monster before it kills you.

A footsoldier in an army, though, doesn't really care whether his army wins the battle - he just wants to survive. It's not like the outcome will be decided by how many enemies he kills, anyway. So he'd want as high an AC as possible.

Typewriter
2011-02-11, 02:57 PM
"Well, we tested it. Bob seems to be able to beat anyone else on the team with any weapon he uses. For everyone else, the greatsword gives them an advantage. Then I started testing a group armed with Greatswords Vs. a group armed with Swords and Shields, and whichever group had Bob in it won, but when Bob sat it out, the 10 guys with greatswords seem to always win. So I think having greatswords seems to help."

As I said in an earlier post, if you think people would go to this much trouble to figure stuff out (when there's nothing to figure out because there's no such thing as levels), you're giving ye olden time people a lot more credit than I would.



Also, there isn't anything wrong with mimicking #2. If they were actually mimicking number 1, they would all be in the chapel or the library trying to learn how to cast spells. I had an old chess coach who used to study Karpov. When people asked him why he studied Karpov, when Kasparov won more matches, he would answer that he won more matches against players of similar skill with a play style similar to Karpov, and if he could become as good as Karpov he could beat any chess player in the world except for one other guy. Real people, faced with repeatable data, DO OPTIMIZE.

So it's OK to focus on number 2 as long as it sways the argument in your favor, but if #2 is a sword/shield where #1 is a greatsword user everyone is going to throw down their shields and restructure their army because screw #2, I want to be like that guy!

Amphetryon
2011-02-11, 03:02 PM
As I said in an earlier post, if you think people would go to this much trouble to figure stuff out (when there's nothing to figure out because there's no such thing as levels), you're giving ye olden time people a lot more credit than I would.
Ye olden time people rarely fought actual horrible great beasties with long fangs and reach and breath weapons, let alone practitioners of actual magic. Just sayin'.

Typewriter
2011-02-11, 03:05 PM
Ye olden time people rarely fought actual horrible great beasties with long fangs and reach and breath weapons, let alone practitioners of actual magic. Just sayin'.

But as Saph, and I at one point, have said - is this what you're average soldiers are going up against? Or are they doing standard medieval things with occasional monster attacks?

Adventurers are the ones who come up with the cool builds and live to tell the tale, not Joe Shmoe, village warrior who beats up tax collectors when they come, or Bob Smith who comes back to kill Joe for beating up tax collectors.

Tyndmyr
2011-02-11, 03:20 PM
NPCs shouldn't be 'intending' to do any leveling. They should do whatever seems sensible and work from there. At low levels as a footsoldier in an army that might mean using a shield. If it works well for him his advancement will obviously stay focused on the shield, if it doesn't he'll try something different.

They won't intend to gain levels as such, since that's a metagame construct.

However, they may aspire to become a great warrior or the like. They may realize that those who have previously become great warriors have tended toward x, and emulate them.

Obviously, it won't apply to everyone, but it's a factor.


As I said in an earlier post, if you think people would go to this much trouble to figure stuff out (when there's nothing to figure out because there's no such thing as levels), you're giving ye olden time people a lot more credit than I would.

Ye olden time people were not significantly more dumb than modern people. Oh sure, they didn't have the tech that we did, but a great deal of effort went into being the best at warfare, and figuring out the best way to do that.

Gnaeus
2011-02-11, 04:01 PM
So it's OK to focus on number 2 as long as it sways the argument in your favor, but if #2 is a sword/shield where #1 is a greatsword user everyone is going to throw down their shields and restructure their army because screw #2, I want to be like that guy!

You don't focus on another person's style because you want to be like them. He didn't study Karpov because he thought Karpov was a swell guy. He did it because he played a lot of games and he found that he won more when he imitated Karpov. You focus on one style over another because when you are fighting people of equal skill, again and again, you will do whatever wins you the most fights. Whether it is a group of guardsmen or a fencing team or a chess club, you pretty quickly figure out who is about equal to your skill. Then, as you practice, again and again, using different weapons or strategies, you pay attention to what helps you win more, and you do more of THAT.

Typewriter
2011-02-11, 04:28 PM
You don't focus on another person's style because you want to be like them. He didn't study Karpov because he thought Karpov was a swell guy. He did it because he played a lot of games and he found that he won more when he imitated Karpov. You focus on one style over another because when you are fighting people of equal skill, again and again, you will do whatever wins you the most fights. Whether it is a group of guardsmen or a fencing team or a chess club, you pretty quickly figure out who is about equal to your skill. Then, as you practice, again and again, using different weapons or strategies, you pay attention to what helps you win more, and you do more of THAT.

So the majority of your people use shields.
You know your best troop uses a shield.
Since there's no such thing as levels all you know is that someone with a shield is your best troop.
You've never seen anyone with a two-hander stomp your best troop.

But you're going to refocus your army around the two handers. Because that means that all your low power troops will get an immediate benefit. But you have no reason think they'd ever be as good as your best troop. And that's a good idea.

So armies don't train to be the best, they simply grab whatever kills fastest and easiest and train all their troops in it.

I'm sorry, but I don't see how you can say that an entire army would restructure itself around optimization without having some kind of knowledge of that optimization, or trying to find out about optimization, which is also meta-gaming.

The_Jackal
2011-02-11, 04:32 PM
I really try to avoid most of the cheese that seems to clutter the optimization forums. I try to stick to core classes or at most one prestige class, none of the mix and match 4 prestige classes in attempt to cobble together the perfect min-maxed class.

Gnaeus
2011-02-11, 05:30 PM
So the majority of your people use shields.
You know your best troop uses a shield.
Since there's no such thing as levels all you know is that someone with a shield is your best troop.
You've never seen anyone with a two-hander stomp your best troop.

But you're going to refocus your army around the two handers. Because that means that all your low power troops will get an immediate benefit. But you have no reason think they'd ever be as good as your best troop. And that's a good idea.

So armies don't train to be the best, they simply grab whatever kills fastest and easiest and train all their troops in it.

I'm sorry, but I don't see how you can say that an entire army would restructure itself around optimization without having some kind of knowledge of that optimization, or trying to find out about optimization, which is also meta-gaming.

And then I give Bob a sharpened spoon. Being level 5, he trounces everyone with his sharpened spoon. So I give everyone sharpened spoons? What if Bob used a Spiked Chain. You are going to give everyone spiked chains, even though they cant hit anyone with them as an exotic weapon?

It is NOT metagaming to be able to quickly realize that the guy who is way better than everyone else, is just way better than everyone else, with whatever weapon he uses.

The optimization that they can see, and prove, is that where people are equal, weapon or tactic X gives them a better chance of success. Your argument that people can't quickly tell the difference in combat between the high level guys and the low level ones is simply false. I have, in the past, done Karate, Fencing, Chess, and SCA style swordfighting. I didn't know that Andrew was level 4 at fencing or Chris was level 6 at chess, but I knew that they would beat me 100% of the time, or most of the time when they were handicapping themselves. It didn't matter if Chris was using a stupid opening or Andrew was using a weapon that wasn't the best, they were enough better than me that it didn't matter. We all knew that. Similarly, there were people that I could beat without trying. But I could figure out what worked the best for me, by trying it out against people that were of similar levels of skill, and seeing if it worked better or not. If we could figure this out in the real world, it would be much easier to figure it out in D&D land, where Bob at level 5 has the superhuman ability to let someone hit him in the chest with a halberd and auto crit and STILL beat anyone else in town.

Typewriter
2011-02-11, 05:46 PM
And then I give Bob a sharpened spoon. Being level 5, he trounces everyone with his sharpened spoon. So I give everyone sharpened spoons? What if Bob used a Spiked Chain. You are going to give everyone spiked chains, even though they cant hit anyone with them as an exotic weapon?

It is NOT metagaming to be able to quickly realize that the guy who is way better than everyone else, is just way better than everyone else, with whatever weapon he uses.

The optimization that they can see, and prove, is that where people are equal, weapon or tactic X gives them a better chance of success. Your argument that people can't quickly tell the difference in combat between the high level guys and the low level ones is simply false. I have, in the past, done Karate, Fencing, Chess, and SCA style swordfighting. I didn't know that Andrew was level 4 at fencing or Chris was level 6 at chess, but I knew that they would beat me 100% of the time, or most of the time when they were handicapping themselves. It didn't matter if Chris was using a stupid opening or Andrew was using a weapon that wasn't the best, they were enough better than me that it didn't matter. We all knew that. Similarly, there were people that I could beat without trying. But I could figure out what worked the best for me, by trying it out against people that were of similar levels of skill, and seeing if it worked better or not. If we could figure this out in the real world, it would be much easier to figure it out in D&D land, where Bob at level 5 has the superhuman ability to let someone hit him in the chest with a halberd and auto crit and STILL beat anyone else in town.

But if in real life someone gave a martial artist a sharpened spoon, and you a sword and shield you would probably kill them. In D&D skill is something measurable. It's something that is determined by HP and by BAB and by feats. You can look at it and know the numbers.

So yes, it would be very hard to figure out what was going on. Especially since different people would have different feats. Half of them would have profession dirt-farmer, a few would have toughness, and others would have PA or weapon focus.

Nobody is sitting there with a scoreboard saying, "Wow, dave hits steve 35% of the time, but whenever Steve hits someone he's more likely to take someone down."

There is no 'easy' way to measure a persons stats or capabilities in an RPG setting because the whole thing is counter-intuitive.

The only thing you would be able to figure out is: "People with shields get hit less, and people with big swords kill faster". The exact numbers would vary wildly because of the fickleness of dice, and because people would have different starting feats and stats. Yes, it might be more efficient to go through and determine every single soldiers strengths and weaknesses, but that's not something someone is going to do.

Hell, you'd have people not wanting to fight with a greatsword over longsword simply because it weighs twice as much.

Draz74
2011-02-11, 05:51 PM
NPCs shouldn't be 'intending' to do any leveling. They should do whatever seems sensible and work from there. At low levels as a footsoldier in an army that might mean using a shield. If it works well for him his advancement will obviously stay focused on the shield, if it doesn't he'll try something different.

Actually, the foot soldier NPC will probably be using whatever weapon and combat style that his commanding officer provides him with and orders him to use.

Look, Typewriter, all of your arguments just seem hollow to me in light of the way the sort of weapon- and fighting-style development we're talking about happened all the time in real life. It's why chain mail was ubiquitous during the crusades. It's why chain mail eventually died out. Military tactics shift over time to what's "optimal"; that's how life works.

Gnaeus
2011-02-11, 06:00 PM
There is no 'easy' way to measure a persons stats or capabilities in an RPG setting because the whole thing is counter-intuitive.

The only thing you would be able to figure out is: "People with shields get hit less, and people with big swords kill faster". The exact numbers would vary wildly because of the fickleness of dice, and because people would have different starting feats and stats. Yes, it might be more efficient to go through and determine every single soldiers strengths and weaknesses, but that's not something someone is going to do.

Wrong again. Most of your soldiers are functionally identical. Level 1 Warriors with similar stats. You can quickly recognize the "level" of all the people who are level 1, and pick out any of them that stand out (like maybe if one guy has the elite array so he is tougher and stronger than everyone else.)

You would also be able to figure out "people with x weapon win more of their fights." This is actually breathtakingly, blindingly easy to figure out. Have the level 0 guys fight 20 battles with each weapon, and see what makes them win the most. Anyone who can count can do it, you don't even need to be able to figure out %s.


Hell, you'd have people not wanting to fight with a greatsword over longsword simply because it weighs twice as much.

You might have people not wanting to use a greatsword because they have to march with it, and that might even be a good reason not to use a greatsword. But if they realize that their life depends on it, most people will pick the option that gives them the best chance of winning. This is assuming that they get a choice at all, most medieval soldiers don't own their own weapons, and they will use what they are told to use, and the general will tell them to use the most effective weapon for his purposes.

Typewriter
2011-02-11, 06:46 PM
Actually, the foot soldier NPC will probably be using whatever weapon and combat style that his commanding officer provides him with and orders him to use.

Look, Typewriter, all of your arguments just seem hollow to me in light of the way the sort of weapon- and fighting-style development we're talking about happened all the time in real life. It's why chain mail was ubiquitous during the crusades. It's why chain mail eventually died out. Military tactics shift over time to what's "optimal"; that's how life works.

In real life not every single roman warrior was a member of a phalanx, and in ancient Japan not every warrior was a Samurai. And of course they're going to use whatever their commanding officer wants, that's because the commanders dictate strategies to win battles, and strategies don't usually consist of, "Everyone grab a big sword and run at the other guy".

Truth be told I think the answers people are giving me are all essentially just hollow attempts at justifying meta-gaming. That's why I originally said this is a point nobody is going to agree on it and probably shouldn't be argued here.

Feel free to keep arguing if you want to, but "I disagree because you're wrong" is a pretty insulting argument. Of course you think my arguments are hollow. You disagree with them.


Wrong again. Most of your soldiers are functionally identical. Level 1 Warriors with similar stats. You can quickly recognize the "level" of all the people who are level 1, and pick out any of them that stand out (like maybe if one guy has the elite array so he is tougher and stronger than everyone else.)

So you're assuming every warrior is someone who was born with the stats of a warrior? Wow, that's awfully convenient....

And again - how is it that you're determining who has a higher 'level' of skill. What is the difference between Joe with a greataxe being a better fighter than you as opposed to Joe with a shield and five levels on you being a better fighter than you?

You keep implying that this information is 'easy' to come by, but the only rationale you can give is that their are people out there running statistics on their people over a period of how many days? Years?

In roman times the phalanx was the winning strategy because it always worked. It was measurable, it was trainable, it was doable, and it was good. In a fantasy world it's impossible to measure things like that because meta-game constructs like random rolls, levels, and stats will throw anything measurable off every time.



You would also be able to figure out "people with x weapon win more of their fights." This is actually breathtakingly, blindingly easy to figure out. Have the level 0 guys fight 20 battles with each weapon, and see what makes them win the most. Anyone who can count can do it, you don't even need to be able to figure out %s.

What's a level?

It's 'breathtakingly, blindingly easy to figure out'?

That's a very nice way of you to tell me you have no more arguments so instead your going to insult my comprehension. Thanks for that.



You might have people not wanting to use a greatsword because they have to march with it, and that might even be a good reason not to use a greatsword. But if they realize that their life depends on it, most people will pick the option that gives them the best chance of winning. This is assuming that they get a choice at all, most medieval soldiers don't own their own weapons, and they will use what they are told to use, and the general will tell them to use the most effective weapon for his purposes.

So your generals optimum strategy is everyone grab a big sword and run at your opponents face? Thank god he has 100s of identical warriors all with the exact same stats and capabilities. I'm sure being ordered into combat without defense is going to do great for troop morale....

Chambers
2011-02-11, 09:14 PM
...words...


I told the player he broke two rules. Rule 1 - don't talk to Adrian. Nothing bad would have happened if he had only broken rule 1, but he also broke rule 2 - Don't try to make Adrian useful. For that reason he got no healing for 1 in game week. After that Adrian forgot he was angry with Seton and went back to healing him.

I disagree with your decision. You punished the players character because he was interacting with the DMPC. The healer is hanging around with the party, healing them, saving their lives. It breaks disbelief to think that they wouldn't try and talk to him.

Also, punishing the character in game because the player broke one of your meta-rules? That's weak.

LordBlades
2011-02-12, 09:28 AM
In real life not every single roman warrior was a member of a phalanx, and in ancient Japan not every warrior was a Samurai.


Actually picking the romans as an example was pretty bad, because, if anything, an analysis of the roman army proves the contrary of what you are saying: it was an extremely adaptable force, that was quick to pick up any tactical ideas and gear that proved good.

The roman army started as a hoplite phalanx, switched to manipular tactics after they got beat up by samnites using those tactics, and kept improving on the legionary model.

Manpower wise, they switched from the classical wealth-based citizen army, first to an experience based one, and then to an all out professional army.

Equipment wise, romans were also picking up anything that was better than what they had. They switched from hoplon (large round shield)and spear to scutum (elongated shield) and gladius, changed their bronze cuirasses to chain mail, adopted the spanish gladius when it proved better than their stabbing sword, and just look at the pilum for javelin design optimization.


And of course they're going to use whatever their commanding officer wants, that's because the commanders dictate strategies to win battles, and strategies don't usually consist of, "Everyone grab a big sword and run at the other guy".

Most armies have a dominant type of troops, around which all the other parts have been designed to work (masses of sword armed heavy infantry for the Romans, sarissa pahalanx for the Macedonian and subsequent Hellenistic states, heavy cavalry for most medieval armies etc.).

When that tactics fails you (think a human kingdom fielding masses of sword and board infantry fighting an invasion of orcs, most armed with greataxes and falchions), you will have to change it or, be defeated. Outdated and/or ineffective ways to do battle, don't last long.





Truth be told I think the answers people are giving me are all essentially just hollow attempts at justifying meta-gaming. That's why I originally said this is a point nobody is going to agree on it and probably shouldn't be argued here.


Actually, the way I read most replies, most people (me included) try to say that D&D people should react to what works well in their world, rather than what works well in real world, which they have no knowledge of.

Gnaeus
2011-02-12, 09:35 AM
Feel free to keep arguing if you want to, but "I disagree because you're wrong" is a pretty insulting argument. Of course you think my arguments are hollow. You disagree with them.

No, I don't think your arguments are wrong because I disagree with them. I disagree with them because they are wrong.



And again - how is it that you're determining who has a higher 'level' of skill. What is the difference between Joe with a greataxe being a better fighter than you as opposed to Joe with a shield and five levels on you being a better fighter than you?

I have explained this several times already. You haven't answered any of my points, because you can't answer them. The level of skill of your troops is something that you will figure out, as is the most effective weapons at your disposal.


You keep implying that this information is 'easy' to come by, but the only rationale you can give is that their are people out there running statistics on their people over a period of how many days? Years?

Troops can practice regularly. You will usually have at least days, or more likely years, to find out what weapons are most effective if used by human soldiers. Officers would be paying pretty close attention to this kind of thing, probably innovating with different weapons, and seeing what worked. Successful strategies for how to equip low level troops would be noted, repeated, and copied.


What's a level?

If you don't know, read the players handbook. I can't spell it out more clearly than that.


It's 'breathtakingly, blindingly easy to figure out'?

That's a very nice way of you to tell me you have no more arguments so instead your going to insult my comprehension. Thanks for that.

No, I am just pointing out the obvious. In the real world, people can tell the difference between a raw recruit and an expert. In the real world, I know that if a chess player beats me every time, it probably isn't his opening, it is his level of skill. If a high ranking Black Belt beats me every time, it isn't because of what weapon he is using, it is because he is a Black Belt and I haven't practiced martial arts in 10 years. In the D&D world, the expert (the high level guy) can TAKE A CROSSBOW BOLT IN THE FACE and then go to the bar with the guy that shot him and give him pointers about how to shoot better. It is metagaming NOT to notice that.

But if I take a group of chess players who are all at roughly the same level of skill, and I teach half of them a trick, like an opening or a basic class in tactics, and suddenly they start winning more often the other half, I know it probably was the change that made the difference. If I take 10 raw recruits, and watch them, and they are all roughly even. Then I give 5 of them a different weapon and their wins jump up, I can tell what the change was. I can verify this easily, by switching around who is using which weapons and watching what happens.

In the real world, for a very long time, a trained archer could outperform a gunman. He could fire faster, and with more accuracy. Guns were still employed, because they were comparatively easier to learn. Was it metagaming for real world generals to observe which weapons are more effective for raw recruits, and which ones need months of training to master, and react accordingly? Probably. Darn those real world generals were cheating.


So your generals optimum strategy is everyone grab a big sword and run at your opponents face? Thank god he has 100s of identical warriors all with the exact same stats and capabilities. I'm sure being ordered into combat without defense is going to do great for troop morale....

Many armies have equipped troops with 2 handed weapons. Spears and polearms are more common than 2 handed swords, because they are cheaper and work better in formation, and tend to have reach, but if your point is that people wouldn't go into battle without shields, history disagrees.

Draz74
2011-02-12, 12:00 PM
In real life not every single roman warrior was a member of a phalanx, and in ancient Japan not every warrior was a Samurai.
Right, there's always room for individual variation in fighting styles. If you want to make a character that uses a suboptimal fighting style, there's of course nothing wrong with that. What doesn't make sense (in terms of verisimilitude) is when you pick a suboptimal style for the bulk of the NPCs in a world (or, from the player end, you pick a suboptimal style and expect somehow that that's normal).


the commanders dictate strategies to win battles, and strategies don't usually consist of, "Everyone grab a big sword and run at the other guy".
But they would if the world worked according to D&D rules. That's the point. Power Attacking with big weapons is what wins battles the most (averaging out other variables like level disparities), so combat would evolve to take advantage of that. The people in the D&D setting don't have to understand how levels and feats work for this process to occur; it happened all the time in the real world (with different results, since D&D rules clearly don't represent real-life combat accurately) with no metagaming.

The fact that it happens in real life should be enough to convince you that it's a realistic process, and doesn't require anyone performing controlled experiments with 100s of identical test subjects or keeping accurate statistics on every battle.


Truth be told I think the answers people are giving me are all essentially just hollow attempts at justifying meta-gaming.
We're saying that metagaming isn't metagaming anymore if you're putting it in terms of, "My character (or at least his mentor) is the cautious, analytical type who knows that adventuring is a dangerous career, and wants to reasonably maximize his chances of survival. Without knowing the game rules, but being able to look around at the results of combat in the world around him reasonably intelligently, what sorts of tactics would he adopt?"


Feel free to keep arguing if you want to, but "I disagree because you're wrong" is a pretty insulting argument. Of course you think my arguments are hollow. You disagree with them.
I'm sorry if I said anything insulting; I don't think I did. I was saying "I don't have time to respond to every little point you're making, which aren't actually addressing my main arguments; but all of them have one thing in common: they're neglecting to address the fact that 'optimization' of armies and warriors does, indeed, occur even in the absence of metagaming."

tahu88810
2011-02-12, 12:05 PM
When it comes to creating characters, I come up with a fighting style (whether it involves magic or not) or character personality and then decide the mechanics from there. If it's not optimized, that's fine.

Typewriter
2011-02-12, 01:50 PM
Most armies have a dominant type of troops, around which all the other parts have been designed to work (masses of sword armed heavy infantry for the Romans, sarissa pahalanx for the Macedonian and subsequent Hellenistic states, heavy cavalry for most medieval armies etc.).

When that tactics fails you (think a human kingdom fielding masses of sword and board infantry fighting an invasion of orcs, most armed with greataxes and falchions), you will have to change it or, be defeated. Outdated and/or ineffective ways to do battle, don't last long.


I never said there would be no people using optimized 'builds' in a military. I said the entire army would not restructure itself into using the exact same build and tactics.



Actually, the way I read most replies, most people (me included) try to say that D&D people should react to what works well in their world, rather than what works well in real world, which they have no knowledge of.

And I'm saying that attempting to have your D&D NPCs react to the mechanics instead of logic makes no sense. A combat round is 6 seconds long, and in it you can see one person run up to another and stab them, the person they stabbed run up to another and stab them, etc. etc. hundreds of times. In 6 seconds. One after the other. And it all happens simultaneously. Mechanics are not interpretable in any kind of logical manner. If they were the only religion that would exist would be the "1 in 20" because people would quickly realize that for every attack there is a 1 in 20 chance of success and a 1 in 20 chance of failure regardless of what they were doing.

I'm saying that people in a D&D world should look at the world from a logical standpoint, and the jacked up mechanics of 3.5 do not equal logic.



No, I don't think your arguments are wrong because I disagree with them. I disagree with them because they are wrong.


That response was not to you but to somebody whose last post was "I think your arguments are hollow", which is very much a non-argument.



I have explained this several times already. You haven't answered any of my points, because you can't answer them. The level of skill of your troops is something that you will figure out, as is the most effective weapons at your disposal.


I haven't answered any of your points because every argument you use includes terms like level. Saying "Skill level is something you can just figure out' doesn't make any sense. There's nothing to figure out other than Person X > Person Y > Person Z. Trying to figure out anything more than that requires meta-game constructs.



Troops can practice regularly. You will usually have at least days, or more likely years, to find out what weapons are most effective if used by human soldiers. Officers would be paying pretty close attention to this kind of thing, probably innovating with different weapons, and seeing what worked. Successful strategies for how to equip low level troops would be noted, repeated, and copied.


But you're assuming people are going to be looking into these different strategies for no reason?

Well, I see a sword and a shield. Obviously the sword kills, and the shield will protect its wearer. For some reason I'm going to decide I want to see what happens when my troops wander around without protection and just swing really big swords at one another. Oh hey, sometimes they take down their opponents faster.

And even then, as I said, you'd have people with wildly different skill levels. Different stats, feats, etc. would all cause any sort of mayhem with trying to get a reliable metric. And lets not forgot fickle chance. From to-hit rolls to damage rolls, nothing would be reliably measured.



If you don't know, read the players handbook. I can't spell it out more clearly than that.


Oh hay, good point. I guess you got me there.



No, I am just pointing out the obvious. In the real world, people can tell the difference between a raw recruit and an expert. In the real world, I know that if a chess player beats me every time, it probably isn't his opening, it is his level of skill. If a high ranking Black Belt beats me every time, it isn't because of what weapon he is using, it is because he is a Black Belt and I haven't practiced martial arts in 10 years. In the D&D world, the expert (the high level guy) can TAKE A CROSSBOW BOLT IN THE FACE and then go to the bar with the guy that shot him and give him pointers about how to shoot better. It is metagaming NOT to notice that.

From the SRD


Hit points mean two things in the game world: the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one.


If someone just took a crossbow bolt to the fact and took 10 damage you have a couple different things that could happen. Examples:
1. They have 9 HP and are knocked out, bleeding out the back of their throat where the bolt exited.
2. They have 200 HP and barely got scratched on the cheek.

HP is a metagame construct. If someone has 10x the HP of somebody else that doesn't represent somebody sitting there getting stabbed in the skull and laughing about it. If that's how you do it in your game then you're more than welcome but I think that's a bit odd. It can mean one of two things, just like the SRD said - the ability to take punishment, "Me and the farmer were caught two days ago for torture. His body gave out nearly immediately, but I've been able to resist...stay alive", and the abilitiy to turn serious blows into lesser, "Someone stabbed me, but it was only a glancing blow. When he stabbed farmer Joe though, well... he ate it".

HP is a metagame construct that you're attempting to turn into an observable occurence. There are people in real life who are able to resist punishment or torture better than others, but there's no such thing as levels, so what do we do? We treat them like they're better at resisting punishment or torture than we are.



But if I take a group of chess players who are all at roughly the same level of skill, and I teach half of them a trick, like an opening or a basic class in tactics, and suddenly they start winning more often the other half, I know it probably was the change that made the difference. If I take 10 raw recruits, and watch them, and they are all roughly even. Then I give 5 of them a different weapon and their wins jump up, I can tell what the change was. I can verify this easily, by switching around who is using which weapons and watching what happens.

If you have an identical army with identical stats and feats, and none of them care about the logic of not wanting to protect themselves with a shield I can understand the idea of them all using a better weapon a lot easier. I think your army is completely unrealistic, but that's essentially a different argument.



In the real world, for a very long time, a trained archer could outperform a gunman. He could fire faster, and with more accuracy. Guns were still employed, because they were comparatively easier to learn. Was it metagaming for real world generals to observe which weapons are more effective for raw recruits, and which ones need months of training to master, and react accordingly? Probably. Darn those real world generals were cheating.

Real life has physics to back up easily interpretable actions that take place in 'combat'. In D&D what you see does not always equal what it is. Do you know the magical level of the gear your opponents are using? Do you know if they're being enchanted by wizards? Do you know if they have luck feats that allow them to re roll the occasional attack roll? They have a marshall on the field, do they realize that he's improving your combatants capabilities? Do they realize that that's any different than their level 2 expert giving a speech?

Attempting to interpret D&D mechanics (especially combat mechanics) as an observable, interpretable, way to guide your life doesn't make any sense.



Many armies have equipped troops with 2 handed weapons. Spears and polearms are more common than 2 handed swords, because they are cheaper and work better in formation, and tend to have reach, but if your point is that people wouldn't go into battle without shields, history disagrees.

My entire point is that the entire army would not be trained in identical strategies and equipment.



Right, there's always room for individual variation in fighting styles. If you want to make a character that uses a suboptimal fighting style, there's of course nothing wrong with that. What doesn't make sense (in terms of verisimilitude) is when you pick a suboptimal style for the bulk of the NPCs in a world (or, from the player end, you pick a suboptimal style and expect somehow that that's normal).


In real life why doesn't everyone go to college and get out as a doctor or a lawyer? Few people optimize, they do what they want to do or what they think is a good idea. To standard people drafted into an army a shield is going to be very attractive.

Picking the optimal style assumes that the NPCs are aware of everything that's available to them, and to a certain degree know how it works.



But they would if the world worked according to D&D rules. That's the point. Power Attacking with big weapons is what wins battles the most (averaging out other variables like level disparities), so combat would evolve to take advantage of that. The people in the D&D setting don't have to understand how levels and feats work for this process to occur; it happened all the time in the real world (with different results, since D&D rules clearly don't represent real-life combat accurately) with no metagaming.

I partially agree with this. From a purely mechanical standpoint, yes, strategy would dictate there be no strategy. What is the in game affect of flanking an enemies army? Nothing. What is the in game affect of splitting the army in half? Nothing aside from the fact that you only have half as many people to fight right now. No real life strategies would do anything in a D&D setting because there are no mechanics for it.

What I disagree on is that people would figure this out. It's always going to seem like a good idea to flank an enemies army, even though it has no mechanical affect.

I think that around the time people figured this kind of thing out is around the same time they're going to figure out every action has a 1 in 20 chance of failure or success.



The fact that it happens in real life should be enough to convince you that it's a realistic process, and doesn't require anyone performing controlled experiments with 100s of identical test subjects or keeping accurate statistics on every battle.

Except for the fact that in real life things that happen make sense because of physics and things like that. In D&D there is no way to logically observe combat. It makes no sense.



We're saying that metagaming isn't metagaming anymore if you're putting it in terms of, "My character (or at least his mentor) is the cautious, analytical type who knows that adventuring is a dangerous career, and wants to reasonably maximize his chances of survival. Without knowing the game rules, but being able to look around at the results of combat in the world around him reasonably intelligently, what sorts of tactics would he adopt?"


If you have a campaign setting where you think it makes sense for every member of an army to have a great sword and charge feats then by all means go for it. I, personally, think that watching that group of people fighting would look ridiculous. Sure they'd win (mechanics dictate that they do), but in character I'd be too busy praying to the '1 in 20' god because obviously the mechanics that govern my reality make no sense.



I'm sorry if I said anything insulting; I don't think I did. I was saying "I don't have time to respond to every little point you're making, which aren't actually addressing my main arguments; but all of them have one thing in common: they're neglecting to address the fact that 'optimization' of armies and warriors does, indeed, occur even in the absence of metagaming."

For the most part you were fine, I consider things like "I think your arguments are hollow" to be non-arguments. They don't actually say anything other than "I disagree and I'm not going to give reasons". And whenever somebody says something that aggravates me I tend to do the exact same thing back (I become kind of "I am rubber, you are glue", which is why I said the same thing in my post.

That being said, in real life, the roman armies were the best optimizers that ever lived. I think we can probably all agree on that? But what about medieval times? Where nobility usually meant more to your rank and authority than any level of skill? Isn't that were most D&D type campaigns take place? If your civilizations are more roman I can understand optimization of entire armies a lot more than I could with a medieval setting, which is what I'm normally imagining when talking about D&D.

Gnaeus
2011-02-12, 02:20 PM
That being said, in real life, the roman armies were the best optimizers that ever lived. I think we can probably all agree on that? But what about medieval times? Where nobility usually meant more to your rank and authority than any level of skill? Isn't that were most D&D type campaigns take place? If your civilizations are more roman I can understand optimization of entire armies a lot more than I could with a medieval setting, which is what I'm normally imagining when talking about D&D.

Pulling this one out to respond to now. I 'll get back to the rest later.

Medieval Times also witnessed significant evolutionary shifts to optimize weaponry. The major crusades had evolving weaponry every generation. Then, European nobility observed new technology from the Arabs while fighting, and brought it home (Some examples: unit combat drilling techniques, castle design). Units that stayed in the middle east (like the military orders) adapted their tactics and equipment to the kinds of wars they were fighting (the armor that works in cold wet northern France, works poorly in hot dry Syria). Then there were the clear developments of better armor, the longbow, etc. If you are fighting every year or two, your weaponry is going to evolve rapidly towards more effective models. the Middle Ages were no exception.

LordBlades
2011-02-12, 02:32 PM
typical 10th century medieval knight:

http://jimbisselistheantichrist.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/knights_templar.jpg

typical 16th century medieval knight:
http://www.swordsandarmor.com/images/AR703_Etched_Armor_Knight.JPG

No evolution?

Also, in regards to shields: they are a good idea in real life. In D&D however they barely protect you (you get hit by exactly 10% less attacks, that means you only block once in a 1 minute fight). Any char using a shield in D&D should realize that after just a few fights.

Aldizog
2011-02-12, 03:02 PM
Also, in regards to shields: they are a good idea in real life. In D&D however they barely protect you (you get hit by exactly 10% less attacks, that means you only block once in a 1 minute fight). Any char using a shield in D&D should realize that after just a few fights.
Well, it's 10% of swings (for a large shield), which could mean that it blocks anywhere from 11% to 67% of blows that would have hit (best case is you were hit on an 18+, now hit only on a 20). That's in game-mechanic terms, and I'm with Typewriter in that I don't think it's necessary to be quite so exact in the manner to which the game mechanics are the physics of the world. That is, I consider the initiative system, the "1 in 20" chance, and a portion of HP to be more gamist than simulationist aspects, they're mostly there to make the game work. (HP are also to a degree narrativistic, that is "plot protection," although 4E overdoes this by stripping out any semblance of physical toughness from HP in the case of minions.) Trying to imagine that every part of the system reflect an in-world reality gives you the Tippyverse.

And I tend to imagine for conscripts and most seasonal (as in they campaign during part of the year) warriors that a single solid hit from a longsword will take them out of the fight even if they still have some HP left. So one hit from a longsword (or mace, or spear) isn't really any less effective than one hit from a greatsword. A soldier taken from 7 hp to 2 by a sword blow is badly injured and will likely try to get away before he is killed. D&D, IME, too often degenerates into combat of berserkers who fight to the death, which I don't find works well on either the narrative or the simulationist level in most cases.

Waker
2011-02-12, 03:50 PM
Since this current argument is currently about the NPC Warrior class, it could also be pointed out that there is a limitation of resources, not to mention ability scores dictating what you can do.
This idea is founded upon the idea that the character is a lvl 1 Warrior with average starting wealth (3d4 X 10= 60gp average) with an elite array (Str 15, Con 14, Dex 13).

Warrior wielding Greataxe (20gp) has a +3 to hit and does an average of 9 damage (1d12 + 3). He can use Power Attack to change his hit to +2 and his damage to 11 on average. He could have up to an AC of 14 (Studded Leather 25gp +3 AC, +1 Dex). He has 15gp for other gear.

Warrior wielding Battleaxe (10gp) has a +3 to hit and does an average of 6 damage (1d8 + 2). He can use Power attack to change his hit to +2 and his damage to 7 on average. He could have an AC of 16 (Studded Leather 25gp, +3 AC, Heavy Wooden Shield 7gp, +2 AC, +1 Dex). He has 18gp for other gear.

Both warriors would have 10hp (1d8 maxed +2 Con). On average it requires both warriors two hits to fell the other. If the Greataxe wielding Warrior uses Power Attack he can defeat the Shield Warrior in one hit.
In order for the Greataxe Warrior to hit the Shield Warrior he needs a roll of 13 or better, meaning that he hits 35% of the time. If he uses Power Attack this drops to 30% of the time.
In order for the Shield Warrior to hit the Greataxe Warrior he needs a roll of 11 or better, meaning that he hits 45% of the time. If he uses Power Attack this drops to 40%.

The Shield Warrior will win most of the time, because he is more likely to hit while being harder to hit himself.

I will now sit back and wait for someone to prove me wrong, as statistics ain't my strong suit.

Typewriter
2011-02-12, 03:51 PM
No evolution?

Also, in regards to shields: they are a good idea in real life. In D&D however they barely protect you (you get hit by exactly 10% less attacks, that means you only block once in a 1 minute fight). Any char using a shield in D&D should realize that after just a few fights.

Your typical footsoldier is not a knight. He's a guy who knows how to fight that got conscripted into the military.

The knights are the people who would be using advanced tactics and leading the troops. They're the ones who would have dominant builds. Your army of 2000 first level fighters and warriors would not all have power attack and other good feats. A lot of them would have things like Profession(Dirt farmer) and maybe weapon focus(whatever weapon I had available to me).

Typewriter
2011-02-12, 03:55 PM
Since this current argument is currently about the NPC Warrior class, it could also be pointed out that there is a limitation of resources, not to mention ability scores dictating what you can do.
This idea is founded upon the idea that the character is a lvl 1 Warrior with average starting wealth (3d4 X 10= 60gp average) with an elite array (Str 15, Con 14, Dex 13).

Warrior wielding Greataxe (20gp) has a +3 to hit and does an average of 9 damage (1d12 + 3). He can use Power Attack to change his hit to +2 and his damage to 11 on average. He could have up to an AC of 14 (Studded Leather 25gp +3 AC, +1 Dex). He has 15gp for other gear.

Warrior wielding Battleaxe (10gp) has a +3 to hit and does an average of 6 damage (1d8 + 2). He can use Power attack to change his hit to +2 and his damage to 7 on average. He could have an AC of 16 (Studded Leather 25gp, +3 AC, Heavy Wooden Shield 7gp, +2 AC, +1 Dex). He has 18gp for other gear.

Both warriors would have 10hp (1d8 maxed +2 Con). On average it requires both warriors two hits to fell the other. If the Greataxe wielding Warrior uses Power Attack he can defeat the Shield Warrior in one hit.
In order for the Greataxe Warrior to hit the Shield Warrior he needs a roll of 13 or better, meaning that he hits 35% of the time. If he uses Power Attack this drops to 30% of the time.
In order for the Shield Warrior to hit the Greataxe Warrior he needs a roll of 11 or better, meaning that he hits 45% of the time. If he uses Power Attack this drops to 40%.

The Shield Warrior will win most of the time, because he is more likely to hit while being harder to hit himself.

I will now sit back and wait for someone to prove me wrong, as statistics ain't my strong suit.

Someone ran numbers a little while ago that showed the opposite, but honestly what I think it comes right down to it is that regardless of what's best not everybody is going to have the same thing or the same capabilities.

The strongest guy in a kingdom may be a baker because the first time he swung a sword he rolled a natural 1 and everyone laughed at him, embarrassing him enough to run off into another career.

As far as what you're saying, resource wise, that also makes a certain amount of sense, but don't forget that standard NPCs have expenses beyond gear. They have to worry about food, possibly a family, and other things.

Of course, this just leads back into "They would have whatever their commanders gave them", which does not mean that their capabilities (see stats and feats they've taken to this point in their life) are going to do well with whatever their commanding officer gives them.

Waker
2011-02-12, 04:15 PM
Someone ran numbers a little while ago that showed the opposite, but honestly what I think it comes right down to it is that regardless of what's best not everybody is going to have the same thing or the same capabilities.

The strongest guy in a kingdom may be a baker because the first time he swung a sword he rolled a natural 1 and everyone laughed at him, embarrassing him enough to run off into another career.

As far as what you're saying, resource wise, that also makes a certain amount of sense, but don't forget that standard NPCs have expenses beyond gear. They have to worry about food, possibly a family, and other things.

Of course, this just leads back into "They would have whatever their commanders gave them", which does not mean that their capabilities (see stats and feats they've taken to this point in their life) are going to do well with whatever their commanding officer gives them.
Actually I made my post in support of your current arguments. Though the WBL system isn't as concrete as says the rules are on how to hit something, it does still limit what an NPC could potentially be using. So far many of the comments seem to say that "A warrior using a greatsword" whereas Greatswords are 50gp, nearly the entirely of a Warrior's starting gold. I decided their equipment based on what they could afford, yet still give them the best results. Granted, if I were trying to make the shield warrior more defensive, I could have given him Dodge, but I decided to keep it simple. Someone could say that they were equipped with whatever their commander gave them, but I think that would be represented by their starting gold.
I don't recall seeing a post crunching the numbers, but this is a longer thread and I didn't read it all in one sitting, so I wouldn't be surprised if I forgot something.

Gnaeus
2011-02-12, 04:22 PM
Your typical footsoldier is not a knight. He's a guy who knows how to fight that got conscripted into the military.

The knights are the people who would be using advanced tactics and leading the troops. They're the ones who would have dominant builds. Your army of 2000 first level fighters and warriors would not all have power attack and other good feats. A lot of them would have things like Profession(Dirt farmer) and maybe weapon focus(whatever weapon I had available to me).

But the knights and lords are the people who are equipping the army. And, as we have proven, they did pay attention to what weapons were more effective. The soldier who is taking your pay is going to use the weapon you hand him.

Typewriter
2011-02-12, 07:05 PM
Actually I made my post in support of your current arguments. Though the WBL system isn't as concrete as says the rules are on how to hit something, it does still limit what an NPC could potentially be using. So far many of the comments seem to say that "A warrior using a greatsword" whereas Greatswords are 50gp, nearly the entirely of a Warrior's starting gold. I decided their equipment based on what they could afford, yet still give them the best results. Granted, if I were trying to make the shield warrior more defensive, I could have given him Dodge, but I decided to keep it simple. Someone could say that they were equipped with whatever their commander gave them, but I think that would be represented by their starting gold.
I don't recall seeing a post crunching the numbers, but this is a longer thread and I didn't read it all in one sitting, so I wouldn't be surprised if I forgot something.

I know, I was just adding additional thoughts to the matter. I thought I had seen someone else crunch the numbers though. Don't care enough to go looking back through it, because it's honestly a matter of opinion whether or not armies would optimize towards mechanical perfection or logical strategy.


But the knights and lords are the people who are equipping the army. And, as we have proven, they did pay attention to what weapons were more effective. The soldier who is taking your pay is going to use the weapon you hand him.

True, and I believe I even said at one point that a lord who preferred a specific fighting style might even care enough to outfit his personal troops in a specific combat style.

The problem I have is the idea that everyone simply gives up personal preference for their desired gear. Some people might like the lighter blade, some people might want a shield. I would want a shield. You can sit there telling me all day about how you use a two hander to just run up to people and chop their head off, but I'm going to want a shield, because logically it makes sense.

The idea that people would have enough insight into the mechanics that govern their world as to allow that to override every single soldiers common sense and logic is what I'm saying is meta-gaming.

Have you ever played a character with a sword and shield instead of a two hander? If so, what was the rationale, was it that the character just preferred it?

Gnaeus
2011-02-12, 07:20 PM
The problem I have is the idea that everyone simply gives up personal preference for their desired gear. Some people might like the lighter blade, some people might want a shield. I would want a shield. You can sit there telling me all day about how you use a two hander to just run up to people and chop their head off, but I'm going to want a shield, because logically it makes sense.

You will still have adventurers and other fringe types using all sorts of stuff. Peasant mobs and bandits might be using whatever weapons they can scavenge or make. But any kind of troops, from an army to the city guard, is almost certainly going to be using whatever gets the most bang for the bossman's buck.


The idea that people would have enough insight into the mechanics that govern their world as to allow that to override every single soldiers common sense and logic is what I'm saying is meta-gaming.

Most soldiers don't get to say "I'm going to use x instead". Most soldiers use the weapon they are issued.


Have you ever played a character with a sword and shield instead of a two hander? If so, what was the rationale, was it that the character just preferred it?

Yes. No. It was for a tournament which took place entirely inside an AMF, with no TOB allowed. Fighting only other PC muggles, AC was a valid defense. I had a lizard man fighter/knight with a full set of shield feats, and I would have won, if I had had the sense to buy an adamantine shield. After it got sundered, I was done.

Edit: but he would have been a pretty gimpy addition to any character party. He was just good at dueling muggles.

Typewriter
2011-02-12, 07:40 PM
You will still have adventurers and other fringe types using all sorts of stuff. Peasant mobs and bandits might be using whatever weapons they can scavenge or make. But any kind of troops, from an army to the city guard, is almost certainly going to be using whatever gets the most bang for the bossman's buck.

What is best is subjective unless you have insights into the workings of the mechanics of the system. That's what I'm saying. Only when you start trying to learn the system(metagame) would you possibly begin to realize what's "best", and those efforts would be hampered by not understanding things like level, stats, and feats, but by random chance. You'd have people using power attack while using a sword and shield, and other people using dodge and a greatsword. You'd have higher level people fighting lower level people, class abilities that changed things completely and more. And you would have no in-game idea why there was so much variation other than "Some people are better at some things than others. X can beat up most people with a big sword, Y can beat up X with a single long sword and no shield, and Y uses a sword/shield and beats up both X and Y".



Most soldiers don't get to say "I'm going to use x instead". Most soldiers use the weapon they are issued.

If you're issued anything.



Yes. No. It was for a tournament which took place entirely inside an AMF, with no TOB allowed. Fighting only other PC muggles, AC was a valid defense. I had a lizard man fighter/knight with a full set of shield feats, and I would have won, if I had had the sense to buy an adamantine shield. After it got sundered, I was done.

Edit: but he would have been a pretty gimpy addition to any character party. He was just good at dueling muggles.

Sounds like you and me do things in completely different ways. It makes sense that we would disagree so much on the army optimization thing :P

Gnaeus
2011-02-12, 07:55 PM
What is best is subjective unless you have insights into the workings of the mechanics of the system. That's what I'm saying. Only when you start trying to learn the system(metagame) would you possibly begin to realize what's "best", and those efforts would be hampered by not understanding things like level, stats, and feats, but by random chance. You'd have people using power attack while using a sword and shield, and other people using dodge and a greatsword. You'd have higher level people fighting lower level people, class abilities that changed things completely and more. And you would have no in-game idea why there was so much variation other than "Some people are better at some things than others. X can beat up most people with a big sword, Y can beat up X with a single long sword and no shield, and Y uses a sword/shield and beats up both X and Y".

No. No. No. No. No! Even if people don't understand "Bob is level 5" (and honestly, there are lots of very valid ways that you COULD figure out that he was level 5, like he is immune to Sleep but still vulnerable to Cause Fear), they would still know that he was way more skilled than the typical warrior 1. The whole higher level people fighting lower level people argument had been refuted with lots of examples that you haven't been able to challenge, but you keep bringing it up as if it held water. Real world people can figure out the most effective weapons for unskilled soldiers to use. D&D people can do the same thing (Arguably better, because most D&D armies have someone with superhuman mental stats in case the low level commander is lacking in basic logic.). Any PC with an int over 10 who DOESN'T do this, is metagaming. A DM who doesn't take this into account may not be a bad DM on other counts, but he certainly has a very unrealistic world.

Half-Orc Rage
2011-02-12, 09:55 PM
The rules are there to provide arbitration for our game of let's pretend. The fact that a greatsword is better than sword-and-board is not a fact of our game of let's pretend but a byproduct of the specific rules used in this particular game of let's pretend.

Look at Forgotten Realms. You could play that in 1st edition D&D, 2nd edition, 3e, 3.5, and now 4e and Essentials. You could probably take another system and use that to play FR as well. You're not going to change the armies of the world because the specific system changed. They didn't say "Two scimitars suck in 3e, we better rewrite all the Drizzt novels into a new fighting style."

Typewriter
2011-02-12, 10:28 PM
No. No. No. No. No! Even if people don't understand "Bob is level 5" (and honestly, there are lots of very valid ways that you COULD figure out that he was level 5, like he is immune to Sleep but still vulnerable to Cause Fear), they would still know that he was way more skilled than the typical warrior 1. The whole higher level people fighting lower level people argument had been refuted with lots of examples that you haven't been able to challenge, but you keep bringing it up as if it held water. Real world people can figure out the most effective weapons for unskilled soldiers to use. D&D people can do the same thing (Arguably better, because most D&D armies have someone with superhuman mental stats in case the low level commander is lacking in basic logic.). Any PC with an int over 10 who DOESN'T do this, is metagaming. A DM who doesn't take this into account may not be a bad DM on other counts, but he certainly has a very unrealistic world.

I have actually talked to those points. Specifiically the fact that you can't make any argument for yourself that doesn't involve NPC knowledge as to these metagame constructs.

There is no way to know that the reason a level 5 fighter with sword/board is better than a level 1 fighter with a greatsword.

Saying "Yeah you could, and it's simple" and then describing all the statistical analysis people would do, followed by comparison of metagame structures (abilities like fear immunity, BAB, etc.) doesn't actually prove that people wouldn't be metagaming. It's saying you metagame.

If you disagree with me then fine. I'm not saying everyone is going to have the same opinion, I'm just saying, to me, it's blatant metagaming.

Amphetryon
2011-02-12, 10:34 PM
Saying "Yeah you could, and it's simple" and then describing all the statistical analysis people would do, followed by comparison of metagame structures (abilities like fear immunity, BAB, etc.) doesn't actually prove that people wouldn't be metagaming. It's saying you metagame.

If you disagree with me then fine. I'm not saying everyone is going to have the same opinion, I'm just saying, to me, it's blatant metagaming. Re: the bolded part (my emphasis)...
That reads, to me, like you're asking him to prove a negative. That's known to be problematic, generally.

Yukitsu
2011-02-12, 10:41 PM
I have actually talked to those points. Specifiically the fact that you can't make any argument for yourself that doesn't involve NPC knowledge as to these metagame constructs.

There is no way to know that the reason a level 5 fighter with sword/board is better than a level 1 fighter with a greatsword.

Saying "Yeah you could, and it's simple" and then describing all the statistical analysis people would do, followed by comparison of metagame structures (abilities like fear immunity, BAB, etc.) doesn't actually prove that people wouldn't be metagaming. It's saying you metagame.

If you disagree with me then fine. I'm not saying everyone is going to have the same opinion, I'm just saying, to me, it's blatant metagaming.

You'll notice a funny trend in people abandoning shields at about the same time as the true doplesoldner's appeared, clubs being replaced by spears, and all of those being replaced by the time you had the bayonet. Weapon optimization is very much a real life trend, and not an in game one.

Tvtyrant
2011-02-13, 12:31 AM
The game also is much less versatile than reality is; in RL a Pavise gives people incredible protection. In D&D a Large or Huge shield wouldn't help the person at all. In D&D fire doesn't have a fear effect, while in RL it does, especially with none-humans. Thus in D&D a group of low level rangers versus a group of Mastodons would be destroyed, while in RL they use brush fires and burning brands to break up the herd and corner one. In D&D heavy animals don't sink in swamps faster than light animals, while in RL they do.

The list of things in RL that don't carry over is huge, which leaves us with the issue that humanoids would be extinct in a "realistic" D&D world. Given population x so many will be killed vs. being able to level, which eventually leads to the population becoming 0. D&D is inherently unrealistic in its mechanics, and trying to argue the "metagaming" of different fighting styles within it is futile in that context. The moment you go: "but realistically this would happen" you are in the position of either actually being realistic and not having humanoids or a history of monsters, or you make the arbitrary judgment of "this is how far I want to take my realism."

Typewriter
2011-02-13, 12:56 AM
Re: the bolded part (my emphasis)...
That reads, to me, like you're asking him to prove a negative. That's known to be problematic, generally.

I could have phrased it better. What I was essentially saying is that what he's doing is giving examples of how he metagames, but doesn't actually explain why his NPCs feel the need to perform statistical analysis and break the mechanics of their world into easy to comprehend metagame structures.

Example:
A: I'm going to take feat X
B: Why, without metagaming?
A: Because I figured out the statistical probability of feat X compared to every other feat I could take, and determined the optimum selection based off of mechanics that I somehow figured out like BAB, AC, DR, and HP.
B: Isn't that metagaming
A: No
B: How not?
A: Because I figured it out because it's easy to figure out that kind of thing.


You'll notice a funny trend in people abandoning shields at about the same time as the true doplesoldner's appeared, clubs being replaced by spears, and all of those being replaced by the time you had the bayonet. Weapon optimization is very much a real life trend, and not an in game one.

This is true, but you're talking about the evolution of warfare as opposed to weapon optimization. If I build a campaign where everyone is in constant danger from Ogres that that have DR 15/Greatsword everyone is going to use a greatsword. That makes sense. Not every single individual is going to have Power Attack and Weapon Focus(Greatsword), they're going to have feats that represent personal choice dictated by action, preference, and strategy.

The evolution of warfare would dictate that if you come up against something that your old weapons no longer work against, you find new weapons (or copy your opponent). Sure, you'd look at a shield and say "I like being protected", but you would know that in order to survive against Ogres you have to use a greatsword. That's warfare evolution.

Metagaming is looking at this world (where now everyone has a greatsword) and choosing the exact same feats for all of them, because they're mechanically the best. You're still going to wind up with some variation in the way people do things because people aren't uniform. They have different stats, they have different luck with rolls, they have different ideas.

We see unbalance in weapon configurations because we have access to all knowledge of the universe. We know every ability you can take, every class dip, every feat, everything.

To your average D&D NPC they're going to see that some people do well with sword/shields, and others do well with two handed weapons. There are some people who punch really well, and there are some people who punch poorly, archers that fire often and rarely hit, archers that fire fewer arrows but whose hit seems to have more impact.

Maybe I missed something, but I don't recall the original post that started this debate giving any example for why this would happen other than people would probably just figure it out and do it:



3) This borders on metagaming, but ... you've got to wonder, haven't the armies in your campaign setting noticed by now that Power Attacking with a greatsword is more effective than fighting with a sword and shield? And wouldn't they, economically, have adapted to such a style? So how does a low-op campaign setting still have armies that use shields? (And so forth; this problem isn't limited to Fighter styles.) To the thoughtful player who knows some optimization principles, it becomes a matter of verisimilitude -- and therefore good roleplaying -- to include at least a bit of Practical Optimization in his characters.

There is no rationale behind it, just that people would notice over time, which I don't agree with. People don't just 'pick up' on mechanics over time. You would see some excel while other lagged and vice versa.

I'm not saying it can't be done, I'm saying that the way people have rationalized it so far hasn't made any sense from a non-metagame viewpoint.

Another thing to keep in mind:
Let's say in a D&D setting you have no greatswords. It's all sword and shield.
Suddenly someone decides a bigger sword would be a good idea.
He takes his big sword and goes on an adventure and does very well.
He tries to tell people about his awesome big sword, but everyone thinks he's crazy, so he beats some of them up.
Then, the people who have been around refining this sword/shield strategy for a hundred years or so show up and beat the snot out of him.
How is he ever going to convince people his strategy is better when everyone else is a higher level?

The answer is that he doesn't need to. Some of those guys he beat up aren't going to care that he got beat up, and they're going to try the big sword for themselves. Some people are going to hear about what he did, and make their own big swords just to give them a whirl. Maybe 20 years later someone with a two-hander will go and kill an epic dragon a wizard had imprisoned and forgotten about and get 30 levels and be able to beat everyone he comes across. Does that mean everyone is going to transition? Or are they going to do what they did 20 years ago and just use what they prefer?

Typewriter
2011-02-13, 01:05 AM
The game also is much less versatile than reality is; in RL a Pavise gives people incredible protection. In D&D a Large or Huge shield wouldn't help the person at all. In D&D fire doesn't have a fear effect, while in RL it does, especially with none-humans. Thus in D&D a group of low level rangers versus a group of Mastodons would be destroyed, while in RL they use brush fires and burning brands to break up the herd and corner one. In D&D heavy animals don't sink in swamps faster than light animals, while in RL they do.

The list of things in RL that don't carry over is huge, which leaves us with the issue that humanoids would be extinct in a "realistic" D&D world. Given population x so many will be killed vs. being able to level, which eventually leads to the population becoming 0. D&D is inherently unrealistic in its mechanics, and trying to argue the "metagaming" of different fighting styles within it is futile in that context. The moment you go: "but realistically this would happen" you are in the position of either actually being realistic and not having humanoids or a history of monsters, or you make the arbitrary judgment of "this is how far I want to take my realism."

This is very true, and I need to make a point:

Some meta-gaming is not bad, and some is even blatantly required.

Players have to metagame at times. Why did you take those 3 feats and 2 skill points in craft(candle)? To get into a Prestige class. Is the answer "My character just thought it was interesting" or is it "I wanted into a prestige class"?

In world building you have to go with certain things. Why aren't all worlds tippy-verse? Because you don't want them to be. That's not fun.

If you want your entire world to be overrun with people who all use greatswords and always war by running straight at each other then go for it. If you have a reason and in-game history that rationalizes that without accessing mechanics then you're not meta-gaming. If you do it just because you think it's fun or more interesting or a better challenge, then the campaign will be just as fun for your players.

I personally try to build worlds from a logical standpoint. I build my BBEG with ranks in profession(teacher) and the feat Skill Focus(Appraise) if those make sense for the character. If my city guards are required to use polearms then there's a reason for it. I don't include magic marts because I don't think they make any sense.

But if you ask me why my world isn't ruled by a mage my answer is "Because that's not what this campaign is about". Sure I can say, "No mages ever decided to conquer", but it's not nearly as honest.

EDIT:
Note: Opinion
Metagame: All melee warriors in my world use greatswords because they calculated the mechanics that govern their reality.
Not Metagaming: All melee warrior in my world use greatswords because:
A. Shields were never invented
B. They are under constant threat by things that have DR 12 and were thus forced to adapt
C. There is a natural phenomenon where trees in this world grow greatswords, so everyone who wants one can get one for free

Yukitsu
2011-02-13, 01:19 AM
This is true, but you're talking about the evolution of warfare as opposed to weapon optimization. If I build a campaign where everyone is in constant danger from Ogres that that have DR 15/Greatsword everyone is going to use a greatsword. That makes sense. Not every single individual is going to have Power Attack and Weapon Focus(Greatsword), they're going to have feats that represent personal choice dictated by action, preference, and strategy.

The evolution of warfare would dictate that if you come up against something that your old weapons no longer work against, you find new weapons (or copy your opponent). Sure, you'd look at a shield and say "I like being protected", but you would know that in order to survive against Ogres you have to use a greatsword. That's warfare evolution.

Metagaming is looking at this world (where now everyone has a greatsword) and choosing the exact same feats for all of them, because they're mechanically the best. You're still going to wind up with some variation in the way people do things because people aren't uniform. They have different stats, they have different luck with rolls, they have different ideas.

We see unbalance in weapon configurations because we have access to all knowledge of the universe. We know every ability you can take, every class dip, every feat, everything.

To your average D&D NPC they're going to see that some people do well with sword/shields, and others do well with two handed weapons. There are some people who punch really well, and there are some people who punch poorly, archers that fire often and rarely hit, archers that fire fewer arrows but whose hit seems to have more impact.

Maybe I missed something, but I don't recall the original post that started this debate giving any example for why this would happen other than people would probably just figure it out and do it:

That's still much like in real life. Yeomen, Genoans, Hessians, Varangians etc. typically used weapons that were different from those used by "standard" units of the era, instead using ones that they're good at using. That's because somewhat like in D&D, different weapons are good for different things, and different terrain/formations will dictate the weapon. For example, peasants commonly used spears, as 2d8 from two fighting ranks is superior compared to 2d6, while in lower numbered gangs like "armies" in most D&D games, individual fighting in 1 thin rank or large scale chaos ball, greatswords are superior.

However, on the whole, people will realize that even considering different aptitudes, two handers win fights far more often, even in a D&D word. It's simply a matter of over time, in large scale fights, the ones with the most kills, and strangely the side with lower casualties, will usually be the one with great weapons, rather than shields.

Typewriter
2011-02-13, 02:11 AM
That's still much like in real life. Yeomen, Genoans, Hessians, Varangians etc. typically used weapons that were different from those used by "standard" units of the era, instead using ones that they're good at using. That's because somewhat like in D&D, different weapons are good for different things, and different terrain/formations will dictate the weapon. For example, peasants commonly used spears, as 2d8 from two fighting ranks is superior compared to 2d6, while in lower numbered gangs like "armies" in most D&D games, individual fighting in 1 thin rank or large scale chaos ball, greatswords are superior.

However, on the whole, people will realize that even considering different aptitudes, two handers win fights far more often, even in a D&D word. It's simply a matter of over time, in large scale fights, the ones with the most kills, and strangely the side with lower casualties, will usually be the one with great weapons, rather than shields.

I have a few thoughts to throw out, and I'd like to get your opinion on:

1. Strategies and D&D mechanics are very fickle. If you have an army of greatsword wielders vs. an army of tower shield armor specced longsword users with spearmen behind them that strategy would probably work pretty well. Wall of shields vs. greatsword users. Every round the shield users get an attack(low to-hit bonus), and the spearmen behind them get an attack(good to-hit bonus) while the greatsword users don't have reach so they only get one attack at a time, against a well armored opponent. But on the other hand the two handed fighters might have tumble, and they can just roll to to where the spearmen are. Strategies break in D&D mechanics because of the things you can do in D&D. Do you still employ those strategies because you know they make sense (even though they might not work) or do you just have two groups run at each other and hit each other?

2. You said something about the group with the heavier weapons would probably win more and have fewer casualties. If there was a war between two handed users and shield users in the middle of a field the two-handers would win. My question to you is, "Why did that army to suddenly only use two handed weapons?". There's never been a large scale war of shields vs. heavy so where would they have gotten the information needed to determine the universal superiority of heavy weapons? I've stated that I don't think it's the kind of thing you could just pick up on over time, or even determine by watching your buddies (of varying strategy) fight, because of random factors like stats,feats, etc. etc. so why did this army just suddenly decide to give up on everything except heavy weapons?

Let's say that they're a barbarian tribe. Probably fewer in numbers than 'civilized lands', but more powerful with more 'optimized' builds. They start warring against 'civilized lands', cutting down everyone in their way. Which of the following two conversations do you think the leadership of civilized lands is more likely:

"Savages don't even care about their own well being, they just run up to the nearest bastard and cut them in half, completely undefended. I swear it takes 3 men to take down every one of the idiot bastards."
"Ah, yes, poor savages. Maybe when we finally put them down we'll go and teach them a thing or two about acting like civilized folk, teach them to fight like men"

OR

"My god, that beast in the loincloth is utterly stomping us. Tell the men to drop their shields and pick up bigger weapons like their opponents are doing"
"But sir, we're already dying 3 times faster than them, giving up our shields would be suicide. The savages don't care about protecting themselves, they just want blood"
"Trust me"
*Later*
"Wow sir, you were right. We changed tactics completely and it worked perfectly well for some reason. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but I guess we should all just throw our shields into the lake, and only train new recruits in bigger weapons from here on out"

Let's say the barbarians win. They conquer all 'civilized' lands. Now you have a reason that makes sense for two-handers to be more common weapons:

*Barbarians, having been more prone to combat with heavier weapons than anything else conquered the world due to their optimal capabilities. Once they ruled the world everyone used a heavy weapon because now everyone was a barbarian"

3. This one ties in closely to my first point. How often are wars fought in open fields? Or without magic? From time to time yes, of course. But what's going to happen if an army of heavy weapon users sieges a city? The city has hot oil, strategic archers, spearmen to strike through gaps in the wall, all manner of things. In most large scale wars (assuming we're talking about two-handers vs. sword/shield users), in an equal match of levels and classes, the defenders would win, even if the attackers had a better selection of feats and/or weapons, and the data you could draw is going to be off. You're not going to be able to look at battles that aren't fought in open fields, and be able to derive data about which weapons were more effective than others.

Terrain, strategy, and things like that will skew all data that doesn't take place in a directly controlled environment (such as a war of type 1 opponents vs. a war of type 2 opponents in a field where there is no chance of interference or advantage due to terrain).

GoodbyeSoberDay
2011-02-13, 02:33 AM
I'd like to point out that greatswords cost 50 gp per soldier, while a longsword and heavy wooden shield cost 22 gp per soldier. Longspears are 5 gp per soldier. Just something to chew on when you consider a noble paying out of his war treasury to equip his cannon wizard fodder.

Really, absent magic on the battlefield*, the optimal strategy in D&D warfare isn't greatswords. At least in a defensive war where logistics aren't as big of a concern, the practical general gives his many, many peasants crossbows, and maybe hires some light cavalry and longspearmen to buy them some time to fire. Before anyone cries "metagaming!" consider the propensity of crossbow use in actual medieval Europe.

*What a silly assumption!

Typewriter
2011-02-13, 02:42 AM
I'd like to point out that greatswords cost 50 gp per soldier, while a longsword and heavy wooden shield cost 22 gp per soldier. Longspears are 5 gp per soldier. Just something to chew on when you consider a noble paying out of his war treasury to equip his cannon wizard fodder.

Really, absent magic on the battlefield*, the optimal strategy in D&D warfare isn't greatswords. At least in a defensive war where logistics aren't as big of a concern, the practical general gives his many, many peasants crossbows, and maybe hires some light cavalry and longspearmen to buy them some time to fire. Before anyone cries "metagaming!" consider the propensity of crossbow use in actual medieval Europe.

*What a silly assumption!

Someone else brought up the cost thing on an earlier page as well, but not the correlation between the high cost of this gear and it having to be paid for by the issuer.

As for the crossbow thing I wouldn't see it as being bad on account of them not requiring a lot of skill, but keep in mind your own price point. I don't think crossbows (even small ones) are that cheap!

Yukitsu
2011-02-13, 02:46 AM
I have a few thoughts to throw out, and I'd like to get your opinion on:

1. Strategies and D&D mechanics are very fickle. If you have an army of greatsword wielders vs. an army of tower shield armor specced longsword users with spearmen behind them that strategy would probably work pretty well. Wall of shields vs. greatsword users. Every round the shield users get an attack(low to-hit bonus), and the spearmen behind them get an attack(good to-hit bonus) while the greatsword users don't have reach so they only get one attack at a time, against a well armored opponent. But on the other hand the two handed fighters might have tumble, and they can just roll to to where the spearmen are. Strategies break in D&D mechanics because of the things you can do in D&D. Do you still employ those strategies because you know they make sense (even though they might not work) or do you just have two groups run at each other and hit each other?

Depends on the era. I generally respect that dark ages to early medieval armies are mostly dudes with various pointedness of sticks running at one another without much tactical consideration compared to earlier or later eras. Less specified eras, most succesful unit formations used mixed weapons up until the advent of the bayonet in like, the 1700s or something like that.

Generally, a really early era medieval army is "success=more dudes, and better luck on positioning" as opposed to other factors. Weapons are what the NPCs can afford, not what's optimal (just because the greatsword is better than a wooden plank and a spear, doesn't mean I can afford the greatsword.) Later era armies of professional soldiers, a succesful formation example is the landschnects. Pikes for the majority of the formation, halberds to do close in work in wider arcs, doplsoldners as a means to break up an opposing pike hedge, and crossbows to actually force engagements.

Similarly, when I do armed groups in D&D, I incorporate those mixed formations. Greatswords, backed by spears in a line backed by a large, indirect fire archer/sling formation is going to be far more succesful than just letting individuals mix weapons, and is better than shields and 1 handed weapons.


2. You said something about the group with the heavier weapons would probably win more and have fewer casualties. If there was a war between two handed users and shield users in the middle of a field the two-handers would win. My question to you is, "Why did that army to suddenly only use two handed weapons?". There's never been a large scale war of shields vs. heavy so where would they have gotten the information needed to determine the universal superiority of heavy weapons? I've stated that I don't think it's the kind of thing you could just pick up on over time, or even determine by watching your buddies (of varying strategy) fight, because of random factors like stats,feats, etc. etc. so why did this army just suddenly decide to give up on everything except heavy weapons?

It doesn't have to be great swords against shields. Every time you yourself are arming your troops, and give these guys big ass swords or axes, and these other guys shields, or if they bring their own weapons and you organize them by weapon type, the ones with the large weapons will always do better in melee.


Let's say that they're a barbarian tribe. Probably fewer in numbers than 'civilized lands', but more powerful with more 'optimized' builds. They start warring against 'civilized lands', cutting down everyone in their way. Which of the following two conversations do you think the leadership of civilized lands is more likely:

"Savages don't even care about their own well being, they just run up to the nearest bastard and cut them in half, completely undefended. I swear it takes 3 men to take down every one of the idiot bastards."
"Ah, yes, poor savages. Maybe when we finally put them down we'll go and teach them a thing or two about acting like civilized folk, teach them to fight like men"

OR

"My god, that beast in the loincloth is utterly stomping us. Tell the men to drop their shields and pick up bigger weapons like their opponents are doing"
"But sir, we're already dying 3 times faster than them, giving up our shields would be suicide. The savages don't care about protecting themselves, they just want blood"
"Trust me"
*Later*
"Wow sir, you were right. We changed tactics completely and it worked perfectly well for some reason. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but I guess we should all just throw our shields into the lake, and only train new recruits in bigger weapons from here on out"

Let's say the barbarians win. They conquer all 'civilized' lands. Now you have a reason that makes sense for two-handers to be more common weapons:

*Barbarians, having been more prone to combat with heavier weapons than anything else conquered the world due to their optimal capabilities. Once they ruled the world everyone used a heavy weapon because now everyone was a barbarian"



I'm assuming you're talking about Rome here, and are invoking a bit of anachronism here. A true barbarian horde, 99% of them would be armed with spears and rounded wooden shields. The remainder would be split between the beserkergang, who could wield those ridiculously large weapons and scythe through a century, and the other half percent would have a well crafted sword. A full scale horde of barbarians wielding great weapons would indeed have trashed a roman formation if they could close into melee.

The case there being that a roman formation was not purely heavy infantry. peltasts would basically do all the work if you had an entire enemy formation with no capacity to turtle up behind shields, while the legion itself kept itself pulled back in due order. You'd end up with Rome using the later Byzantium strategy of bow armed heavy cavalry, not an immitation of the barbarians.

Translating this into D&D again, once more your standard dirt farmer isn't going to spend the money to get himself a large, double handed axe. He's going to strap together a lame wooden shield, and bring his pitch fork, or if he's lucky, get a real long spear. Optimization has to include what your character can afford, and elite guard carry two handed weapons for a reason. Save for the ones using a shield and a lance, but a lance is a bit of a different topic.


3. This one ties in closely to my first point. How often are wars fought in open fields? Or without magic? From time to time yes, of course. But what's going to happen if an army of heavy weapon users sieges a city? The city has hot oil, strategic archers, spearmen to strike through gaps in the wall, all manner of things. In most large scale wars (assuming we're talking about two-handers vs. sword/shield users), in an equal match of levels and classes, the defenders would win, even if the attackers had a better selection of feats and/or weapons, and the data you could draw is going to be off. You're not going to be able to look at battles that aren't fought in open fields, and be able to derive data about which weapons were more effective than others.

Terrain, strategy, and things like that will skew all data that doesn't take place in a directly controlled environment (such as a war of type 1 opponents vs. a war of type 2 opponents in a field where there is no chance of interference or advantage due to terrain).

Great weapons favour uneven terrain, as they break up the shield wall formations and spear walls. Since they do better at the micro D&D "war" scale, they do even better still on uneven terrain, where they can't get roflpwnd by lances, and where they can get cover from missile weapons until they close to range.

The only time anything other than a great weapon will be favoured is over long distances on open plains when you can't afford quality armour and thus need a shield to survive against missiles, and at battles with 3000+ combatants on each side, in a relatively constricted battlefield where ranks of spears stacked up is more economical.

LordBlades
2011-02-13, 03:39 AM
The Shield Warrior will win most of the time, because he is more likely to hit while being harder to hit himself.

I will now sit back and wait for someone to prove me wrong, as statistics ain't my strong suit.

The mistake here lies in the fact that, by RAW, NPC's don't max HP at 1st level, so your warrior would have 7 HP actually, not 10. And with average HP, we're back to my earlier example: greatax kills in 1 hit (on average), battleaxe in 2.

Also, in regards to D&D infantry, you'll probably be best off with pikemen (guisarme, buckler, studded leather, 49 gp total) rather than sword&board (pikemen have -1 AC and -1 attack, but you get attacked twice before you get to the front rank) for holding the line, and shock infantry with two-handers for breakthroughs.

Waker
2011-02-13, 01:05 PM
The mistake here lies in the fact that, by RAW, NPC's don't max HP at 1st level, so your warrior would have 7 HP actually, not 10. And with average HP, we're back to my earlier example: greatax kills in 1 hit (on average), battleaxe in 2.

Thanks for pointing out my error. I forgot that npcs don't max their first HD, but I'm still correct actually. Warriors only have a d8 for their HD, so the average Warrior I posted before would have 6hp (1d8 +2 Con). On an average hit, they would knock each other out in one hit, but the advantage still goes to the shield user, since he has a higher AC.

Yukitsu
2011-02-13, 01:54 PM
Thanks for pointing out my error. I forgot that npcs don't max their first HD, but I'm still correct actually. Warriors only have a d8 for their HD, so the average Warrior I posted before would have 6hp (1d8 +2 Con). On an average hit, they would knock each other out in one hit, but the advantage still goes to the shield user, since he has a higher AC.

Don't automatically assume that all hits = automatic death, just because the average hit causes a kill. Greatsword guy has to roll snake eyes to fail to kill in 1 hit, other guy has to roll a 4 on a d6 (5 if he wants to make sure the other guy doesn't try to take them both down, which honestly he should). That's a 50% chance compared to a <3% chance failure after the hit that the hit is lethal, as compared to an increased 10% chance that the attack misses.

Typewriter
2011-02-13, 04:44 PM
Depends on the era. I generally respect that dark ages to early medieval armies are mostly dudes with various pointedness of sticks running at one another without much tactical consideration compared to earlier or later eras. Less specified eras, most succesful unit formations used mixed weapons up until the advent of the bayonet in like, the 1700s or something like that.

Generally, a really early era medieval army is "success=more dudes, and better luck on positioning" as opposed to other factors. Weapons are what the NPCs can afford, not what's optimal (just because the greatsword is better than a wooden plank and a spear, doesn't mean I can afford the greatsword.) Later era armies of professional soldiers, a succesful formation example is the landschnects. Pikes for the majority of the formation, halberds to do close in work in wider arcs, doplsoldners as a means to break up an opposing pike hedge, and crossbows to actually force engagements.

Similarly, when I do armed groups in D&D, I incorporate those mixed formations. Greatswords, backed by spears in a line backed by a large, indirect fire archer/sling formation is going to be far more succesful than just letting individuals mix weapons, and is better than shields and 1 handed weapons.

That sounds like you're starting to use real life examples of combat to determine the strategies that should be used in a fantasy setting, but if thats' the case wouldn't shields still have a place? In D&D you get a group of people with tumble to go ahead of the main force and get to the pikemen and/or archers and just ignore everyone else.

I would do tactics similar to what you use even though I think, mechanically, it isn't optimum. It makes sense regardless of how easily overcome it might be from a mechanical viewpoint.



It doesn't have to be great swords against shields. Every time you yourself are arming your troops, and give these guys big ass swords or axes, and these other guys shields, or if they bring their own weapons and you organize them by weapon type, the ones with the large weapons will always do better in melee.

So you have a mixed army fighting a mixed army. People are probably going to go for the bigger threats first aren't they? At this point what data do you have that is telling you that the large weapons are doing better? The fact that more of them survive? How is that happening when they're making giant targets for themselves. In the middle of a battle you aim for the strongest ones first. Especially if they're not defending themselves. In a massive battle, if you're not controlling the variables, there is no way to know to derive the kind of data we, as players, would derive from knowing attack rolls, damage rolls, ACs, etc.

Telling me you'd be able to figure it out doesn't tell me how you're figuring it out. The only way to learn that kind of information from an in-game perspective would be to run statistical analysis on individual fights for years, or if you had a war in which you knew all the variables (equivalent level army of shield users vs. equivalent army of heavy users).



I'm assuming you're talking about Rome here, and are invoking a bit of anachronism here. A true barbarian horde, 99% of them would be armed with spears and rounded wooden shields. The remainder would be split between the beserkergang, who could wield those ridiculously large weapons and scythe through a century, and the other half percent would have a well crafted sword. A full scale horde of barbarians wielding great weapons would indeed have trashed a roman formation if they could close into melee.

The case there being that a roman formation was not purely heavy infantry. peltasts would basically do all the work if you had an entire enemy formation with no capacity to turtle up behind shields, while the legion itself kept itself pulled back in due order. You'd end up with Rome using the later Byzantium strategy of bow armed heavy cavalry, not an immitation of the barbarians.

Translating this into D&D again, once more your standard dirt farmer isn't going to spend the money to get himself a large, double handed axe. He's going to strap together a lame wooden shield, and bring his pitch fork, or if he's lucky, get a real long spear. Optimization has to include what your character can afford, and elite guard carry two handed weapons for a reason. Save for the ones using a shield and a lance, but a lance is a bit of a different topic.


I wasn't talking about Rome at all, I was talking about your standard D&D level 1 barbarian tribe all using power attack, toughness, and heavy weapons.



Great weapons favour uneven terrain, as they break up the shield wall formations and spear walls. Since they do better at the micro D&D "war" scale, they do even better still on uneven terrain, where they can't get roflpwnd by lances, and where they can get cover from missile weapons until they close to range.

The only time anything other than a great weapon will be favoured is over long distances on open plains when you can't afford quality armour and thus need a shield to survive against missiles, and at battles with 3000+ combatants on each side, in a relatively constricted battlefield where ranks of spears stacked up is more economical.

You're mixing real life and D&D mechanics which don't really mesh well. That or I missed something (entirely possible).


That all being said, I'm a bit confused - it seems at points that you're agreeing with me and other points disagreeing with me, so I think I'm missing something.

My whole point is that a military wouldn't train every single troop to use the same strategy regardless of it's theoretical optimization. Everything would have a place in the military. People using shields, people using heavy weapons, people using spears, people using bows, etc. etc.

Mechanically speaking a uber-charger might be the most optimum build but not every single troop is going to have the exact same feats/stats so you would have enough variation to allow flexibility.

My secondary argument is that there would be no way to determine that the uber-charger is the most optimum build in the first place on account of the fact that knowledge of that would require awareness of metagame constructs.

I think maybe you agree with me on my first point, but not necessarily on my second?

Yukitsu
2011-02-13, 06:05 PM
That sounds like you're starting to use real life examples of combat to determine the strategies that should be used in a fantasy setting, but if thats' the case wouldn't shields still have a place? In D&D you get a group of people with tumble to go ahead of the main force and get to the pikemen and/or archers and just ignore everyone else.

I would do tactics similar to what you use even though I think, mechanically, it isn't optimum. It makes sense regardless of how easily overcome it might be from a mechanical viewpoint.

You don't particularly want to tumble out of formation into an occupied square, partly because the DC is absurd, and partly because you'll die trying. The two strategies that work in an "in game" style are hiding behind tower shields, not attacking back, pinning them in place until they either break your shield, or one of you gets flanked by heavy cavalry, or using a similarly offense minded formation to demolish the enemy formation.

As for optimization, assuming magic is barred, it is fairly close to the optimal strategy. If cavalry threatens, swords and halberds switch places and brace against a charge. If infantry threatens, greatswords with pikes behind provide more damage per round than pretty much any other formation. The fact that it relies to a degree on archery lets it remain stationary, forcing an enemy to advance, or to take out enemy ranged combatants.


So you have a mixed army fighting a mixed army. People are probably going to go for the bigger threats first aren't they? At this point what data do you have that is telling you that the large weapons are doing better? The fact that more of them survive? How is that happening when they're making giant targets for themselves. In the middle of a battle you aim for the strongest ones first. Especially if they're not defending themselves. In a massive battle, if you're not controlling the variables, there is no way to know to derive the kind of data we, as players, would derive from knowing attack rolls, damage rolls, ACs, etc.

Actually in large mixed battles, people go for whoever is standing directly in front of them. Running to and fro while getting battered by endless attacks of opportunity is a great way to lose a fight. The "heroic" types who have bigger, more expensive weapons instead of panzy shields will generally have claimed more kills.


Telling me you'd be able to figure it out doesn't tell me how you're figuring it out. The only way to learn that kind of information from an in-game perspective would be to run statistical analysis on individual fights for years, or if you had a war in which you knew all the variables (equivalent level army of shield users vs. equivalent army of heavy users).

Didn't happen like that in real life. People adopting new weapons as technology advanced happened within a generation, with new weapons coming about only very slowly up until the 1900s.


I wasn't talking about Rome at all, I was talking about your standard D&D level 1 barbarian tribe all using power attack, toughness, and heavy weapons.

Then they'd do great, until they got to steppes or open plains, where they would immediately be eradicated.


You're mixing real life and D&D mechanics which don't really mesh well. That or I missed something (entirely possible).

Strangely, applying real life tactical doctrine to mundane, low level troops works fantastically. It's when you get mages, and level 20 fighters that things start to fall apart, but playing to level 6 or so, with 99% mundane individuals, real life tactics apply.


That all being said, I'm a bit confused - it seems at points that you're agreeing with me and other points disagreeing with me, so I think I'm missing something.

My whole point is that a military wouldn't train every single troop to use the same strategy regardless of it's theoretical optimization. Everything would have a place in the military. People using shields, people using heavy weapons, people using spears, people using bows, etc. etc.

They do train people based on optimization, but the optimal army realizes that cost is a consideration. If you were to try to fund a group with 100% plate armour, all mounted, all equipped with crossbows and great swords, I can guarantee I could beat it with a composition consisting of mostly spear or crossbow armed infantry wearing studded leather, backed by plate armoured halberdiers, and a small corps of heavy lancers, simply because I could afford to field 10 times as many troops as you. That's how an army should be optimized.

If we're both given 10K guys, and unlimited money, I will absolutely give them all the exact same equipment however.


Mechanically speaking a uber-charger might be the most optimum build but not every single troop is going to have the exact same feats/stats so you would have enough variation to allow flexibility.

My secondary argument is that there would be no way to determine that the uber-charger is the most optimum build in the first place on account of the fact that knowledge of that would require awareness of metagame constructs.

I think maybe you agree with me on my first point, but not necessarily on my second?

The first I disagree with in theory, but tentatively agree with in practice. If you had infinite money, every soldier should be equipped in the exact same way, and trained in the exact same way. In practice, since you're limited in what you can provide, you will need specialists with limited equipment, and a general flexibility in what they are armed with, though with the knowledge that arming them with superior weaponry will yield better results. I also know that different scales and terrain types favour different weapons, which may skew results. However, even knowing that there is still a set ideal, and it's not a sword and board given the era D&D emulates.

The second I disagree with in full. It's inane to say that a guy with a shiv is as effective on the field as a full plated knight, and that you'd have to do dozens of battles to figure that out. The immediate effect and performance is readily observable. It didn't take tribal leaders an incredibly long time to realize the spear was vastly superior in every single way to the club, the difference is fairly self evident. Similarly, elite units through the ancient to medieval era carried larger, two handed weapons, because they could afford to, and because they were superior.

You say "most optimal" but to be honest, it's not. It's an easily countered build that will basically founder against most formations. What you should be instead talking about is "most optimal by niche", and an ubercharger is definitely the most optimal at eradicating a bunch of great weapon wielding infantry, or even shield wielding infantry.

This is where variations can come in. Tactical rock-paper-scissors. In this scheme, shield armed infantry is basically the lowest of the low, defeating only archers who are completely unsupported. Great weapon infantry defeat infantry in melee, but fail vs. cav and archery in the open, pike formations fail vs. archery, but beat cavalry and shield infantry, archers beat infantry in general, but lose to cavalry, and cavalry beats everything except spear formations. However, in those niches, there is always a clear dominant build that members of that order should aspire to.

Waker
2011-02-13, 07:13 PM
Don't automatically assume that all hits = automatic death, just because the average hit causes a kill. Greatsword guy has to roll snake eyes to fail to kill in 1 hit, other guy has to roll a 4 on a d6 (5 if he wants to make sure the other guy doesn't try to take them both down, which honestly he should). That's a 50% chance compared to a <3% chance failure after the hit that the hit is lethal, as compared to an increased 10% chance that the attack misses.
Didn't automatically assume all hits equal death. Just that on average they do. Also you are changing the equation by including a greatsword in the mix. I previously stated that a Warrior is more likely to use a greataxe because it's less than half the cost, leaving them with money to actually buy armor.
The likelihood of a greataxe wielder killing the shield user in one hit is about 92% (since he needs to roll a 1 or 2 for the shield user to survive). The likelihood of the shield user wielding a battleaxe is 62% (needs a 1-3 for the greataxe wielder to survive). So yeah, doesn't leave much room for either side to breathe. As stated if the shield user really wanted to survive longer they would take Dodge, while it's use drops off very quickly as you level, at level 1 it's fine. He'd drop the 2h warriors chances of hitting him to 30%
And once again, I didn't attempt to optimize these, I just went with whatever was most likely for them to use based on the WBL of a 1 lvl Warrior. I am fully aware that as the levels go up, using a shield is a bad idea. At the lower levels however, they are fine.

Yukitsu
2011-02-13, 07:37 PM
Didn't automatically assume all hits equal death. Just that on average they do. Also you are changing the equation by including a greatsword in the mix. I previously stated that a Warrior is more likely to use a greataxe because it's less than half the cost, leaving them with money to actually buy armor.
The likelihood of a greataxe wielder killing the shield user in one hit is about 92% (since he needs to roll a 1 or 2 for the shield user to survive). The likelihood of the shield user wielding a battleaxe is 62% (needs a 1-3 for the greataxe wielder to survive). So yeah, doesn't leave much room for either side to breathe. As stated if the shield user really wanted to survive longer they would take Dodge, while it's use drops off very quickly as you level, at level 1 it's fine. He'd drop the 2h warriors chances of hitting him to 30%
And once again, I didn't attempt to optimize these, I just went with whatever was most likely for them to use based on the WBL of a 1 lvl Warrior. I am fully aware that as the levels go up, using a shield is a bad idea. At the lower levels however, they are fine.

Sure, and a human warrior with a great axe with weapon focus keeps up on his to hit compared to dodge, and with toughness guarantees a 1 hit non-crit survival. Still not optimal for feat selection, and of course, you can take toughness on the shield user. Either way you hack it, the great axe has the advantage mathematicall, even if it's a minor one at level 1. By level 2, the gap is pretty significant, and generally level 2 should be considered reasonable for a standard town guard.

Earthwalker
2011-02-14, 06:40 AM
I can see what Typewriter is saying and I can also see how watching how fights turn out will lead people to make different choices for character.
For the sword and board v 2 hander it’s a shame the DnD rules don’t support the sword and board. As they should be plenty of situations where one is better then the other.

I am finding great amusment in some of the reasoning behind the sort of meta game ideas.

“Don’t use short swords that just stupid they don’t kill people nearly as well as longsword, or better yet two handers.” Really, stabbing someone with this short sword just down’t work ? (this is just an oddity with weapon damage / HP systems. Surly stabbing someone with a short sword kills them just as well as stabbing them with a longsword, not in the game tho)

In real life I would take 50 trained men with towershield and short swords over 50 unarmoured men trained with great swords. The wall of shields is just too nice to lose. I would like to see the battle between the 2 hander guy and the shield and sword guy with the generals on the battlements watching.

“Well the guy with the great sword is just unstoppable” Say General Juan.

“Yep it seems that way, if only the guy with the shield and short sword could keep pressing forward, so the guy with the 2 hander can’t swing at full power” Says General Tsu

“Well that’s just the way it works, everyone gets their full 5 foot square to fight in, look its marked on the ground” Says General Juan

Coidzor
2011-02-14, 06:51 AM
^: :smallconfused: A longsword is the superior weapon due to its greater reach in an out and out fight and its ability to be leveraged with both hands effectively to maximize pigsticking power.

D&D is very rarely about a mass of men fighting as a unit, so your argument based upon group tactics is inapplicable to most situations as well.


OP: Um. Yeah. Insofar as selecting spells that do what I want them to do and the build I make plays in the game.

The way one builds one's characters, one's design principles and rules knowledge cannot fail to influence one's character and as a result, its actions.

Earthwalker
2011-02-14, 07:04 AM
^: :smallconfused: A longsword is the superior weapon due to its greater reach in an out and out fight and its ability to be leveraged with both hands effectively to maximize pigsticking power.

In DnD a long sword is better if you are just wanting a main hand, one handed weapon. But the short sword had its use in real life. The standard tower shield and short sword was a good combo becuase in combat it worked, push your shield in the face of the guy using the two hander, and reach around your own shield to stab him in the kidleys.
This just doesn't work in DnD world so it makes sense people would use more 2 handers, more so for hunting monsters.


D&D is very rarely about a mass of men fighting as a unit, so your argument based upon group tactics is inapplicable to most situations as well.

I aren't sure if this is addressed to me, I aren't arguing for a side (or I don't think I am). I was just saying I found some ideas amusing. I can say I don't like the fact that x is always better in DnD but I know its there and people would eventually work out that 2 handers are always better.

In runequest the two handers come with disadvantages a plenty that helps the system. The fact using a two hander to parry can end up breaking the weapon (weapons aren't as sturdy as shields) or the fact billy short sword can close on you, meaning you are now going after him in a round. Finally my favourite, the grapple. You can't use a 2 hander in a grapple but you can use a dagger.

Tyndmyr
2011-02-14, 10:27 AM
There is no way to know that the reason a level 5 fighter with sword/board is better than a level 1 fighter with a greatsword.

Saying "Yeah you could, and it's simple" and then describing all the statistical analysis people would do, followed by comparison of metagame structures (abilities like fear immunity, BAB, etc.) doesn't actually prove that people wouldn't be metagaming. It's saying you metagame.

Nope. I am able to evaluate skill of combatants independantly from the utility of the weapon.

Team "pointy stick and slings" routinely does worse than team "Actual weapons" on average. Generally, for a good practice, you'll try to make the teams even in terms of player skill.

Sure, you may not pick up on slight differences, but anything major is gonna stick out like a sore thumb, especially when you consider that people have historically put a lot of effort into finding out which weapons are best. This is actually what has happened.

So, unless you think that actual historical humans were metagaming, then you're demonstrably wrong.

Darth Stabber
2011-02-14, 10:51 AM
Interesting thought on optimization: My group has, as a whole, decided to bite the bullet and pay the feat tax (Tomb-Tainted Soul) to the Dread Necromancer to enable her as the healer. As far as healing goes, you can't do much better than a dread necro (free negative energy touch every round + several other negative energy "attacks"), but the characters pay a feat tax, just to be able to be healed. Since the other characters are a swordsage and a psion, they both really have better ways to spend a feat (where as TTS is a nearly universal feat tax for dread necros). Now is this a case of true optimization or simple adaptation (since psion's healing ability is weak)?

As a note: the feat makes sense given that they are from the capital city of a nation run by the cult of We Jas, and the city is built in an ancient necropolis, and the vast bulk of the physical labor is preformed by zombies and skeletons.

Doc Roc
2011-02-14, 11:18 AM
As a GM, I think a strong grasp of the system can help you avoid splattering your players all over the walls, and that a bit of system knowledge on the part of the players is unfortunately useful if you want a combat heavy game.

Across four years of GMing eight different systems, this is just about the one thing I have found invariant. I don't know that I like it, but it is what I have seen borne out in all the varied games I have run or played in.

Coidzor
2011-02-14, 11:24 AM
a bit of system knowledge on the part of the players is unfortunately useful if you want a combat heavy game.

Why is it unfortunate that the players know how to play the game? :smallconfused:

Doc Roc
2011-02-14, 11:26 AM
Because learning 3.5 in depth was about as timestaking as teaching myself Python. :)

Greenish
2011-02-14, 11:54 AM
What I was essentially saying is that what he's doing is giving examples of how he metagames, but doesn't actually explain why his NPCs feel the need to perform statistical analysis and break the mechanics of their world into easy to comprehend metagame structures.Indeed, having someone trying to comprehend how the world works would be unrealistic. No one in the real world has ever done anything the like!

Doc Roc
2011-02-14, 12:04 PM
Indeed, having someone trying to comprehend how the world works would be unrealistic. No one in the real world has ever done anything the like!

Or we threw them in jail. Not to be brusque, but you don't seem terribly fond of our answer, Typewriter. Why?

nyarlathotep
2011-02-14, 12:06 PM
I can see what Typewriter is saying and I can also see how watching how fights turn out will lead people to make different choices for character.
For the sword and board v 2 hander it’s a shame the DnD rules don’t support the sword and board. As they should be plenty of situations where one is better then the other.

I am finding great amusment in some of the reasoning behind the sort of meta game ideas.

“Don’t use short swords that just stupid they don’t kill people nearly as well as longsword, or better yet two handers.” Really, stabbing someone with this short sword just down’t work ? (this is just an oddity with weapon damage / HP systems. Surly stabbing someone with a short sword kills them just as well as stabbing them with a longsword, not in the game tho)

In real life I would take 50 trained men with towershield and short swords over 50 unarmoured men trained with great swords. The wall of shields is just too nice to lose. I would like to see the battle between the 2 hander guy and the shield and sword guy with the generals on the battlements watching.

“Well the guy with the great sword is just unstoppable” Say General Juan.

“Yep it seems that way, if only the guy with the shield and short sword could keep pressing forward, so the guy with the 2 hander can’t swing at full power” Says General Tsu

“Well that’s just the way it works, everyone gets their full 5 foot square to fight in, look its marked on the ground” Says General Juan

This is just a quick point D&D technically does support sword and board but only when in a shield wall formation. Using Heroes of Battle you can use shields to reach absurdly high AC values if you are in a formation. Additionally if you focus in shield bashing twf then sword and board is useful.

Doc Roc
2011-02-14, 12:09 PM
I'd probably go armor-spikes+defender over a shield, even then. And actually, the traditional short sword in fantasy owes more, heritage wise, to the roman gladius, which was replaced in common use by the long sword in part due to lethality issues when dealing with steel armor.

So yeah.

Greenish
2011-02-14, 12:13 PM
Or we threw them in jail.Serves 'em right, bloody meddlers. They're supposed to be mysteries of the nature! :smalltongue:

I'd probably go armor-spikes+defender over a shield, even then.Tad expensive for low level NPCs though.

Aldizog
2011-02-14, 12:22 PM
Or we threw them in jail. Not to be brusque, but you don't seem terribly fond of our answer, Typewriter. Why?
I'm not Typewriter, but I'm not terribly fond of your answer because I believe assumes the game mechanics reflect the reality of the world to an extreme degree.

The "plot protection/luck" aspect of HP are mostly gamist and narrativist, not simulationist, IMO.
The "1 in 20 chance" is gamist.
The "everybody fights in their own 5' square" is gamist.
Certain differences between PCs and NPCs (elite array, max hp at 1st level, etc.) are narrativist in most cases.
The fact that the rules are consistent, predictable, and knowable is gamist. It's there to make the game work at the table without taking too much time adjucating details. It's there to make the game fun for the players. IMO, the in-game reality is not such nobody ever suffers debilitating injuries in combat, nor is it such that people cannot give their last words and then die from their wounds.
This isn't to say that NPCs cannot learn some aspects of their in-world reality (a sword is better than a club), but the mechanics of D&D are simplified approximations of their in-world reality, meant to allow for a fun and relatively easy-to-play game. The in-game world can have a greater degree of complexity and uncertainty.

The degree to which the rules reflect the mechanics of the game world is up to the GM. I feel 4E goes too far in saying "not at all," and the Tippyverse goes too far in saying "100%."

If I ever have players confused about this issue in the future, asking "How can that happen to NPCs, that's not how combat/levels/etc work," I can easily make a framework in which it does work. "Okay, we can use the combat system that I use for NPC-NPC battles, which is perhaps War Machine, perhaps DM whim, or perhaps a convoluted quasi-realistic system modeling individual strikes and parries, or we can do this fight in the D&D 3.5 style. If you want to resolve more than two rounds of combat this session, I suggest the latter." Note that, say, War Machine rules would not lead to the same in-world decisions on army weapon and armor choice as running it with individual-combat rules.

Tyndmyr
2011-02-14, 12:34 PM
The fact that the rules are consistent, predictable, and knowable is gamist.

No. It is reality. That is how things work. If that is not how things work, then you have nothing but randomness. This is really bad for narratives, games AND simulations.

Coidzor
2011-02-14, 12:37 PM
Aldizog: So... Your main complaint is that it's a game, then?

Typewriter
2011-02-14, 12:44 PM
You don't particularly want to tumble out of formation into an occupied square, partly because the DC is absurd, and partly because you'll die trying. The two strategies that work in an "in game" style are hiding behind tower shields, not attacking back, pinning them in place until they either break your shield, or one of you gets flanked by heavy cavalry, or using a similarly offense minded formation to demolish the enemy formation.

Looked up tumble rules, and they are a bit more difficult than I had realized. Fair enough, that argument on my part was unresearched.



As for optimization, assuming magic is barred, it is fairly close to the optimal strategy. If cavalry threatens, swords and halberds switch places and brace against a charge. If infantry threatens, greatswords with pikes behind provide more damage per round than pretty much any other formation. The fact that it relies to a degree on archery lets it remain stationary, forcing an enemy to advance, or to take out enemy ranged combatants.


I'm not arguing optimization of strategy, I'm arguing optimization of builds. I would use a similar strategy except in place of the heavy users I would use shields, because I would want my troops better defended. Only when you understand the mechanics do you learn that heavy weapons are better 'defenses' than shields, and since the mechanics are unknown either one would be a valid choice.



Actually in large mixed battles, people go for whoever is standing directly in front of them. Running to and fro while getting battered by endless attacks of opportunity is a great way to lose a fight. The "heroic" types who have bigger, more expensive weapons instead of panzy shields will generally have claimed more kills.


I wasn't trying to imply you would run around willy nilly. Do you only have one target in reach?
Yes - Stab him. If he's got a shield you're less likely to hit him.
No - Stab the one who looks like the biggest threat. This is going to be the undefended guy with a giant sword held over his head.



Didn't happen like that in real life. People adopting new weapons as technology advanced happened within a generation, with new weapons coming about only very slowly up until the 1900s.

But in real life we have understandable cause and affect. I stabbed you, and you died. Now I can shoot you from far away and you die. D&D cause and affect is random and non-sensical. I stabbed you so you might die, or you might laugh.



Then they'd do great, until they got to steppes or open plains, where they would immediately be eradicated.


I don't understand what that has to do with the question I asked:


Let's say that they're a barbarian tribe. Probably fewer in numbers than 'civilized lands', but more powerful with more 'optimized' builds. They start warring against 'civilized lands', cutting down everyone in their way. Which of the following two conversations do you think the leadership of civilized lands is more likely:

"Savages don't even care about their own well being, they just run up to the nearest bastard and cut them in half, completely undefended. I swear it takes 3 men to take down every one of the idiot bastards."
"Ah, yes, poor savages. Maybe when we finally put them down we'll go and teach them a thing or two about acting like civilized folk, teach them to fight like men"

OR

"My god, that beast in the loincloth is utterly stomping us. Tell the men to drop their shields and pick up bigger weapons like their opponents are doing"
"But sir, we're already dying 3 times faster than them, giving up our shields would be suicide. The savages don't care about protecting themselves, they just want blood"
"Trust me"
*Later*
"Wow sir, you were right. We changed tactics completely and it worked perfectly well for some reason. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but I guess we should all just throw our shields into the lake, and only train new recruits in bigger weapons from here on out"

Let's say the barbarians win. They conquer all 'civilized' lands. Now you have a reason that makes sense for two-handers to be more common weapons:

*Barbarians, having been more prone to combat with heavier weapons than anything else conquered the world due to their optimal capabilities. Once they ruled the world everyone used a heavy weapon because now everyone was a barbarian"




Strangely, applying real life tactical doctrine to mundane, low level troops works fantastically. It's when you get mages, and level 20 fighters that things start to fall apart, but playing to level 6 or so, with 99% mundane individuals, real life tactics apply.

I'm still missing how the strategy you were talking about would apply. How does uneven terrain make heavy weapons better or worse in an observable way in D&D?



They do train people based on optimization, but the optimal army realizes that cost is a consideration. If you were to try to fund a group with 100% plate armour, all mounted, all equipped with crossbows and great swords, I can guarantee I could beat it with a composition consisting of mostly spear or crossbow armed infantry wearing studded leather, backed by plate armoured halberdiers, and a small corps of heavy lancers, simply because I could afford to field 10 times as many troops as you. That's how an army should be optimized.

And that makes sense to me. You're talking optimizing strategy off of what makes sense, not just optimizing based off of what's the best.



If we're both given 10K guys, and unlimited money, I will absolutely give them all the exact same equipment however.


If you have unlimited money I'm not playing :P



The first I disagree with in theory, but tentatively agree with in practice. If you had infinite money, every soldier should be equipped in the exact same way, and trained in the exact same way. In practice, since you're limited in what you can provide, you will need specialists with limited equipment, and a general flexibility in what they are armed with, though with the knowledge that arming them with superior weaponry will yield better results. I also know that different scales and terrain types favour different weapons, which may skew results. However, even knowing that there is still a set ideal, and it's not a sword and board given the era D&D emulates.

The infinite money thing throws things out of whack in my opinion. Assuming we mean within reason (not everyone has +5 gear and random magic items) then I would still want archers, pikemen, and things like that. If you specialize in only one thing the second someone figures out a weakness in that build the whole thing falls apart.



The second I disagree with in full. It's inane to say that a guy with a shiv is as effective on the field as a full plated knight, and that you'd have to do dozens of battles to figure that out. The immediate effect and performance is readily observable. It didn't take tribal leaders an incredibly long time to realize the spear was vastly superior in every single way to the club, the difference is fairly self evident. Similarly, elite units through the ancient to medieval era carried larger, two handed weapons, because they could afford to, and because they were superior.

Unless there was a D&D book that included shivs and they did 1d20 points of damage and crit on 17-20x5. Of course a shiv is lame because it's obviously lame. A greatsword is not vastly superior compared to a sword/shield because of what they are, greatswords are vastly superior because of mechanics.

In D&D what makes a spear better than a club?



You say "most optimal" but to be honest, it's not. It's an easily countered build that will basically founder against most formations. What you should be instead talking about is "most optimal by niche", and an ubercharger is definitely the most optimal at eradicating a bunch of great weapon wielding infantry, or even shield wielding infantry.

I was using uber charger as an example build. I don't know what the optimal melee build is because I don't optimize, but everyone knows about the uber-charger so I figured it would make sense as a discussion topic.



This is where variations can come in. Tactical rock-paper-scissors. In this scheme, shield armed infantry is basically the lowest of the low, defeating only archers who are completely unsupported. Great weapon infantry defeat infantry in melee, but fail vs. cav and archery in the open, pike formations fail vs. archery, but beat cavalry and shield infantry, archers beat infantry in general, but lose to cavalry, and cavalry beats everything except spear formations. However, in those niches, there is always a clear dominant build that members of that order should aspire to.

I believe I can agree with this with no disparities.


Nope. I am able to evaluate skill of combatants independantly from the utility of the weapon.

Team "pointy stick and slings" routinely does worse than team "Actual weapons" on average. Generally, for a good practice, you'll try to make the teams even in terms of player skill.

Sure, you may not pick up on slight differences, but anything major is gonna stick out like a sore thumb, especially when you consider that people have historically put a lot of effort into finding out which weapons are best. This is actually what has happened.

So, unless you think that actual historical humans were metagaming, then you're demonstrably wrong.

Thank god that's not what I'm saying? I'm saying what I've been saying this entire time which is that thanks to mechanics that don't reflect real life the optimum choice (mechanically) does not always reflect the logical choice, and that building your armies/NPCs to the optimum choice in spite of this, without a logical in-game reason, is meta-gaming.

Aldizog
2011-02-14, 12:48 PM
No. It is reality. That is how things work. If that is not how things work, then you have nothing but randomness. This is really bad for narratives, games AND simulations.
Fine, I'll rephrase it. The fact that the majority of the pertinent game mechanics can be described in maybe 20 pages at a 4th-grade reading level is gamist. Yes, there is a reality to the world. No, it is not so simple to understand and optimize as the game mechanics are. The rules are a vague approximation of the world's internal reality. They leave out a whole lot of things that *could* happen but that would make the game much less fun for players. Everything that I pointed out as being gamist? And a hundred things besides? Those are cases where I assume the reality is MORE complex, MORE difficult to model, and LESS predictable than the game mechanics are. Injuries can be debilitating for weeks or months or permanently. The same person can survive 10 knife wounds in one instance and die from a single one in another.

I'd describe the current state of real-world knowledge as to the "rules" of injuries to the human body as "sometimes predictable, not very consistent, and partially known, with a huge range of uncertainty." And even with billions of person-years of research and exposure, look at the recent research on concussions. We are only now beginning to understand the cumulative impact of multiple sub-concussive impacts. The reality of the world is very complex, not well described in a few pages of a game manual.

@Coidzor: Well, my complaint is not that it is a game, but that people are taking game elements that are NOT meant to be part of the simulation or narrative aspects and pretending they reflect in-world reality.

Darth Stabber
2011-02-14, 12:49 PM
If you want "realistic" combat, try The Riddle of Steel. Then see just how good a shield is. See how good Armor is. Also with out the HP abstraction, you get a feeling for just how bad getting hit can be. (the game uses hit location based penalties for representing wounds.

Doc Roc
2011-02-14, 12:56 PM
Fine, I'll rephrase it. The fact that the majority of the pertinent game mechanics can be described in maybe 20 pages at a 4th-grade reading level is gamist. Yes, there is a reality to the world. No, it is not so simple to understand and optimize as the game mechanics are. The rules are a vague approximation of the world's internal reality. They leave out a whole lot of things that *could* happen but that would make the game much less fun for players. Everything that I pointed out as being gamist? And a hundred things besides? Those are cases where I assume the reality is MORE complex, MORE difficult to model, and LESS predictable than the game mechanics are. Injuries can be debilitating for weeks or months or permanently. The same person can survive 10 knife wounds in one instance and die from a single one in another.

@Coidzor: Well, my complaint is not that it is a game, but that people are taking game elements that are NOT meant to be part of the simulation or narrative aspects and pretending they reflect in-world reality.


I've never said that I think the whole game world is governed exclusively by game rules. But where the rules touch, the grinding terrible squirming of chaos goes still, finds itself bound into an order that players can use. Is this so bad? What you call meta-gaming, I call simply gaming. Some of the world naturally descends from the rules of nature within the game, which we know as the game rules. Sure, it's easy to take this to a ridiculous extent, and say that five-foot squares are the center of life, but what I mean is something simpler: In D&D, long swords are rockin'. They, for whatever reason, are a significantly more murderous weapon. It's okay that people have noticed this, and use it. Rules make life way easier for players and GMs. Neglecting that benefit is a cardinal sin, to my mind, and loving rules for rules sake is something even I try to keep to a minimum.

I've run some extremely rules-light systems, and I can see your point. But I think you want something that's not D&D, and that's fine. May I cordially recommend the ever excellent Savage Worlds?

Amphetryon
2011-02-14, 01:01 PM
The fact that the majority of the pertinent game mechanics can be described in maybe 20 pages at a 4th-grade reading level is gamist.Could you explain how this complaint could be addressed, in a non-"gamist" way? How should the rules of the game be presented so that they do not appear to be rules of a game?

Doc Roc
2011-02-14, 01:02 PM
Could you explain how this complaint could be addressed, in a non-"gamist" way? How should the rules of the game be presented so that they do not appear to be rules of a game?

I <3http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a3/BriefHistoryTime.jpg/200px-BriefHistoryTime.jpg

Typewriter
2011-02-14, 01:02 PM
Or we threw them in jail. Not to be brusque, but you don't seem terribly fond of our answer, Typewriter. Why?

What do you mean? I don't care(fond?) what answers people are giving, I just disagree with them, and I've stated my reasons why.


Indeed, having someone trying to comprehend how the world works would be unrealistic. No one in the real world has ever done anything the like!

If that's the way you want to run things, then feel free. Combatants know they have a constant 1 in 20 chance of success or failure regardless of other variables, they know that they have HP and no way of knowing how many HP their opponent has, etc. etc.

If you think it makes sense for people to start breaking down mechanics then go ahead. If I ever play in your world I'll be in the world praying to the "1 in 20 god", also known as "The only god that matters".


No. It is reality. That is how things work. If that is not how things work, then you have nothing but randomness. This is really bad for narratives, games AND simulations.

We know reality because reality reflects appearance.

You consider mechanics to be your physics, I consider mechanics as a metagame structure used to play the game.


That being said it sounds like this conversation is starting to turn into a gaming theory debate which I tend to lose my temper in so I'd like to say again:

This is all a matter of opinion, and as such is a debate that neither side is going to be able to 'win'.

EDIT: Removed double quote

The Big Dice
2011-02-14, 01:03 PM
If mechanics reflected real life in any way, swords wouldn't be a good weapon choice for anyone. Against lightly armoured foes, they are effective. But when people start wearing and metal armour, they quickly become almost useless. Why do you think the classin Gladius attack is to go under the sheild and strike for the groin?

Because the armour of the day couldn't effectively protect that area, and nicking the femoral artery is a death sentence.

However, in large formations, spears are far more effective than swords. They have longer reach and are much, much cheaper to make. And it's easier to train a squad to be effective with a spear than it is to train the same number of people to be effective with a sword. Roman Legions were an exception to that pattern, but it's something that held true for centuries.

But game mechanics tells us that spears, while being ok, are sub optimal. And that swords can defeat plate armour. Despite this not being true. D&D also tells us that a sheild is a purely defensive item, unless you want to pay a feat tax. Which again doesn't model reality very well. Sheilds were defensive weapons, not just something big to put between you and an enemy.

All this goes to tell us is that D&D isn't very good at modelling real life. You can put an -ist or an -ism on the end of things, but trying to be clever about it isn't going to change the fact that D&D, and all RPGs, are games. And them being games often comes to the forefront in the combat system.

Aldizog
2011-02-14, 01:03 PM
Joking aside, I've run some extremely rules-light systems, and I can see your point. But I think you want something that's not D&D, and that's fine. May I cordially recommend the ever excellent Savage Worlds?
Frankly, I love D&D. I think B/X is maybe more my system of choice, where it is quite clear from the writing style, the modules, and a great many other things, that the rules are guidelines for playing the game. Although there is no rule in the Expert set for getting your arm crushed in a cave-in and needing it amputated, there is an NPC in a Gazetteer to whom this has happened.

But when playing or running 3.5, you don't need to stick to the rules-heaviness that comes associated with it. It's quite possible to tell the players "the rules are just a rough approximation of the game world; you don't in fact get unlimited-use Create Food by making it as a trap."

@Amphyteron: I think my paragraph above is basically what I'd do. Just have a paragraph or whatever saying "Not everything in the game world needs to happen according to these rules. They are there to resolve actions by or against the PCs, with the goal of creating a fun and challenging game. A non-adventuring NPC priest might be able to cast high-level spells as rituals, but require many hours of meditation and prayer. A novice NPC wizard might cast spells that go out of their control, a common trope in fiction but one to which PCs are normally not subjected. Battles between NPCs might look quite different from the small-scale combats that PCs take part in. A 50' fall might indeed kill a renowned barbarian hero."

Doc Roc
2011-02-14, 01:04 PM
Actually, I think it is a winnable debate! Do you know why? Because we can both have our cake, possibly share it, and eat deep of the sweet tasty moist goodness. I think, basically, you want a totally different game system. Have you tried Amber Diceless?



But when playing or running 3.5, you don't need to stick to the rules-heaviness that comes associated with it. It's quite possible to tell the players "the rules are just a rough approximation of the game world; you don't in fact get unlimited-use Create Food by making it as a trap."

I have met zero players who tried that, and I've run in games by Tleilaxu_Ghola. This is... I... That's a strawman argument if I ever saw one. We're not talking about that, we just want to be able to pick a long sword over a short sword without having to write an essay justifying it. We'd like to be able to use solid fog without getting yelled at.

Typewriter
2011-02-14, 01:12 PM
Actually, I think it is a winnable debate! Do you know why? Because we can both have our cake, possibly share it, and eat deep of the sweet tasty moist goodness. I think, basically, you want a totally different game system. Have you tried Amber Diceless?


My group prefers pathfinder, and I am the kind of DM who slaves to my players desires 90% of the time.



I have met zero players who tried that, and I've run in game by Tleilaxu_Ghola. This is... I... That's a strawman argument if I ever saw one. We're not talking about that, we just want to be able to pick a long sword over a short sword without having to write an essay justifying it. We'd like to be able to use solid fog without getting yelled at.

D'oh, I'm not trying to be oppressive, I just think saying that everyone always goes for the optimal choice is not-realistic. Personal preference and personal choice prevent people from choosing the optimal thing for themselves all the time.

Aldizog
2011-02-14, 01:18 PM
I have met zero players who tried that, and I've run in games by Tleilaxu_Ghola. This is... I... That's a strawman argument if I ever saw one. We're not talking about that, we just want to be able to pick a long sword over a short sword without having to write an essay justifying it. We'd like to be able to use solid fog without getting yelled at.
It's overboard, I admit. For PC actions, I'm generally happy with players acting on things that their characters could perceive as advantageous. I dislike 1) the expectation that the rules are the absolute internal reality of the world once and for all and that therefore NPCs should be able to calculate how many HP they have, what their AC is, and how many rounds it will take for one to drop another, and 2) PCs talking in-character about things that are really gamist elements. Planning a strategy according to the initiative order is a borderline case that kind of annoys me (players talking after round 1, "Okay, since we now know that you go after me and before the monster, how about you delay so I can cast Haste, and then you attack"). And yes, I have had that happen; the initiative order is an artificial construct, and it not changing round-to-round is meant to speed gameplay, not allow for exploitation.

Doc Roc
2011-02-14, 01:19 PM
My group prefers pathfinder, and I am the kind of DM who slaves to my players desires 90% of the time.



D'oh, I'm not trying to be oppressive, I just think saying that everyone always goes for the optimal choice is not-realistic. Personal preference and personal choice prevent people from choosing the optimal thing for themselves all the time.

Hum. It's definitely true, but I think it's okay if people want to tend close to the optimal in a game. No one is really hurt by it, as long as you narrow the gap between optimal and minimal.


It's overboard, I admit. For PC actions, I'm generally happy with players acting on things that their characters could perceive as advantageous. I dislike 1) the expectation that the rules are the absolute internal reality of the world once and for all and that therefore NPCs should be able to calculate how many HP they have, what their AC is, and how many rounds it will take for one to drop another, and 2) PCs acting on things that are really gamist elements. Planning a strategy according to the initiative order is a borderline case that kind of annoys me (players talking after round 1, "Okay, since we now know that you go after me and before the monster, how about you delay so I can cast Haste, and then you attack"). And yes, I have had that happen; the initiative order is an artificial construct, and it not changing round-to-round is meant to speed gameplay, not allow for exploitation.

I, by contrast, have had a GM suggest it, and saw nothing wrong with it. It saved our bacon in a very hard fight that is still extremely memorable. You can just mention Anti-magic Shields around the playgroup, and watch their faces light up.

Typewriter
2011-02-14, 01:24 PM
Hum. It's definitely true, but I think it's okay if people want to tend close to the optimal in a game. No one is really hurt by it, as long as you narrow the gap between optimal and minimal.


Are you talking about players or NPCs? I've already said I have no problem with players doing whatever they want to do, that's the point of the game. When I say I don't think everyone should go optimal I'm talking literally - not every warrior in the world has Power Attack and a greataxe.

EDIT:
I have no problem with players optimizing as long as it doens't unbalance the group.

Amphetryon
2011-02-14, 01:25 PM
D'oh, I'm not trying to be oppressive, I just think saying that everyone always goes for the optimal choice is not-realistic. Personal preference and personal choice prevent people from choosing the optimal thing for themselves all the time.
Those things happen in the game, too. People may know what the optimal choice is, and still choose not to play Pun-Pun, or the Ubercharger, or Algernon of the White Lilies, or the Cube, or any of the other things that have been shown as the 'best builds' in D&D, for a variety of reasons, from economics to backstory to a desire to walk a different path.

I don't recall having ever seen someone claim that one must use a single, specific weapon, class, and/or skill-set in D&D or you're Doing It Wrong. (Not saying it hasn't happened, but I haven't seen that particular outlier). I've seen several folks say "If you want to do X, then following Y path will be the most efficient way", but that reads as radically different than "everyone always goes for the optimal choice" as I understand the two phrases.

Tyndmyr
2011-02-14, 01:28 PM
If that's the way you want to run things, then feel free. Combatants know they have a constant 1 in 20 chance of success or failure regardless of other variables, they know that they have HP and no way of knowing how many HP their opponent has, etc. etc.

They may not know these things in exact detail, but they certainly have a general sense of them at least. Understanding that you're fairly unhealthy after being stabbed a bit is pretty normal. They may not know an exact hp tally, but they know they're getting closer to death.

It's also remarkably hard to think of a reason why wizards would not understand things like levels of spells. Go on, explain to me how they could not.


If you think it makes sense for people to start breaking down mechanics then go ahead. If I ever play in your world I'll be in the world praying to the "1 in 20 god", also known as "The only god that matters".

That would be called the god of luck. I direct your attention to the luck prestige classes, feats, etc that support this playstyle if it interests you. I do not see how this makes other dieties not matter.


We know reality because reality reflects appearance.

What? No. We understand reality thanks to experiencing it. If somethings observable and repeatable, it's understandable. This is true regardless of what the actual rules are.


You consider mechanics to be your physics, I consider mechanics as a metagame structure used to play the game.

No. I consider the mechanics to be an accurate summary of the physics they represent. It would be ludicrous for me to describe short swords as the best weapon in the game world, and for my players to suddenly suck when they attempt to use this weapon.

That would be illogical.



This is all a matter of opinion, and as such is a debate that neither side is going to be able to 'win'.

It's a discussion. Why does it matter if it's "winnable"?

Aldizog
2011-02-14, 01:28 PM
I, by contrast, have had a GM suggest it, and saw nothing wrong with it. It saved our bacon in a very hard fight that is still extremely memorable. You can just mention Anti-magic Shields around the playgroup, and watch their faces light up.
I suppose my concern (and it's a borderline case that only sort of annoys me) is that I see the "you go, I go" initiative thing as a necessary abstraction, not the way the world actually works. I think you can imagine a d20 chase sequence to understand what I'm getting at here, how it plays out on a battemat versus how it looks in your mind. In my mind, I see individual combat as more chaotic and unpredictable. Certainly with B/X or 2e, you don't know how the initiative order will fall from one round to the next, and you commit to casting a spell before you've even rolled initiative for that round. Keeps it less predictable, and definitely a system I like much more.

Typewriter
2011-02-14, 01:33 PM
Those things happen in the game, too. People may know what the optimal choice is, and still choose not to play Pun-Pun, or the Ubercharger, or Algernon of the White Lilies, or the Cube, or any of the other things that have been shown as the 'best builds' in D&D, for a variety of reasons, from economics to backstory to a desire to walk a different path.

I don't recall having ever seen someone claim that one must use a single, specific weapon, class, and/or skill-set in D&D or you're Doing It Wrong. (Not saying it hasn't happened, but I haven't seen that particular outlier). I've seen several folks say "If you want to do X, then following Y path will be the most efficient way", but that reads as radically different than "everyone always goes for the optimal choice" as I understand the two phrases.

The original argument was that armies would have have just figured out optimum builds and adapted them. The point I've been arguing this entire time is that it's not the kind of thing you would just figure out. If you have an in game reason people figured this kind of thing out* then that makes sense, but assuming that everyone simply figures this out, agrees on it, and then decides to go optimum is what I've said is unrealistic.

*Why would shields exist at all? I brought this up as a possible explanation earlier, but in all honesty assumet that the first warriors were hitting each other with big clubs, and someone made a shield and a smalelr club- and it did them no good.

Tyndmyr
2011-02-14, 01:38 PM
The original argument was that armies would have have just figured out optimum builds and adapted them. The point I've been arguing this entire time is that it's not the kind of thing you would just figure out. If you have an in game reason people figured this kind of thing out* then that makes sense, but assuming that everyone simply figures this out, agrees on it, and then decides to go optimum is what I've said is unrealistic.

People in real life have repeatedly figured out better methods and means of warfare. It is historical. The time frame that D&D is loosely based around actually had this happening.

Figuring out what works and using it is entirely normal.


*Why would shields exist at all? I brought this up as a possible explanation earlier, but in all honesty assumet that the first warriors were hitting each other with big clubs, and someone made a shield and a smalelr club- and it did them no good.

Just because something is the best doesn't mean nothing else gets tried. There is a great deal of trial and error to find the best. There have been a lotta oddball weapons that appeared briefly throughout history. Shields are not entirely useless in the D&D system. Tower shields in particular have many practical uses.

Amphetryon
2011-02-14, 01:42 PM
The original argument was that armies would have have just figured out optimum builds and adapted them. The point I've been arguing this entire time is that it's not the kind of thing you would just figure out. If you have an in game reason people figured this kind of thing out* then that makes sense, but assuming that everyone simply figures this out, agrees on it, and then decides to go optimum is what I've said is unrealistic.

*Why would shields exist at all? I brought this up as a possible explanation earlier, but in all honesty assumet that the first warriors were hitting each other with big clubs, and someone made a shield and a smalelr club- and it did them no good.

But if someone made a blade, and found that suddenly they were able to hurt things that clubs didn't bother all that much (there are such critters in the SRD), then we have progress. And, if someone found that they could use that blade in one hand and hold a piece of hide-covered wood in the other and - unless they were fighting the 'Bob' example from a few pages back - find themselves needing less medical care after the fight, then we have progress again.

It's been said, but it bears repeating: The things that work well in army formations are not necessarily the same things that work in the small tactical combats around which most D&D fights revolve. Similarly, the economics and technology of a given environment - as well as any D&D culture's established traditions, taboos, and religious elements - will all play a part in which weapons are favored where and by which people. That doesn't seem particularly gamist or especially damaging to the feeling of immersion, to me. I do not claim to be the final arbiter of that opinion's merits.

Tyndmyr
2011-02-14, 01:50 PM
DR specific monsters are an excellent point.

Certain types of weapons will be seen as more useful in areas that have to deal with specific types of monsters more often.

Typewriter
2011-02-14, 01:52 PM
They may not know these things in exact detail, but they certainly have a general sense of them at least. Understanding that you're fairly unhealthy after being stabbed a bit is pretty normal. They may not know an exact hp tally, but they know they're getting closer to death.


And thus you would want to get stabbed less, hence shields.



It's also remarkably hard to think of a reason why wizards would not understand things like levels of spells. Go on, explain to me how they could not.

Truth be told I think spell levels make senes. Some spells are longer than others (take up 1,2,3,9,etc. pages in a spellbook) and a spellcaster can remember longer spells. Sorcerors would probably have trouble explaining spell level (I dunno, they just come naturally to me, sometimes I randomly think of something more powerful than what I knew before), but a wizard would look at a sorceror casting spells, and say "My god, it would take a wizard capable of memorizing level 7 incantations to be able to pull off that kind of power".

Casters are more easily observable though. They have a mechanic that is internally consistent. Start getting into things like spell focus and the like and it would be a bit harder to figure out.



That would be called the god of luck. I direct your attention to the luck prestige classes, feats, etc that support this playstyle if it interests you. I do not see how this makes other dieties not matter.


There's a difference between luck and having determined that every facet of your life is controlled by a d20.



What? No. We understand reality thanks to experiencing it. If somethings observable and repeatable, it's understandable. This is true regardless of what the actual rules are.

No. I consider the mechanics to be an accurate summary of the physics they represent. It would be ludicrous for me to describe short swords as the best weapon in the game world, and for my players to suddenly suck when they attempt to use this weapon.

That would be illogical.


Reword my statement then: In D&D, I generally treat the game as if it was real life. Things like spells are capable of breaking the rules that govern real life, but until magic is involved, you're in real life. Since the alternative is larping we are going to use the mechanics of the game to determine the outcome of combat and other in-game actions that require a system to govern them. The mechanics are not indicitive of the physics that govern this world, they are simply our system for determining in game affects.



It's a discussion. Why does it matter if it's "winnable"?

Mainly because most conversations I see online where two people have different opinions end in an argument over who's right, and I don't want to see my thread turn to hostility over what is essentially just opinion. Add into the current disagreements we already have gaming theory (which always makes me :smallfurious:), and I get nervous.

Typewriter
2011-02-14, 01:54 PM
DR specific monsters are an excellent point.

Certain types of weapons will be seen as more useful in areas that have to deal with specific types of monsters more often.

I actually mentioned something akin to this on an earlier page, and how it would make sense. Specifically I said that if people were under constant threat from Ogres with DR 15/Greatsword nobody would use anything other than greatswords.

Coidzor
2011-02-14, 01:55 PM
Fine, I'll rephrase it. The fact that the majority of the pertinent game mechanics can be described in maybe 20 pages at a 4th-grade reading level is gamist.

So you want to make the hobby even more unapproachable and difficult to understand rather than using simple language to at least attempt to communicate clearly and directly? :smallconfused:

Why is this a bad thing that it's trying to be accessible and clear without telling an unnecessary story?

Edit: Admittedly, it doesn't do a very good job of being clear, but they tried. I think....

Typewriter
2011-02-14, 01:57 PM
So you want to make the hobby even more unapproachable and difficult to understand rather than using simple language to at least attempt to communicate clearly and directly?

Why is this a bad thing that it's trying to be accessible and clear without telling an unnecessary story?

I think what he was saying is that the mechanics are simpler than the game world is. You shouldn't be able to explain the physics of a game world to it's inhabitant as easily as we are able to understand the book of rules.

Amphetryon
2011-02-14, 02:01 PM
I think what he was saying is that the mechanics are simpler than the game world is. You shouldn't be able to explain the physics of a game world to it's inhabitant as easily as we are able to understand the book of rules.
So how do we propose to make this workable and still allow for the game to be played, and governed by rules?

Aldizog
2011-02-14, 02:01 PM
So you want to make the hobby even more unapproachable and difficult to understand rather than using simple language to at least attempt to communicate clearly and directly?

Why is this a bad thing that it's trying to be accessible and clear without telling an unnecessary story?

NO. I am generally happy with the rules written as they are. What I disagree with is the claim that these rules are an entirely accurate representation of the way the world works. The rules are a rough approximation of in-world reality, but are mostly meant for a fun and playable game. Deviations can happen. "Special case" NPCs can use magic according to other guidelines than the PC class tables, or can have injuries that will not happen to the PCs. Massed combat can have different mechanics (such as the War Machine system). The reality of the world is more complex than can be captured in the rules.


So how do we propose to make this workable and still allow for the game to be played, and governed by rules?
I don't see the problem here. The game rules apply to actions by PCs, or acting on PCs, and are a rough approximation for what NPCs can do "off-screen." But if a writer wants to have an NPC who had his arm crushed in a cave-in and had to have it amputated (as Aaron Allston did in Gaz1), that's fine. If the DM wants the scheming princess to have learned "Detect Thoughts," "Suggestion," and "Charm Monster" through years of study, without "adventuring" or gaining levels, and without being able to cast any other spells, that's fine.

The answer is not to increase the complexity of the rules, but to accept them for what they are.

Greenish
2011-02-14, 02:11 PM
I actually mentioned something akin to this on an earlier page, and how it would make sense. Specifically I said that if people were under constant threat from Ogres with DR 15/Greatsword nobody would use anything other than greatswords.How is noticing something is more effective metagaming in some instances, but not on others?

Typewriter
2011-02-14, 02:25 PM
How is noticing something is more effective metagaming in some instances, but not on others?

This has been discussed several times. Essentially my question is: How are you noticing it?

Explanation:

Is it from an individual fight? Several 1v1 fights? Does everyone have the exact same feats/stats/levels?

I believe someone said 7 HP would be average?

Power Attack, Dodge, Toughness, Weapon Focus are all feats that low level fighters might have (obviously not optimal just examples of simple feats).

You have a bunch of low level fighters fighting each other with different combinations of the above stats, and you're going to see some people win with sword/shield and some people win with heavy weapons. Maybe it's feat selection, but in game you don't know that. You have no way to observe that Fighter 1 took Power Attack while Fighter 2 took Profession(Tap-Dancer). And that's before you even factor in levels. All of a sudden you have a level 3 fighter on the field with a spoon and he's knocking the crap out of people with a spoon. You've just observed the dominance of a spoon in the battlefield, but you don't switch tactics just based off of that, do you? No, you look at it realistically and say that some people do better than others with certain weapons. You haven't proven the dominance of any single weapon, you've just proven different fighters lead to different results.

It's this discussion that led to the idea that you would be able to observe it in wars, etc.

EDIT:
Just realized I misread your post. My above post is the data you would be trying to observe combat in a world without(DR 15/greatsword) Ogres. The ogre environment is one in which anything other than a greatsword gets you killed. There is no variation except for higher level people and/or Max damage crits sometimes causing a single drip of blood.

Greenish
2011-02-14, 02:30 PM
This has been discussed several times. Essentially my question is: How are you noticing it?There's been a practically ceaseless continent-wide multi-faction war for the last century or so.

Rest assured, the sample is statistically significant.

Gnaeus
2011-02-14, 02:33 PM
*Why would shields exist at all? I brought this up as a possible explanation earlier, but in all honesty assumet that the first warriors were hitting each other with big clubs, and someone made a shield and a smalelr club- and it did them no good.

1. Many caster types, like clerics, will use light shields, so as to be able to hold a wand or a holy symbol in one hand.
2. Knights use them for class features. (although they are still best off with bucklers).
3. There are uses for shields even for 0 level warriors. Imagine a mining colony near Kobold territory, where the most common opponent is a 4 HP Kobold. Against such an opponent, a large shield may be better than a big sword. Their warriors would optimize against the most prevalent threat.

I'm sure there are other reasons. What they aren't is a likely choice for the typical human warrior in a typical army.

Typewriter
2011-02-14, 02:36 PM
There's been a practically ceaseless continent-wide multi-faction war for the last century or so.

Rest assured, the sample is statistically significant.

Again, I think this conversation has already been brought up. My last response to somebody saying roughly equivalent of what you're saying would have been:



So you have a mixed army fighting a mixed army. People are probably going to go for the bigger threats first aren't they? At this point what data do you have that is telling you that the large weapons are doing better? The fact that more of them survive? How is that happening when they're making giant targets for themselves. In the middle of a battle you aim for the strongest ones first. Especially if they're not defending themselves. In a massive battle, if you're not controlling the variables, there is no way to know to derive the kind of data we, as players, would derive from knowing attack rolls, damage rolls, ACs, etc.

Telling me you'd be able to figure it out doesn't tell me how you're figuring it out. The only way to learn that kind of information from an in-game perspective would be to run statistical analysis on individual fights for years, or if you had a war in which you knew all the variables (equivalent level army of shield users vs. equivalent army of heavy users).


There's more to that post about other topics as well, and if I recall the conversation continued on from there.

Amphetryon
2011-02-14, 02:49 PM
The only way to learn that kind of information from an in-game perspective would be to run statistical analysis on individual fights for years, or if you had a war in which you knew all the variables (equivalent level army of shield users vs. equivalent army of heavy users).The survivors of war are usually presumed to be reasonable reporters of what worked and did not, and reasonably willing to adapt those strategies if they did not already employ them, presuming no other factors like availability and taboos.

Knowing all the variables is not actually necessary to note that one strategy is observably better. Folks will then often try that strategy. When something - pick anything, like "now it's raining" - makes the new strategy work less well, the good generals are usually the ones that can adapt to this new information.


I don't see the problem here. The game rules apply to actions by PCs, or acting on PCs, and are a rough approximation for what NPCs can do "off-screen." But if a writer wants to have an NPC who had his arm crushed in a cave-in and had to have it amputated (as Aaron Allston did in Gaz1), that's fine. If the DM wants the scheming princess to have learned "Detect Thoughts," "Suggestion," and "Charm Monster" through years of study, without "adventuring" or gaining levels, and without being able to cast any other spells, that's fine.
If you don't see the problem, great. When you started bringing up the 'gamist' aspect of being able to express how combat works within the structure of twenty or so pages of the written rules, it read very much as a complaint, to me. My question was: Given this complaint that you appear to have raised, how do we fix it, rather than repeating the 'problem' of making the rulebook read as gamist or able to be expressed in gamist terms.

stainboy
2011-02-14, 02:52 PM
If you're hung up on soldiers using whatever is mathematically best, do the math. Work out how to optimize a level 1 warrior with 13 Strength and 5 HP to fight other similar level 1 warriors. Remember, his goal is to kill or disable as many as possible before dying himself, not to maximize damage. Anything above 5 damage is wasted.

I'd be interested to see what people come up with, but a pike square looks optimal to me. Level 1 warriors hit each other less than half the time which makes tower shields awesome. Greatsword power attack just isn't that great with +1 BAB and 13 Strength. The tactics that work for adventurers work because of stat inflation that normal people don't have.


Unfortunately, I think the optimal setup for a human warrior pike square has the tower shield guys using kisuri-gamas. :smallsigh:

Yukitsu
2011-02-14, 02:56 PM
I'm not arguing optimization of strategy, I'm arguing optimization of builds. I would use a similar strategy except in place of the heavy users I would use shields, because I would want my troops better defended. Only when you understand the mechanics do you learn that heavy weapons are better 'defenses' than shields, and since the mechanics are unknown either one would be a valid choice.

You're arguing that the mechanics are unknown=results are unknown, and that's where your argument falls apart.


I wasn't trying to imply you would run around willy nilly. Do you only have one target in reach?
Yes - Stab him. If he's got a shield you're less likely to hit him.
No - Stab the one who looks like the biggest threat. This is going to be the undefended guy with a giant sword held over his head.

In a large scale battle, you only have 2-3 individuals you can feasibly strike, and 99.999999% of the time, they're all going to have the same gear.


But in real life we have understandable cause and affect. I stabbed you, and you died. Now I can shoot you from far away and you die. D&D cause and affect is random and non-sensical. I stabbed you so you might die, or you might laugh.

Again, in both game and in real life, the individual hit doesn't often die (armour scaled in such a manner that it exceeded the capacity of weaponry up until the advent of rifling or thereabouts). You basically needed a lucky hit to down someone, and even then, you're more likely to wound than kill. Having a more damaging weapon which is still agile enough, and has enough reach to do the work efficiently is generally the optimal.


I don't understand what that has to do with the question I asked:

Great weapons are only an optimal build under certain conditions.


I'm still missing how the strategy you were talking about would apply. How does uneven terrain make heavy weapons better or worse in an observable way in D&D?

Infantry of this sort behind the crest of a hill, or behind broken up terrain aren't countered by cavalry or archery. Conversely, a shield based formation will develop weak points in the line.


And that makes sense to me. You're talking optimizing strategy off of what makes sense, not just optimizing based off of what's the best.

A bit of one is generally the same as most of the other. There's a reason an optimal adventuring party has 4 members of different builds who are all themselves optimized, and not 4 of the same optimized character.


The infinite money thing throws things out of whack in my opinion. Assuming we mean within reason (not everyone has +5 gear and random magic items) then I would still want archers, pikemen, and things like that. If you specialize in only one thing the second someone figures out a weakness in that build the whole thing falls apart.

If I have infinite money, I'm either making proper Samurai, or Kataphractoi, who are heavy lancers who have strong proficiency with infantry based heavy weapon useage, and long range archery. The advantage of optimization is realizing that only certain modes of combat require resources outside of money. The reason you saw auxilaries in both of their armies outmass those troop types was cost.


Unless there was a D&D book that included shivs and they did 1d20 points of damage and crit on 17-20x5. Of course a shiv is lame because it's obviously lame. A greatsword is not vastly superior compared to a sword/shield because of what they are, greatswords are vastly superior because of mechanics.

In D&D what makes a spear better than a club?

Reach.


I was using uber charger as an example build. I don't know what the optimal melee build is because I don't optimize, but everyone knows about the uber-charger so I figured it would make sense as a discussion topic.

It depends on party role.


Thank god that's not what I'm saying? I'm saying what I've been saying this entire time which is that thanks to mechanics that don't reflect real life the optimum choice (mechanically) does not always reflect the logical choice, and that building your armies/NPCs to the optimum choice in spite of this, without a logical in-game reason, is meta-gaming.

It's not, so long as you're optimizing them towards an in-game logical role (eg, kingdom of the plains who are enemies of giants use uber chargers.) You should then optimize towards that role in those groups.

You're basically assuming there's 1 "optimal" build, where in reality there are many.

NichG
2011-02-14, 02:56 PM
One can look at the rules of the game as rules of a game, and not insist they apply to anything in any deep way beyond the actions of the PCs. That can work for some games.

If however you want to simulate a universe using the rules, then I offer the following advice: understand of the nature of approximation and the construction of simplified models.

When people do physics calculations, engineering calculations, etc, for big objects or extended systems or whatever they don't start from quantum mechanics and treat the full 10^25 dimensional problem in order to determine, e.g., the drag coefficient on the wing of a plane. Instead they look at the wing of the plane in its context and develop a theory that acts as a patch for that set of systems. That is, they come up with approximate rules for how fluid moves over the wing, and how that contributes to drag. These may be based on deeper understandings and derived methodically in some way, but they don't expect their theory for how fluid behaves over a plane's wing to still work without modification for something like a supernova or piles of sand in a silo or human biochemistry.

In this context, one should not expect the rules of D&D as presented to the players to hold in cases that are far divorced from the experiences and intrinsic nature of the PCs. For example, injury: for a PC, they are far more likely to die due to malice from an enemy or highly dangerous environments than they are to die of, e.g. cancer or falling off a horse. As such, rather than include a d100000 roll every day to see if they fell off a horse and died, that is abstracted away to a zero chance. In a population of a ten million NPCs though, that abstraction begins to fail as instead of having a few hundred deaths from horse-accident, there are exactly zero if you cleave to the rules as an exact statement.

A lot of weirdness about people knowing their own hitpoint scores, etc, can be resolved by allowing there to behind-the-abstraction be such things as partial hitpoints, or even a more complex damage system, which you just understand has been abstracted down to a simple patch for ease of rapid calculation, just like one might decide to take average damage on a 20d6 fireball to speed rolling when in principle it has a chance of doing only 20 damage or doing 120 damage.

Similarly, the quantization of levels and the like can be resolved by saying that really these things are being gained continuously, but for the sake of not constantly updating character sheets or having a deep model for how partial improvements occur, it is done in quantized chunks.

Then, when things break due to the abstractions of the model, you don't have to shrug and say 'well, the rules say this is how it works'. You can instead say 'okay, we've gotten to a situation the rules aren't designed to cover well, so here's the new model that applies in this region of the problem space'.

Greenish
2011-02-14, 03:02 PM
Unfortunately, I think the optimal setup for a human warrior pike square has the tower shield guys using kisuri-gamas. :smallsigh:I'd say the optimal strategy would be first rank using tower shields for cover (with Shield Wall and so forth), with the second rank and third ranks with awlpikes (15' reach, it's in one of the dragons, I think).

Nothing without reach or ranged weapon could hurt anyone in the formation, while they could hurt anyone who came close. Even with very poor attack bonus (-4 penalty from soft cover), they'd hit eventually.

Of course, it's rather low-mobility option, so you'd want archers in there too, and you'd still want more diversity.

Typewriter
2011-02-14, 03:03 PM
If you're hung up on soldiers using whatever is mathematically best, do the math. Work out how to optimize a level 1 warrior with 13 Strength and 5 HP to fight other similar level 1 warriors. Remember, his goal is to kill or disable as many as possible before dying himself, not to maximize damage. Anything above 5 damage is wasted.

I'd be interested to see what people come up with, but a pike square looks optimal to me. Level 1 warriors hit each other less than half the time which makes tower shields awesome. Greatsword power attack just isn't that great with +1 BAB and 13 Strength. The tactics that work for adventurers work because of stat inflation that normal people don't have.


Unfortunately, I think the optimal setup for a human warrior pike square has the tower shield guys using kisuri-gamas. :smallsigh:

I believe the stats that have been being assumed (and I've been using even though I don't really agree with) involved 16s in both STR and CON.


The survivors of war are usually presumed to be reasonable reporters of what worked and did not, and reasonably willing to adapt those strategies if they did not already employ them, presuming no other factors like availability and taboos.

Knowing all the variables is not actually necessary to note that one strategy is observably better. Folks will then often try that strategy. When something - pick anything, like "now it's raining" - makes the new strategy work less well, the good generals are usually the ones that can adapt to this new information.

And if the survivors are wearing shields and say, "I got hit less and so survived, but Steve chopped a guys head off in one blow before he died"...

And if the variables aren't controlled you could have an army of higher leveled people using less efficient weapons but still winning. Are you going to adapt the less efficient weapons, or are you going to just assume they're better than you with those particular weapons?

Aldizog
2011-02-14, 03:06 PM
If you don't see the problem, great. When you started bringing up the 'gamist' aspect of being able to express how combat works within the structure of twenty or so pages of the written rules, it read very much as a complaint, to me. My question was: Given this complaint that you appear to have raised, how do we fix it, rather than repeating the 'problem' of making the rulebook read as gamist or able to be expressed in gamist terms.
No, you don't understand. The problem is not that the rules are relatively simple, but that some player may perceive these simple rules as being the be-all and end-all for what can happen in the world. We fix it by accepting that the rules ARE to a degree gamist and are "just guidelines" for what can happen in the world as a whole. We fix it by understanding that other things in the world can happen that are not strictly by-the-book, and I've given numerous examples of what those developments might be.

"Gamist" is not a criticism here. It's my answer to "Of the three aspects of an RPG, which one best determines why is this rule this way"?

Why do bison have more HP than housecats? That's simulationist.
Why do level-1 PCs have more HP than most level-1 NPCs? That's both gamist and narrativist (the "plot protection" aspect).

I only try to read the "simulationist" aspects as reflecting the in-world reality.

stainboy
2011-02-14, 03:20 PM
I believe the stats that have been being assumed (and I've been using even though I don't really agree with) involved 16s in both STR and CON.


Well yeah, no wonder the greatsworders win. Who are these steroidal supersoldiers and why don't they have the nonelite array from the DMG?

Greenish
2011-02-14, 03:24 PM
Who are these steroidal supersoldiersDragonborn water orcs? :smalltongue:

Typewriter
2011-02-14, 03:24 PM
You're arguing that the mechanics are unknown=results are unknown, and that's where your argument falls apart.


And if a high level warrior gets attacked by a low level warrior with a more optimal build the high level warrior is still going to win. You're argument falls apart in assuming everything always goes the way you want it to(identical stats/feats/levels). Disparities in those are undetectable, which means your results are going to vary.



In a large scale battle, you only have 2-3 individuals you can feasibly strike, and 99.999999% of the time, they're all going to have the same gear.


I'm talking about having mixed gear because when I said have an army of sword/shield fighters against an army of heavy users you didn't like that. So now you don't like mixed gear.

Your logic has finally circled around.

A.You would use the best because you could tell it's the best.
B.How could you tell it's the best?
A.Fights
B.What about the variables?
A. Big fights in which the numbers work out over time
B. How are you deriving the results? Unless it's an army of heavies vs. an army of shields you wouldn't be able to derive anything
A. It wouldn't have to be an army of 1 vs. the other
B. Okay, then in a mixed gear environment where are you getting your data
A. You wouldn't have mixed gear

I can only assume your argument is that people would just be using the best gear, which leads to the question: How did they determine that's the best?



Again, in both game and in real life, the individual hit doesn't often die (armour scaled in such a manner that it exceeded the capacity of weaponry up until the advent of rifling or thereabouts). You basically needed a lucky hit to down someone, and even then, you're more likely to wound than kill. Having a more damaging weapon which is still agile enough, and has enough reach to do the work efficiently is generally the optimal.


So do you want to protect yourself and try to kill or do you want to be unprotected and killing faster?



Great weapons are only an optimal build under certain conditions.


Again, has nothing to do with the question I asked. I could post it a third time, but why bother?



Infantry of this sort behind the crest of a hill, or behind broken up terrain aren't countered by cavalry or archery. Conversely, a shield based formation will develop weak points in the line.


So your saying to strategize based off the situation, which means that sometimes something is better than the other? Have I said otherwise?



A bit of one is generally the same as most of the other. There's a reason an optimal adventuring party has 4 members of different builds who are all themselves optimized, and not 4 of the same optimized character.


Strategy: Thinking of a plan that works. Sometimes this involves equipment
Metagame: Knowing everything that is available and being able to pick and choose the options you would want with disregard to reason or rationale.

Strategy: :smallsmile:
Metagame: :smallconfused:



If I have infinite money, I'm either making proper Samurai, or Kataphractoi, who are heavy lancers who have strong proficiency with infantry based heavy weapon useage, and long range archery. The advantage of optimization is realizing that only certain modes of combat require resources outside of money. The reason you saw auxilaries in both of their armies outmass those troop types was cost.


I don't think I'm smart enough to have been able to create that level of strategy on my own. So I probably wouldn't do that.



Reach.


Ah, you meant longspear.



It depends on party role.


I wasn't talking about in a party. I was talking about as an army.



It's not, so long as you're optimizing them towards an in-game logical role (eg, kingdom of the plains who are enemies of giants use uber chargers.) You should then optimize towards that role in those groups.

Agreed.



You're basically assuming there's 1 "optimal" build, where in reality there are many.

That's.... that's exactly the opposite of what I've been saying. I'm not saying there's 1 optimal build, I'm been saying that everyone picking a single build and having that is unrealistic, especially if they don't have in-game justification for it.

Typewriter
2011-02-14, 03:27 PM
Well yeah, no wonder the greatsworders win. Who are these steroidal supersoldiers and why don't they have the nonelite array from the DMG?

I don't know. I'm not the one who decided that.

There's a reason every single post I've made has mentioned the metagame aspect of assuming every single warrior in the world has identical stats and feats.

Tyndmyr
2011-02-14, 03:30 PM
This has been discussed several times. Essentially my question is: How are you noticing it?

The correct answer is that it is RAW for combatants to notice when they are doing less damage. DR is explicitly mentioned with regard to this.

So, the rulebook says people can fairly accurately measure the amount of damage they can do. There is no need of more complicated explanation.

All your examples can be summarized as uncontrolled variables. These are remarkably easy to eliminate by parties interested in evaluating an effect.

Greenish
2011-02-14, 03:34 PM
These are remarkably easy to eliminate by parties interested in evaluating an effect.But no one is interested in improving the combat prowess of their troops (because that'd be metagaming)! They all just want to use shields and eat pie!

Tyndmyr
2011-02-14, 03:35 PM
But no one is interested in improving the combat proves of their troops (because that'd be metagaming)! They all just want to use shields and eat pie!

Right! Now you've figured it out.

Incidentally, the romans? Huge metagamers. Plus, tower shield cheese. I think we should kick them out of the game.

Gnaeus
2011-02-14, 03:37 PM
Yeah Tyndmyr. You can't eliminate uncontrolled variables. That would require multiple repeatable fights! And basic math, like addition. That is way too hard for people whose LIVES depend on having the best weapons.

Tyndmyr
2011-02-14, 03:44 PM
Yeah Tyndmyr. You can't eliminate uncontrolled variables. That would require multiple repeatable fights! And basic math, like addition. That is way too hard for people whose LIVES depend on having the best weapons.

Wait, we gotta get rid of maths too? We're gonna have to kick the Greeks out of the group as well. Huge metagamers and optimizers. I know they've been playing for a long, long time, but clearly it's time for them to go.

Greenish
2011-02-14, 03:45 PM
Yeah Tyndmyr. You can't eliminate uncontrolled variables. That would require multiple repeatable fights! And basic math, like addition. That is way too hard for people whose LIVES depend on having the best weapons.Addi-what? Is that some sort of pie?

Besides, since levels are an abstraction, it's impossible to figure out who's better than whom at fighting!

Waker
2011-02-14, 03:49 PM
Well yeah, no wonder the greatsworders win. Who are these steroidal supersoldiers and why don't they have the nonelite array from the DMG?
I used the elite array (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8) from the DMG, it says there those are generally the scores used when creating the NPC classes.

Yeah Tyndmyr. You can't eliminate uncontrolled variables. That would require multiple repeatable fights! And basic math, like addition. That is way too hard for people whose LIVES depend on having the best weapons.
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0297.html
I think that is a fairly accurate description of what you are describing. Every action can be determined by math!

Edit:

Besides, since levels are an abstraction, it's impossible to figure out who's better than whom at fighting!
They are abstracts. You can't determine level without also knowing class, both of which are abstracts. A level 2 Expert is better at fighting than a level 1 Warrior, since he has the same BAB and more hp (2d6 + (ConX2)).

Aldizog
2011-02-14, 03:49 PM
But no one is interested in improving the combat prowess of their troops (because that'd be metagaming)!
Improving combat prowess based on things the NPCs in the world can observe and react to is not metagaming.
Improving combat prowess based on game mechanics that are just there as a simplification to make the game work, and are not presumed to actually represent in-game reality, is metagaming.
It is up to every DM to decide the extent to which the rules reflect the reality of his world. It is unreasonable to state that NPCs must be able to determine HP, level, and damage to the same degree of precision that players can determine such things. It is certainly within a DM's perogative to make such things "fuzzier" in the "off-screen" scenes. Indeed, since a portion of HP represent luck, it would be quite reasonable for NPCs to have their HP rerolled every day. It is also within the DM's perogative to say that everything the world happens exactly as it does at the gaming table. RAW is of no use here, as this is a DM decision.

Tyndmyr
2011-02-14, 03:53 PM
Improving combat prowess based on things the NPCs in the world can observe and react to is not metagaming.
Improving combat prowess based on game mechanics that are just there as a simplification to make the game work, and are not presumed to actually represent in-game reality, is metagaming.

What, the rules don't represent in-game reality to a rather significant degree? What then IS this in-game reality? Where are you getting it from?


It is up to every DM to decide the extent to which the rules reflect the reality of his world. It is unreasonable to state that NPCs must be able to determine HP, level, and damage to the same degree of precision that players can determine such things. It is certainly within a DM's perogative to make such things "fuzzier" in the "off-screen" scenes. It is also within the DM's perogative to say that everything the world happens exactly as it does at the gaming table. RAW is of no use here, as this is a DM decision.

It's no more inherently a GM decision than is, yknow, anything else in the game.

Sure, the GM can ignore the rules. However, it's rather silly to say that this makes those rules meaningless. If that were the case, throw all your D&D books away. None of them mean a thing.

Greenish
2011-02-14, 03:55 PM
Improving combat prowess based on things the NPCs in the world can observe and react to is not metagaming.But is the comparable stopping power of a greatsword and a longsword something they can observe?

I would say "d'oh, of course".

Aldizog
2011-02-14, 03:58 PM
Sure, the GM can ignore the rules. However, it's rather silly to say that this makes those rules meaningless. If that were the case, throw all your D&D books away. None of them mean a thing.
Absolutely not true. The books give you the guidelines for playing the game at the table. They don't have to define every "off-screen" interaction between NPCs.

Tyndmyr
2011-02-14, 03:59 PM
Absolutely not true. The books give you the guidelines for playing the game at the table. They don't have to define every "off-screen" interaction between NPCs.

So, in your world, weapons work differently off-screen than on? The presence of the players changes reality?

Interesting, that. I would not have presumed that to be normal.

Aldizog
2011-02-14, 04:06 PM
So, in your world, weapons work differently off-screen than on? The presence of the players changes reality?

Interesting, that. I would not have presumed that to be normal.
The presence of players does change things. It requires things to be resolved in a mechanical resolution system that is relatively fast and fun. One only has so much time for gaming. Therefore, as an example, weapons do not lop off limbs or leave lasting scars, and characters do not drop dead of heart attack or stroke.

Within the game world, the presence of characters changes absolutely nothing. This requires a bit of suspension of disbelief, but as long as the differences are not too great, I find that is okay. NPCs only ever interact with a few PCs (if any) in their lives. If there were a glaring anomaly -- if the monstrous demon that had slain thousands were dispatched by a single Magic Missile because once it was on-screen it became a minion -- I don't think I'd use such a system.

To say "Off-screen, physics and injuries are assumed to be somewhat realistic, more or less as we would understand them to be in a medieval-ish world, but for purposes of the on-screen scenes we'll use the D&D 3.5system," I don't find that a glaring disparity. And I do presume that to be normal. How many times has an NPC in a game you've played, or a module you've seen, had a scar?



It's no more inherently a GM decision than is, yknow, anything else in the game.
I consider nearly everything about world-building to be inherently a GM decision. What NPCs exist, what monsters exist, magic shops or not, etc.
I consider PC abilities (classes, spells, etc.) default to RAW, but the DM can house-rule them.
So, some things in the game I consider more of a DM decision than other things.

Greenish
2011-02-14, 04:23 PM
The presence of players does change things. It requires things to be resolved in a mechanical resolution system that is relatively fast and fun. One only has so much time for gaming. Therefore, as an example, weapons do not lop off limbs or leave lasting scars, and characters do not drop dead of heart attack or stroke.

Within the game world, the presence of characters changes absolutely nothing. This requires a bit of suspension of disbelief, but as long as the differences are not too great, I find that is okay. NPCs only ever interact with a few PCs (if any) in their lives. If there were a glaring anomaly -- if the monstrous demon that had slain thousands were dispatched by a single Magic Missile because once it was on-screen it became a minion -- I don't think I'd use such a system.

To say "Off-screen, physics and injuries are assumed to be somewhat realistic, more or less as we would understand them to be in a medieval-ish world, but for purposes of the on-screen scenes we'll use the D&D 3.5system," I don't find that a glaring disparity. And I do presume that to be normal. How many times has an NPC in a game you've played, or a module you've seen, had a scar?I don't think we're even talking about the same thing.

Just because the system is simplified doesn't mean it's not supposed to be representative of the the actual combat. So if greatswords are more effective by rules, that represents the fact that they're more lethal in the world, no?

Amphetryon
2011-02-14, 04:24 PM
How many times has an NPC in a game you've played, or a module you've seen, had a scar?
As often as that NPC had a backstory that included being wounded and an hour or more away from healing or other restorative magics, and not vain, rich, or otherwise important enough to fix it after the fact.

Aldizog
2011-02-14, 04:27 PM
I don't think we're even talking about the same thing.

Just because the system is simplified doesn't mean it's not supposed to be representative of the the actual combat. So if greatswords are more effective by rules, that represents the fact that they're more lethal in the world, no?
Okay, and I see your point, but I'd argue that some drawbacks of greatswords can be presumed to exist within the world but are glossed over to make the game move faster. One thing 3.5 does not need is more modifiers. 2E had weapon speed and, IIRC, space constraints for certain types of weapons (leading dwarves to gravitate to spears more than axes, I think).

Edit: and weapon vs. armor tables, for that matter, added "realism" and formed the basis of in-world decisions, but were removed for the gamist design goal of making the game faster to resolve.

Tyndmyr
2011-02-14, 04:35 PM
To say "Off-screen, physics and injuries are assumed to be somewhat realistic, more or less as we would understand them to be in a medieval-ish world, but for purposes of the on-screen scenes we'll use the D&D 3.5system," I don't find that a glaring disparity. And I do presume that to be normal. How many times has an NPC in a game you've played, or a module you've seen, had a scar?

That is an argument that the rules do not encapsulate everything in complete detail. That does not support a conclusion that the rules we have are inaccurate.

Yes, I accept that the rules we have a summary at a given level of detail, but I believe they are basically meant to be correct. A longsword is MEANT to do more damage than a shortsword. If it were not, there would be no reason for giving them different damage die.


I consider nearly everything about world-building to be inherently a GM decision. What NPCs exist, what monsters exist, magic shops or not, etc.
I consider PC abilities (classes, spells, etc.) default to RAW, but the DM can house-rule them.
So, some things in the game I consider more of a DM decision than other things.

So the fact that a greatsword defaults to 2d6 damage is....somehow a wierd GM decision, and cannot normally be assumed? Why is this less canon than anything else in the phb? Do you have actual reasons for this opinion?

Aldizog
2011-02-14, 04:59 PM
That is an argument that the rules do not encapsulate everything in complete detail. That does not support a conclusion that the rules we have are inaccurate.
Some aspects of the rules are simplified to make things go faster. Combat, for example. These are gamist in nature, and can be seen as rough approximations. Not strictly inaccurate, but missing many things that might lead to different decisions in the "off-screen" world where those other factors can be incorporated (weapon speed, weapon vs. armor, etc.)

Others are there to avoid having really bad things happen to PCs, or to make sure they have to actually work for their rewards. These are narrativist in nature. Essentially a huge, broad set of "These things can happen to NPCs but will not happen to PCs." There, I'm just in favor of suspension of disbelief. You just have to accept that ordinary people die of natural causes much sooner than PCs do; the PCs are just lucky like that.



So the fact that a greatsword defaults to 2d6 damage is....somehow a wierd GM decision, and cannot normally be assumed? Why is this less canon than anything else in the phb? Do you have actual reasons for this opinion?
Uh, no, I'm fine with a greatsword doing 2d6 damage (more accurately, I consider the PHB to "default to RAW" as it pertains to in-game resolution of most things). As to the "actual reasons" for my opinions, I view world-building as the purview of the DM. That's simply part of his job, to determine what countries, cities, and people exist in the world, what monsters exist and where, what magic items exist, and so on. Players like to know what their abilities are so they can decide what strategies to use in solving problems, so I view tinkering with the PHB as an "only if necessary" step. But, I find that games are more fun when the magic is a mystery and the monsters' abilities are not automatically known, so I expect DMs to tinker with monster stats, names, and descriptions, as well as shift around magic item abilities.