RAW vs. RAI: When did TO become the norm? [Archive]

Talakeal

2012-04-20, 11:59 AM

Thesis: I am trying to make two connected points.

Number One:
People assume that rules are black and white. Either you are following the RAW or you are following RAI. This is rarely the case, as most situations, both in legalese and the English language as a whole, are ambiguous and depend on subjective reader interpretations.

Number Two:
People have assumed that the "correct" RAW reading of rules is almost always the most permissive and easily exploitable one. Thus many people consider crazy theoretical optimization thought experiments to be the default, and anyone who rejects that those ideas are "the one true RAW" is simply playing by house rules rather than real D&D.

Body:

Recently I have noticed a trend on this forum and, to a lesser extent, several others, where someone asks a question and then gets a response that is pure theoretical optimization (TO) and requires an abnormally loose interpretation of the rules. When someone questions the such advice, they are being told that not allowing TO is favoring Rules and Intended (RAI) over Rules as Written (RAW) and that doing so amounts to house rules or home brew.

I have seen this same trend dozens of times in the last week, and I am sure if you look at the front pages of the RPG boards you will see many examples, most closed after devolving into a RAW vs. RAI flame war.

To me, this seems a bit unreasonable. First, it is rarely a question of Rules and Intended, but Rather Rules as Interpreted. The difference is, the first is attempting to divine the authors intent, an impossibility. The second is simply a fact of the English language being as ambiguous as it is. Words have multiple meanings, people talk in metaphors, similes, and generalizations, and the authors of the books didn't try and analyze every single word they used with the care of a hybrid English professor / Contract lawyer.

Second, it was my understanding, at least initially, that TO assumed the most permissive possible reading of the rules that could still technically be applied to RAW, rather than the most sensible reading or the reading that made for the best game. Indeed, I can't imagine a game where the DM allowed for full TO level permissiveness to get anywhere.

IMO there are four main categories for debates about the game rules, which I will describe below.

- Argument Categories -

Type One: The Mistakes
Examples: Sword Sages receiving 6x skill points at first level, boomerangs doing 24 damage instead of 2d4, Jozan casting Symbol of Pain, or Drown Healing.

These are legitimate errors. They might be mistakes on the part of the author, typos, a relic of previous editions or copy pasting rules, misunderstandings between multiple authors, etc. This is the one case where an educated person actually can determine RAI with a reasonable certainty, even though RAW clearly disagrees. If the game was still in print I imagine most of these would eventually be fixed by errors.

Type Two: The Oversights
Examples: SLA wish being able to create magic items with no limit, Sarrukhs not having defines limitations on the process for granting abilities, Magic Traps not having a clause about DM approval, no mention of what happens when an Ice Assassin's desire to obey the caster conflicts with an Aleax's desire to destroy its target. What can a dead character do?

These aren't errors so much as things the author simply never considered. Likely a result of not enough time to test or proofread, or simply an author who wrote everything with the assumption the readers would not try and break the game and would not object to DM's fixing it.

Type Three: The Ambiguous
Examples: Can a treents animated trees self replicate? Can Genesis modify the planar time trait? Do lore drake kobolds count as dragons? Can I replicate Divine Ranks with Ice Assassins of Sarruks? Are there an infinite number of any given outsider due to the infinite nature of the planes? Virtually any alignment question.

In this case the rules are not clear. The wording is poor or ambiguous, the wording means two things, the RAW is incomplete or the text in multiple places is contradictory. This is the point where there is no clear RAW or RAI, and therefore the argument falls to pieces. The rules are subjective, and each person who reads it has their own opinion on what it means.

Type Four: What the Hell where they thinking?
Examples: Though bottle. Shape change. Illithid Savant. Wraith bombs.
Yeah, someone at WoTC was not in their right state of mind. These rules are not ambiguous, they clearly say what they mean, but it is just plain broken. These are the type of things that would get patched quickly in an MMO.

- RAW vs. RAI as it applies to the categories -

In type one, there is usually a clear RAW and a clear RAI. This case is kind of unique in that you usually can tell what the RAI are, and thus anyone who sticks to RAW is probably being a stubborn rules lawyer.

In type two there is a clear RAW, but no clear RAI. In this case RAW pretty much rules the day, but the assumption should be that most DMs will have to step in and make a house rule, and you should keep that in mind when offering advice.

Type three is really the heart of the issue. In these cases there is no clear RAW or RAI. Thus everyone who reads this will have their own interpretation, and no reasonable* interpretation can be considered wrong. People are being arrogant and domineering when they claim that their interpretation is the "RAW" and anything else is a house rule.

Type four has a clear RAW and RAI. These rules break the game, and probably SHOULD be house ruled, but it isn't a necessity to do such. In this case I agree that following RAW should be the rule of thumb for discussions involving these aspects of the game.

*: I don't mean "reasonable" as in something I agree with or something that is good for the game. I mean reasonable in that it is something that could possibly be correct given the sentence. So, for example the statement "The dragon is blue" could mean either "The dragon has blue scales", or "The dragon is sad", both are valid interpretations. But claiming "The dragon is blue" means "The dragon is red" would not be a reasonable interpretation.

Kurald Galain

2012-04-20, 12:15 PM

It never became the norm, there's just a vocal group of people who like their characters to be as powerful as possible (even if this requires questionable interpretations of the rules).

TheOOB

2012-04-20, 12:15 PM

nyarlathotep

2012-04-20, 12:23 PM

If you could actually produce examples of this "trend" of people giving TO suggestions when asked for practical advice then I'd probably be able to give a practical answer.

Talakeal

2012-04-20, 03:41 PM

I understand your position, but remember that RAW is the only thing we as players have in common, everyone plays with different houserules, but everyone has the same book. RAI is only really useful in situations where it is obvious a mistake is made, but otherwise we have no way of figuring out RAI short of asking the creators.

Further, anyone can make a weak or even average character, if you're coming for help on the boards, you likely want a powerful character.

I am not arguing that people should use RAI over RAW. I am saying that the question is not as clear cut as people make it out to be, and that only a small portion of the debates actually have a clear RAW and / or a clear RAI.

Also, making a strong character is one thing. But advice which involves obvious TO and rules "exploits" is not useful as it will either be banned outright by the DM or derail the game into something that doesn't resemble traditional D&D and that they probably don't want to play.

Monkey grip is a bad feat is useful advice. Telling people they should be chain gating outsiders for infinite wishes is not.

If you could actually produce examples of this "trend" of people giving TO suggestions when asked for practical advice then I'd probably be able to give a practical answer.

I could, but I am not sure if doing so is necessary or allowed. Look for yourself, as I said there are currently at least half a dozen on the front page of the various RPG boards on this site.

Swordguy

2012-04-20, 04:23 PM

I could, but I am not sure if doing so is necessary or allowed. Look for yourself, as I said there are currently at least half a dozen on the front page of the various RPG boards on this site.

It's not. Citing other threads in a negative context is considered bringing outside baggage into a thread, and I've gotten warned (not Warned) for citing other threads regarding a similar topic before.

The argument was that once you provide a link to threads A, B, and C and combine those links with the thought-line of "this is something I think is bad", it forcibly brings baggage from those other threads into the thread in which you cite them. Which is a rules violation. So folks'll have to do their research themselves.

Yora

2012-04-20, 04:38 PM

Optimization became the norm when almost everyone had learned and understood the rules and stopped asking questions in forums. Then the remaining people got a bit bored and went to discussing theory. And at some point it became assumed that everyone asking a question would want to know about optimization and not about ordinary campaigns.

Saph

2012-04-20, 04:55 PM

It never became the norm, there's just a vocal group of people who like their characters to be as powerful as possible (even if this requires questionable interpretations of the rules).

This, pretty much.

Another way to think of it is that TO responses are very easy to write. It doesn't require any effort to name-drop the most powerful build you know (in fact, you don't really even need to know how the system works). So if you ask for suggestions on a forum, it's not surprising that you'll get at least one or two people recommending TO solutions, no matter how useless or inapplicable they may be. On the plus side, this forum has a fair number of people who really do know what they're talking about, so if you ask here you'll usually some good advice too.

Fatebreaker

2012-04-20, 05:29 PM

Monkey grip is a bad feat is useful advice. Telling people they should be chain gating outsiders for infinite wishes is not.

Actually, I found chain-gating outsiders for infinite wishes to be very useful advice.

The board is full of people who look at RAW, and ask, "What does this rule really do?" This is exactly why I first started reading the OotS boards, because I found it an incredibly useful resource in defining the full potential of a system. Once I know what the rules allow, I am better able to choose a system which matches the game experience I am looking for.

Explanations of Drown-Healing, Chain-Gating, Pun-Pun, and suchlike helped convince the more stubborn members of my gaming group that maybe, just maybe, 3.x wasn't all it was cracked up to be. Thanks to help from the boards, I've managed to expand our gaming experiences to include Exalted, Shadowrun, L5R, Dark Heresy/Rogue Trader/Deathwatch/Black Crusade, Pendragon, Airship Pirates, Steampunk RPG, and we've got Eclipse Phase on deck, plus the Iron Kingdoms RPG when it comes out. Oh, and D&D4e, which we were much happier with.

At least from my experience, people really do benefit from a better understanding of the pressure points of a system. Rather, they can benefit from a better understanding of the pressure points of a system. It lets them highlight what they like and avoid what they don't like.

TheOOB is exactly correct:

I understand your position, but remember that RAW is the only thing we as players have in common, everyone plays with different houserules, but everyone has the same book.

You and your table are the arbiters of such things as "common sense" or "rules as intended." You and your table know best what you will enjoy.

HeadlessMermaid

2012-04-20, 06:38 PM

Explanations of Drown-Healing, Chain-Gating, Pun-Pun, and suchlike helped convince the more stubborn members of my gaming group that maybe, just maybe, 3.x wasn't all it was cracked up to be. Thanks to help from the boards, I've managed to expand our gaming experiences to include Exalted, Shadowrun, L5R, Dark Heresy/Rogue Trader/Deathwatch/Black Crusade, Pendragon, Airship Pirates, Steampunk RPG, and we've got Eclipse Phase on deck, plus the Iron Kingdoms RPG when it comes out. Oh, and D&D4e, which we were much happier with.

Not that I mind the result, but wasn't that a very roundabout way to do it? I mean, you introduced a solution ("let's try other systems") to a problem you also introduced ("3.5 is broken" - I'm assuming that if you had to explain how to break 3.5, no one in your group was breaking it yet). But hey, if it worked, it worked. :)

On topic.
I'm not sure if it's a trend (or a recent trend, for that matter), but I agree there's a lot of confusion when someone asks a question. I've wondered if GITP would benefit from TO/PO subforums. It would give us a nice distinction between "if it's RAW, I can have it, and if it turns out overpowered, it's awesome" and "I'm going to play this in a normal game, so it needs to make SOME sense". Which still isn't enough, mind you, because what's reasonable for one player is cheesy for the other.

Ideally, every question should come with specifics. What exactly do you want to achieve? Is it intended for play or is it intended for fun? What houserules are in effect? What's the average power level (are you playing with Batman Wizards and CoDzillas, or with Blasters and Healbots)? What's the DM's stance on flavor (is everything allowed and refluffed if needed, or do you have to justify PrCs and feats etc from a roleplaying point of view, sticking to the printed fluff)? And so on.

But it's not practical to give all this information - and many new players wouldn't know how even if they wanted to. The best compromise would be to teach ourselves to NOT answer with the first thing that pops into our head (because what's reasonable for one player is cheesy for the other), but to ask for more information as appropriate.

Fatebreaker

2012-04-20, 08:15 PM

Not that I mind the result, but wasn't that a very roundabout way to do it? I mean, you introduced a solution ("let's try other systems") to a problem you also introduced (I'm assuming that if you had to explain how to break 3.5, no one in your group was breaking 3.5 yet). But hey, if it worked, it worked. :)

In the interest of brevity, I did leave out a great deal of backstory. In the continued interest of brevity, I will continue to leave out details (unless you want to read a small novel of gripes, complaints, and "So this OTHER time..." anecdotes). Hopefully this will help.

D&D was not my first roleplaying game. For many of my gaming compatriots, however, it was both their first and their only roleplaying game. Most of them, for a wide variety of reasons, were unhappy with 3.x, but they weren't sure why. They liked roleplaying as a game, and they liked roleplaying with their friends, but each of them had some personal distaste for this particular roleplaying game system. I knew that there were better systems out there, but could never quite express how or why 3.x was a poor system.

It was this sad roadblock of ignorance and inertia.

So when I found the OotS boards, and could finally put into words just how flawed the system was, it was an epiphany for the folks who wanted out. Suddenly, they could define their dislike. This also led to better understanding of what we actually did want.

Those of us who wanted a better game found our way to better games.

--

Long story short, you have to know enough to know that there are things you don't know. Otherwise you just have this unclear and unspecified dislike, and you don't know what to fix or how to fix it. This board gave us the knowledge to start fixing our hobby, because it showed us what was in need of fixing.

Also, "Headless Mermaid?" I know there's a story behind that moniker.

HeadlessMermaid

2012-04-20, 08:50 PM

Long story short, you have to know enough to know that there are things you don't know. Otherwise you just have this unclear and unspecified dislike, and you don't know what to fix or how to fix it. This board gave us the knowledge to start fixing our hobby, because it showed us what was in need of fixing.
Ah, OK then. As I said, if it works, it works.

Also, "Headless Mermaid?" I know there's a story behind that moniker.
Nah, it's just my fascination with the custom of vandalizing the Little Mermaid's statue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Little_Mermaid_%28statue%29#Vandalism_of_the_s tatue) in Copenhagen. I'm not easily offended by the destruction of objects, including nice things (that's what happens when you've read all the dadaist manifestos). But the notion of chopping off the head of the sweetest statue in the entire world managed to shock me. Who does that? Think of the nickname as an attempt to understand my own pressure points. :smalltongue:

That said, it would make for an awesome encounter.

Fatebreaker

2012-04-20, 09:32 PM

Nah, it's just my fascination with the custom of vandalizing the Little Mermaid's statue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Little_Mermaid_%28statue%29#Vandalism_of_the_s tatue) in Copenhagen. I'm not easily offended by the destruction of objects, including nice things (that's what happens when you've read all the dadaist manifestos). But the notion of chopping off the head of the sweetest statue in the entire world managed to shock me. Who does that? Think of the nickname as an attempt to understand my own pressure points. :smalltongue:

That said, it would make for an awesome encounter.

Encounter #1: The players are hired to acquire the head of a statue. They must not be discovered during this operation.

Encounter #2: Many moons later, the players are pursued by a vengeful spirit who was bound within the statue. A headless merwoman of great and terrible power, she possesses both unusual strengths and unusual weaknesses. The players must somehow appease or banish the spirit.

Encounter #X: The players learn that many, many similar statues can be found throughout the kingdom -- and many of them are losing their heads. Investigations may be in order...

Off-topic, what's this dadaist thing you mentioned? I looked it up on wikipediea, but I'd like to hear your thoughts. To avoid derailing the thread, mind shooting me a PM on the subject?

eggs

2012-04-20, 09:54 PM

Focusing on #4:

Context matters a bit. In balance discussions, Shapechange, metapsioniced Synchronicity, Planar Binding, are relevant because that kind of nonsense is the basis for most understanding of class balance.

Also, there are the shifting lines between what constitutes brokenness. DMM:Persist isn't necessarily acceptable. An it's not necessarily ban-worthy. Ditto for Polymorph, Wraithstrike, Shock Trooper or Tome of Battle - groups have different assumptions regarding where the line is drawn (and different assumptions regarding which lines should be drawn).

shadow_archmagi

2012-04-20, 10:20 PM

So if you ask for suggestions on a forum, it's not surprising that you'll get at least one or two people recommending TO solutions, no matter how useless or inapplicable they may be. On the plus side, this forum has a fair number of people who really do know what they're talking about, so if you ask here you'll usually some good advice too.

Oh, yeah, there are some great people on here. It's gotten to the point where sometimes I just skim threads to see if anyone I respect has posted on the assumption that everything else will be "LOLOLOLOLOL PUN PUN"

I feel like there's a fine line between "Everyone is playing with the same rulebook" and "Since everyone has the same RAW, the silliest consequences of RAW should be treated as universal." Pun Pun is a stupid meme that doesn't occur outside of forums, and posting it in response to an honest question like "I wanted to play a wizard, what's a decent build?" is completely unproductive. Explaining drowning healing is completely unhelpful in every situation.

The only time that these absurdities are meaningful is if you're in a situation like the above posted who was having trouble understanding his dislike of 3.5, which isn't going to be the case for most people who post a simple question.

Shadowknight12

2012-04-20, 10:46 PM

Over the past few weeks I have noticed a trend on this forum and, to a lesser extent, several others, where someone asks a question and then gets a response that is purely theoretical optimization (TO) and would never fly in most games.

Emphasis mine. This is your problem. What your personal experience (and, by extension, presumably that of the people you know as well) recognises as "most games" (and the amount of expected/allowed optimisation) is not the same as anyone else's. We all have fundamentally different gaming experiences, similar as though they might seem to be, and that's the root of your frustration.

I have allowed TO nightmares in my games for various reasons (whether because the games are RP-heavy or the players are mature enough to use the TO to their heart's content without upsetting the game) and then turned around and out-rules-lawyered players to shut down that sort of thing when helping a newbie DM to run his first game.

We are never going to agree on an appropriate or recommended or allowed expected level of optimisation. It's frankly something everyone has an opinion and preference about and at most you might get different degrees of consensus based on peer pressure, which is frankly something I find distressing, since it stymies creativity and the free exchange of ideas (diversity of opinions is extremely important).

So what I advise you is that you stop worrying about it and just give your own advice, according to your own levels of expected/allowed optimisation (after all, you never know when someone other than the OP might read the thread and find your advice useful), and just ignore inapplicable advice when it's you who's doing the asking.

Talakeal

2012-04-20, 11:09 PM

Emphasis mine. This is your problem. What your personal experience (and, by extension, presumably that of the people you know as well) recognises as "most games" (and the amount of expected/allowed optimisation) is not the same as anyone else's. We all have fundamentally different gaming experiences, similar as though they might seem to be, and that's the root of your frustration.

I have allowed TO nightmares in my games for various reasons (whether because the games are RP-heavy or the players are mature enough to use the TO to their heart's content without upsetting the game) and then turned around and out-rules-lawyered players to shut down that sort of thing when helping a newbie DM to run his first game.

We are never going to agree on an appropriate or recommended or allowed expected level of optimisation. It's frankly something everyone has an opinion and preference about and at most you might get different degrees of consensus based on peer pressure, which is frankly something I find distressing, since it stymies creativity and the free exchange of ideas (diversity of opinions is extremely important).

So what I advise you is that you stop worrying about it and just give your own advice, according to your own levels of expected/allowed optimisation (after all, you never know when someone other than the OP might read the thread and find your advice useful), and just ignore inapplicable advice when it's you who's doing the asking.

I don't even understand your point. Are you honestly trying to tell me that you think most games don't restrict player options at all? That not only do DMs not been anything, but that they take the absolute most permissive interpretation of the rules and that the average group consists of three pun puns, a twice betrayer of Shar, an omnificier. That 99% of the books is thrown out entirely because the players have infinite WBL and spells per day, can't be harmed, and no published enemy can even pretend to challenge them?

Shadowknight12

2012-04-20, 11:23 PM

I don't even understand your point. Are you honestly trying to tell me that you think most games don't restrict player options at all? That not only do DMs not been anything, but that they take the absolute most permissive interpretation of the rules and that the average group consists of three pun puns, a twice betrayer of Shar, an omnificier. That 99% of the books is thrown out entirely because the players have infinite WBL and spells per day, can't be harmed, and no published enemy can even pretend to challenge them?

No, I'm trying to tell you that you will not find anyone who agrees, entirely, with the same things you do regarding optimisation. Even if you find people who agree with you on most things, rulesets are complex and vast enough that you will eventually find something to disagree upon.

I'm trying to tell you that getting worked up or frustrated because others don't share your same opinions is masochistic, since you will never find a place where everyone agrees with you on everything. Just let it go and accept that other people play games differently and it's okay. If you wouldn't let it fly in your games, that's fine, but it's illogical and irrational to get angry or frustrated at something (in this case, opinions that differ from yours) for simply existing.

Talakeal

2012-04-20, 11:32 PM

No, I'm trying to tell you that you will not find anyone who agrees, entirely, with the same things you do regarding optimisation. Even if you find people who agree with you on most things, rulesets are complex and vast enough that you will eventually find something to disagree upon.

I'm trying to tell you that getting worked up or frustrated because others don't share your same opinions is masochistic, since you will never find a place where everyone agrees with you on everything. Just let it go and accept that other people play games differently and it's okay. If you wouldn't let it fly in your games, that's fine, but it's illogical and irrational to get angry or frustrated at something (in this case, opinions that differ from yours) for simply existing.
If that is the case you seem to be getting mad at me for agreeing with you.

The entire point of my post was that there isn't one solid RAW and that people shouldn't accuse anyone who has a different interpretation of the game as ignoring RAW in favor of their own "house rules" "homebrew" or "attempts to read the author's mind".

Also, you have no idea what opinions I hold about the game, or what state of mind I am in about them. The only thing I am getting frustrated with is people who assume they have the one and only answer and that everyone else is trying to cheat them.

As for my "personal level of optimization" I don't really think it has ever come up. I have personally never played any character above T4 or making use of any perceived exploit or technicality, but as a DM I have never banned or nerfed anything which is a reasonable reading of RAW. If that would extend to Pun-Pun or the like I don't know, I have never had a power gamer who frequented the forums to test me.

GoodbyeSoberDay

2012-04-21, 12:57 AM

I only see the TO come out when the theory threads - Fighter v. Wizard, Monk v. Wizard, "How would you defeat X challenge?" - come out. People bring up high PO (Polymorph, Incantatrix, what have you) in threads about building a character for a real campaign, but I haven't seen a LOLOLOLPUNPUN post in a serious character help thread. PM me some examples if you want, I guess.

PersonMan

2012-04-21, 05:04 AM

The entire point of my post was that there isn't one solid RAW and that people shouldn't accuse anyone who has a different interpretation of the game as ignoring RAW in favor of their own "house rules" "homebrew" or "attempts to read the author's mind".

Well, in some situations RAW is unclear (there are several threads filled with discussions about such cases), but there is one RAW. Also, ignoring RAW in favor of house rules, homebrewing and such is in no way a bad thing - I doubt anyone will get on your case for saying 'no, drown healing doesn't work'.

As for my "personal level of optimization" I don't really think it has ever come up. I have personally never played any character above T4 or making use of any perceived exploit or technicality, but as a DM I have never banned or nerfed anything which is a reasonable reading of RAW. If that would extend to Pun-Pun or the like I don't know, I have never had a power gamer who frequented the forums to test me.

The part I bolded is where you go into RAI. There's nothing wrong with using RAI (in fact, outside of forum discussions I'm not sure anyone doesn't just use it), but if you say 'X is not a reasonable reading of RAW' people will probably start a discussion about how each group's 'reasonable' is different. For example, someone playing a Barbarian/Frenzied Berserker might want to Rage/Frenzy at the same time. For some groups this is unreasonable. For others it isn't. As such, unless it's explicitly mentioned to not be allowed somewhere, people will just assume RAW is in action and find a passage that says 'this is/is not allowed', if possible.

Personable optimization level is tied to your perception of what is reasonable. Those playing at higher levels of optimization will quite possibly have utterly different views of what is reasonable in a RAW build and what in not. If you play in a low-op group, some builds aren't appropriate, but if you are in a high-op one, they will be. People tend to assume you share their op level and so, if you don't state it, high-op people will normally just give high-op advice. This could be where your problem lies - if someone, say, gives a link to a full Mailman build when you ask for blaster help, expecting you to just cut and paste what you want from it (as far as feats, spells, items, etc. is concerned), but most of the individual things are not allowed or over your group's optimization level, it will seem like they are just trying to thrust TO on you.

candycorn

2012-04-21, 05:09 AM

I would counter that people who call banning TO "Rules As Interpreted" are misusing the term. After all, people using TO are also interpreting rules, so their claim is equally "Rules As Interpreted".

I think it would be more accurate to say that when people use "RAI", they, by and large, mean, "Rules As I (think they should be interpreted)".

Well and good, but hardly the basis for establishing a stable norm. What is a "reasonable interpretation" to you may be too restrictive or too permissive for another group.

And that's where we run into a difference of opinions. Some people think that it's obviously RAI to not allow metamagic reducer stacking, others feel it perfectly reasonable.

In the end, RAI becomes nothing more than a club that people use to advocate their playstyle preference. To that I say... To each their own.

Kurald Galain

2012-04-21, 05:18 AM

"RAI" stands for "Rules As Intended".

Sometimes that means "rules as I think the designer intended them", but frequently we have access to designer comments (introductions, sidebars, blog posts, whatever) that tells us what the intent of a rule is.

candycorn

2012-04-21, 05:23 AM

To me, this seems a bit unreasonable. First, it is rarely a question of Rules and Intended, but Rather Rules as Interpreted.

"RAI" stands for "Rules As Intended".

Sometimes that means "rules as I think the designer intended them", but frequently we have access to designer comments (introductions, sidebars, blog posts, whatever) that tells us what the intent of a rule is.
I'm going by the OP's usage of the term.

Frankly, regardless of what you claim it means, what it usually devolves to is a thinly-veiled attempt to add faux legitimacy to someone's personal opinion of what it should be, based on their playstyle preferences.

I would wager that it's not actually used in the way you describe more than a narrow fraction of the time. And based on that fact, my point still stands. People like to think that of course the designers agree with my perfectly reasonable interpretation... who wouldn't?

But it's usually unsupported, and unfounded, and little more than, "this is how I think it should be, and I'll just say that's how it was intended to function, with no evidence, or even any attempt to find evidence."

Kurald Galain

2012-04-21, 05:37 AM

Frankly, regardless of what you claim it means, what it usually devolves to is a thinly-veiled attempt to add faux legitimacy to someone's personal opinion of what it should be, based on their playstyle preferences.

Sure, but that applies equally to the term "RAW". Whenever the rules are subject to multiple interpretations (which is more often than most people would like), it is very tempting, especially on forums, to call one's own interpretation "RAW", and any other interpretation "just a houserule".

For example, the Intimidate skill in 4E notes in one paragraph that checks are made "against a targets Will defense or a DC set by the DM", and in another paragraph notes you can make creatures surrender by making an "Intimidate check against each enemy's Will defense" (with no reference to other DCs). Some people, notably those who play an intimidate-focused character, will claim that the latter trumps the former and you can make any bloodied enemy surrender automatically, and any other interpretation is Just A Houserule. Other people, notably DMs, claim the former trumps the latter, and the BBEG can have its in-combat intimidate DC set to 9001, because that's RAW.

So that's a very clear case of something that's arguably allowed but your DM probably won't let you get away with, and calling either side RAW doesn't help the argument any.

Saph

2012-04-21, 05:44 AM

Solaris

2012-04-21, 05:45 AM

I would wager that it's not actually used in the way you describe more than a narrow fraction of the time. And based on that fact, my point still stands. People like to think that of course the designers agree with my perfectly reasonable interpretation... who wouldn't?

But it's usually unsupported, and unfounded, and little more than, "this is how I think it should be, and I'll just say that's how it was intended to function, with no evidence, or even any attempt to find evidence."

No, usually when someone says RAI they mean "Rules As Intended". While yes, it does generally boil down to as interpreted, that doesn't change the common use of the acronym.

candycorn

2012-04-21, 05:46 AM

Sure, but that applies equally to the term "RAW". Whenever the rules are subject to multiple interpretations (which is more often than most people would like), it is very tempting, especially on forums, to call one's own interpretation "RAW", and any other interpretation "just a houserule".

For example, the Intimidate skill in 4E notes in one paragraph that checks are made "against a targets Will defense or a DC set by the DM", and in another paragraph notes you can make creatures surrender by making an "Intimidate check against each enemy's Will defense" (with no reference to other DCs). Some people, notably those who play an intimidate-focused character, will claim that the latter trumps the former and you can make any bloodied enemy surrender automatically, and any other interpretation is Just A Houserule. Other people, notably DMs, claim the former trumps the latter, and the BBEG can have its in-combat intimidate DC set to 9001, because that's RAW.

So that's a very clear case of something that's arguably allowed but your DM probably won't let you get away with, and calling either side RAW doesn't help the argument any.
The issue is, both are correct. There are some situations where multiple interpretations are RAW. But there is text that is publicly available to reference, published in a discrete set of books, and (presumably) oft referenced by players of the game, by and large. When I say something's RAW, you need only look in the rules to prove or disprove it. And if there are multiple RAW interpretations, then great. There are multiple RAW interpretations.

When I say something's RAI, I need to check every sidebar, and do a search-engine trawl for everything every author of the book in question has ever said, to try to verify it. It's no longer contained within a discrete list. Therefore, if you claim designer intent, it behooves you, if you wish any legitimacy, to cite the statement showing it.

Just as when you claim RAW, to have legitimacy, it behooves you to cite the rule.

No, usually when someone says RAI they mean "Rules As Intended". While yes, it does generally boil down to as interpreted, that doesn't change the common use of the acronym.
No, when someone says RAI they say it's "Rules As Intended". Generally, its actual meaning, based on usage, is "Rules As I Believe The Designers Should Intend This To Be, Which Happens To (shocking) Coincide Exactly With My Personal Opinion On What I Believe This Should Be".

But "RAIBTDSITTBWHT(s)CEWMPOOWIBTSB" is just a hair too long, I guess. So they shorten it to "RAI", and assume designer intent without any justification for doing so.

It's essentially an appeal to authority... except without any of the authority. But it's common for people to believe that others agree with them, so there is no need to actually verify these things. I've been guilty of it, from time to time.

But a safe rule to follow, in these discussions, is... If you can't cite it, it ain't true.

HeadlessMermaid

2012-04-21, 06:14 AM

Well and good, but hardly the basis for establishing a stable norm. What is a "reasonable interpretation" to you may be too restrictive or too permissive for another group.
I completely agree with the second sentence, but why SHOULD we establish a stable norm? When someone asks a "how to" question, instead of immediately answering "mindrape! is there anything it can't solve?", why not be REALLY helpful and give a layered answer?

"You can use Mindrape. If BoVD or 3.0 sources in general are not allowed, or if you don't want to cast evil spells, try Dominate Monster. If the target is immune to mind-affecting, do this. If you're less than 17th level, try that. If..."

(I'm not using a more detailed example, because Mindrape seems to be the answer to just about anything these days...)

The difference between Theoretical and Practical Optimization is, quite simply, that the first one isn't intended for play. There are many reasons to refrain from using Mindrape in an actual game (and many reasons to go ahead and do it, I'm not saying you can't), but there's absolutely no reason to avoid it when you're in TO territory.

So, a norm defined as "RAW, perhaps minus obvious typos and even that's not a given" is perfectly acceptable and useful when discussing TO. But that same norm is not helpful to anyone when we discuss actual games. If the guy who asks the question doesn't specify the details, maybe the guy who answers should try to elaborate, and ask for more info if needed.

IMO.

@Fatebreaker: Sure, I'll send you a PM, but later today, I gotta run now. :)

candycorn

2012-04-21, 06:29 AM

I completely agree with the second sentence, but why SHOULD we establish a stable norm? When someone asks a "how to" question, instead of immediately answering "mindrape! is there anything it can't solve?", why not be REALLY helpful and give a layered answer?

"You can use Mindrape. If 3.0 sources or BoVD specifically is not allowed, or if you don't want to cast evil spells, try Dominate Monster. If the target is immune to mind-affecting, do this. If you're less than 17th level, try that. If..."

(I'm not using a more detailed example, because Mindrape seems to be the answer to just about anything these days...)

The difference between Theoretical and Practical Optimization is, quite simply, that the first one isn't intended for play. There are many reasons to refrain from using Mindrape in an actual game (and many reasons to go ahead and do it, I'm not saying you can't), but there's absolutely no reason to avoid it when you're in TO territory.

So, a norm defined as "RAW, perhaps minus obvious typos and even that's not a given" is perfectly acceptable and useful when discussing TO. But that same norm is not helpful to anyone when we discuss actual games. If the guy who asks the question doesn't specify the details, maybe the guy who answers should try to elaborate, and ask for more info if needed.

IMO.

@Fatebreaker: Sure, I'll send you a PM, but later today, I gotta run now. :)

I would then contend that any constraints that exist within the game should be clearly be laid out in the OP.

For example:

"I need help building a monk. I'm trying to get a real martial arts feel, and the monk class looked good. The rest of the party is a bard, a ranger, and a healing cleric. We're not so concerned with being all-powerful, but I'd like to contribute in my DM's campaign, as much as the others. We're not allowed any material outside the PHB and the Complete series. The campaign is starting at level 4."

Now, we've clearly identified that the power level isn't that high, that ToB isn't allowed, and what books are allowed.

If you just say, however:

"I'm building a monk and wanted some advice."

Now there is so little information, that it creates extra work for the people answering. That is why they gravitate towards what is acceptable to them.

The onus of defining boundaries lies with the person seeking assistance.

If you're hiring someone to detain intruders on your land, you show them who they shouldn't detain.

If you want someone to mow your lawn, you tell them where your lawn stops and the neighbor's begins.

You establish limits.

Same here.

lesser_minion

2012-04-21, 06:50 AM

As far as "RAW is the only possible standard for discussion" is concerned, that's not true. We can certainly ask what the intent of a rule was, or what a rule should be, and if we can come to a consensus on it then it's clearly a decent basis for discussion.

We already have a list of things that may be worth banning outright thanks to the ToS/RoC guys, and I believe there's a thread floating around that's discussing patches to silly rules quirks as well.

If we don't support the game, it doesn't get supported. The time for attaching any kind of stigma to homebrew ended four years ago.

Socratov

2012-04-21, 08:25 AM

All rules come down to interpretation eventually.

Optimisers often talk about RAW as if it's some kind of gold standard, but the truth is that out of all the millions of people who play D&D, everyone reads the rules in a different way. It's not like there's some kind of Rule Ninja Police who enforce one and only one interpretation. The closest there was to that was WotC and the FAQ/CustServ people, and half the community didn't even listen to them - and now that 3.5 has been discontinued, they're gone and aren't coming back anyway. If someone says "Well, I'm going to interpret the rules this way" it's not like if you can take your case to court and get a finding against them. (Sure, you can flame them and tell them that you're right and they're wrong. Tell me how that works out for you.)

So when people say RAW they usually mean "rules as interpreted by permissive online optimisers, at least the ones I like", in the same way that when people say RAI, they usually mean "rules as interpreted by my group and most DMs I know".

Personally, I gave up paying attention to RAW in 3.5 a while ago. Given that it's (officially) a dead system, it seems really ridiculous to keep arguing about what the books do or don't say anymore. All that matters is what an individual DM will allow, and that depends on a mixture of interpretation, literalness, houserules, balance, and common sense. A lot of optimisers dislike this because it doesn't give you one 'true' answer, but in my opinion there is no 'true' answer anymore (if there ever was one in the first place).

Worng, a DnD 3.5 court exists! (although retired)

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/D%26D_Supreme_Court:smallamused:

on the subject. Raw does exist, however, it only comes to light when a few of our brightest minds come together in places like this and discuss the theory. Out there comes a rules lawyered, all options declared and stretched meaning of RAW. The thing is RAW is used by ruleslawyers, but it is made by rules lawyers. Only after scrutinizing every word, point, comma and colon or semi colon you know what RAW is. In some cases it's simple, for example toughness (the feat) gives you 3 freaking HP. In other cases it's more complicated, like Wish as a SLA, what are the boundaries? Persoanly I'd like to know the scope of wht I can can and can't do with certain abilities. Not because i can then break teh game and be allmighty (i hope i'm more grown up than that), but so can not break the game. I slipped once with diplomacy (only accidentally optimising it), but now I know hat you shpuld really take care with diplomacy, since it can wreck a campaign (i once had a campaign without any combat since I haggled, scared of bluffed them all away, it was in character for my exalted bard, so...). MOral of the story? TO igves you the true scope of the ability. one should aways check back with DM and the gaming group. Sure on questions like how to build a wizard, Pun-Pun is nto the answer, but when asked what is best a wizard can do, Pun-Pun can be an example of how not to overdo it, and what to stay away from when using kobolds, sarrukh and wizards. And to answer why the trend of answering with TO is htere, a lot of the questions tend to go like "What does this feat/ACF/spell/class/whatever do?" or "How will this feat/ACF/spell/class/whatever benefit my character?". I mean even for PO the mailman is slightly stretching it (basically the PO version of Pun-Pun) cheesing it up. Yes it is usable, yes, it works, but is it fun? Is is viable in the group? Sure we all want to feel like Angel Summonner sometime, but we need to think of the BMX Bandit, else the fun will be gone and you will lose your ability to taste ice cream :smallyuk:

Kish

2012-04-21, 08:41 AM

I would then contend that any constraints that exist within the game should be clearly be laid out in the OP.

For example:

"I need help building a monk. I'm trying to get a real martial arts feel, and the monk class looked good. The rest of the party is a bard, a ranger, and a healing cleric. We're not so concerned with being all-powerful, but I'd like to contribute in my DM's campaign, as much as the others. We're not allowed any material outside the PHB and the Complete series. The campaign is starting at level 4."

Now, we've clearly identified that the power level isn't that high, that ToB isn't allowed, and what books are allowed.

If you just say, however:

"I'm building a monk and wanted some advice."
I'm pretty sure the OP's objection is to the inevitable barrage of, "A monk? Don't!" that would follow either of those posts on this board.

See archon_huskie's (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/member.php?u=6680) sig for details.

candycorn

2012-04-21, 09:18 AM

I'm pretty sure the OP's objection is to the inevitable barrage of, "A monk? Don't!" that would follow either of those posts on this board.

See archon_huskie's (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/member.php?u=6680) sig for details.

I was under the impression that it was along the lines of:

If you're going to play a monk, take these 6 feats, and by level 9, you will be able to shapeshift into a CR 27 dragon.

The OP's concern seems to be the optimization level that is offered when someone provides less than strict guidelines, and sometimes even when they do.

I know I've seen in the Recruiting thread people trying to bring incantarixes into games marked "Low Op". Some people don't take the request into consideration, for one reason or another.

But it still falls upon the person making the request to clearly state the nature of the request. Yes, if I posted the request above, I bet I wouldn't get 30 replies before "play a swordsage" came up, despite the fact that the OP lists no TOB.

But that's someone not paying attention, not TO. The OP seems to be concerned with what is considered "standard optimization level" here.

HeadlessMermaid

2012-04-21, 10:20 AM

I would then contend that any constraints that exist within the game should be clearly be laid out in the OP.
Ideally, they should. But when the person asking the question is new to the game and/or to the forums, he probably doesn't know how to do it. (And come to think of it, a sticky with guidelines for that sort of thing would be very useful.)

So yes, when someone asks simply "I'm building a monk and wanted some advice", it's too general a question. And yes, it creates extra work for the people answering. And yes, that is why they gravitate towards what is acceptable to them. BUT, maybe they shouldn't gravitate anywhere at all, not before demanding more information from the OP.

Sometimes it happens. Sometimes people say "Hey, that's too little to go on. Tell us about level, allowed sources, what's the rest of the party, if you're aiming for a high-powered game or not, if you have any flavor considerations - and then we'll help you". I believe that's the most helpful attitude, and the one that successfully evades meaningless disagreements. I know it's extra work, but no one's forcing anyone to answer, right? I'm assuming (naively perhaps) that people reply because they want to help, and not to show off their knowledge or something.

Basically, what I'm saying is this. People who are really versed in the game, not only regarding rules and optimization tricks, but also regarding how vastly different this game can become depending on each group's play style, assumptions, interpretations, houserules etc - THESE people can be REALLY helpful: by asking the correct questions before providing the correct answers.

Now, ignoring all that and simply suggesting the post powerful thing that pops into our heads as long as it's RAW... is considerably less helpful.

Talakeal

2012-04-21, 10:20 AM

The part I bolded is where you go into RAI. There's nothing wrong with using RAI (in fact, outside of forum discussions I'm not sure anyone doesn't just use it), but if you say 'X is not a reasonable reading of RAW' people will probably start a discussion about how each group's 'reasonable' is different.

When I say "reasonable" I mean something that the words could possibly mean. For example, someone reading Genesis could come away believing you can manipulate that time trait, it is a possible interpretation.

However, reading the Fighter class and declaring that bonus feats mean he is a full arcane caster is an unreasonable reading, i.e. not one that could be achieved through any interpretation of the words written on the page.

Kurald Galain

2012-04-21, 10:39 AM

When I say "reasonable" I mean something that the words could possibly mean. For example, someone reading Genesis could come away believing you can manipulate that time trait, it is a possible interpretation.

However, reading the Fighter class and declaring that bonus feats mean he is a full arcane caster is an unreasonable reading, i.e. not one that could be achieved through any interpretation of the words written on the page.

Sure. And it's easy to find extreme examples on either side that everyone (or pretty much everyone) agrees on. But there's a whole blurry area in the middle where people may strongly disagree about whether a particular interpretation is "reasonable". Just go to any forum and find the longest-running threads with the most posts in it for a few examples, it doesn't even matter if the subject is D&D-related or not.

candycorn

2012-04-21, 10:43 AM

Ideally, they should. But when the person asking the question is new to the game and/or to the forums, he probably doesn't know how to do it. (And come to think of it, a sticky with guidelines for that sort of thing would be very useful.)
That's not an issue with the game. That's an issue with the person. Knowing how to ask the question that gets the answer you need is a skill that goes far beyond the confines of D&D.

If someone fails to do that, it creates confusion, and engenders more answers that are unhelpful. Why? Because the OP hasn't illustrated what he's looking for.

So yes, when someone asks simply "I'm building a monk and wanted some advice", it's too general a question. And yes, it creates extra work for the people answering. And yes, that is why they gravitate towards what is acceptable to them.Agreed.

BUT, maybe they shouldn't gravitate anywhere at all, not before demanding more information from the OP.And maybe we should all have sports cars and million dollar houses. One or two people? You can teach. Large groups? Not gonna happen.

Yes, ideally, that would happen. But we don't live in an ideal world, and that's just not gonna happen. Some people DO ask these questions. But just as we should all give 100% effort every minute on the clock at work, and we should all save responsibly for the future, doesn't change the fact that most people won't.

Sometimes it happens. Sometimes people say "Hey, that's too little to go on. Tell us about level, allowed sources, what's the rest of the party, if you're aiming for a high-powered game or not, if you have any flavor considerations - and then we'll help you".In most threads, there's at least one that prompts for that information. That puts it out there, for the OP to consider and reply to.

I believe that's the most helpful attitude, and the one that successfully evades meaningless disagreements.True. But that doesn't change the fact that the only reason that meaningless disagreements occur in the first place is a lack of clarity on the part of the OP.

The most helpful situation would be one where the OP properly outlined his needs. That heads it all off. But you have as much chance getting that as you do of getting everyone to answer questions your way.

I know it's extra work, but no one's forcing anyone to answer, right?And no one's forcing anyone to read any of those answers, right? So what's the big deal?

I'm assuming (naively perhaps) that people reply because they want to help, and not to show off their knowledge or something.I'd wager that for most people, it's 60/40... Though I won't say which number is help, and which is show off. And that's generous towards helpful. The internet is one of the firmest bastions of egocentrism in existence.

Basically, what I'm saying is this. People who are really versed in the game, not only regarding rules and optimization tricks, but also regarding how vastly different this game can become depending on each group's play style, assumptions, interpretations, houserules etc - THESE people can be REALLY helpful: by asking the correct questions before providing the correct answers.And people wanting to know about the game can get the right answer by asking the right question to begin with.

And if you don't know what that question is, the least one can expect is: "this is what I know to say. This is what I want. What more information do you need to help?"

Now, ignoring all that and simply suggesting the post powerful thing that pops into our heads as long as it's RAW... is considerably less helpful.And so is asking a vague, poorly-worded question.

If a client gives a poorly worded request to a contractor, and gets exactly what he/she asks for, but it's not helpful, it's not the contractor's fault. It's the client's.

Garbage In, Garbage Out.

Talakeal

2012-04-21, 10:47 AM

Sure. And it's easy to find extreme examples on either side that everyone (or pretty much everyone) agrees on. But there's a whole blurry area in the middle where people may strongly disagree about whether a particular interpretation is "reasonable". Just go to any forum and find the longest-running threads with the most posts in it for a few examples, it doesn't even matter if the subject is D&D-related or not.

True, but the quote I was responding to was him accusing me of being some sort of narrow minded "rules fascist" who disregards anything I don't agree with because I used the word reasonable. I was merely clarifying that by reasonable I meant an interpretation that one could possibly come to by reading the words.

For Example: A bard's inspire heroics giving you extra hit dice and pushing you to "epic level" would be a reasonable interpretation, one that someone could make. I personally think it is cheese and wouldn't allow it in a game I was running, but I can see how someone could come to such a conclusion and I would consider it a reasonable reading.

If someone came to me and said "Inspire Courage gives me +20 hit dice and a new car!" that would not be a reasonable reading as there is nothing in the description to even suggest such a thing no matter how it is interpreted.

candycorn

2012-04-21, 11:08 AM

True, but the quote I was responding to was him accusing me of being some sort of narrow minded "rules fascist" who disregards anything I don't agree with because I used the word reasonable. I was merely clarifying that by reasonable I meant an interpretation that one could possibly come to by reading the words.

For Example: A bard's inspire heroics giving you extra hit dice and pushing you to "epic level" would be a reasonable interpretation, one that someone could make. I personally think it is cheese and wouldn't allow it in a game I was running, but I can see how someone could come to such a conclusion and I would consider it a reasonable reading.

If someone came to me and said "Inspire Courage gives me +20 hit dice and a new car!" that would not be a reasonable reading as there is nothing in the description to even suggest such a thing no matter how it is interpreted.

You're trying to strawman the opposition. Generally, where interpretations are viewed reasonable by some, but unreasonable by others, is when there is interaction.

For example:
1) Inspire courage grants extra hit dice.
2) Hit dice govern the limits that you have when assigning skill points.
3) Psychic reformation allows you to reassign your skill points.
4) If psychic reformation is used while Inspire Courage is active, the extra hit dice count for determining how many ranks the character may allocate in any skill.

This is firmly TO. It allows for Ur-priest to be entered as early as level 3. It's one of the more frowned up early entry methods.

But, by your definition, it's reasonable.

And that's what most TO is. It's 100% reasonable readings of the rules, to break the game.

For example, using a Candle of Invocation to summon a solar, with the order to shave its head. You collect the hair, and use it to create a simulacrum of the Solar. You then order that solar to wish for a simulacrum spell using the next one. And so on, and so on. And soon, you have an army of solar simulacrums at level 11. 100% TO, and 100% reasonable readings of the items and spells.

Kurald Galain

2012-04-21, 11:17 AM

And that's what most TO is. It's 100% reasonable readings of the rules, to break the game.

Arguably, if it breaks the game, it is not in fact a reasonable reading of the rules.

Talakeal

2012-04-21, 11:39 AM

You're trying to strawman the opposition. Generally, where interpretations are viewed reasonable by some, but unreasonable by others, is when there is interaction.
.

I wasn't trying to straw man anyone. I was responding only to the second half of:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13106548&postcount=21

By giving him a definition of how I was using reasonable. I did not mean reasonable as in something I agreed with, or something that was RAI, or something that was hard RAW, or something that was fair. I meant it only to mean an interpretation that a sane person with a decent grasp of the English language could possibly come away with after reading the rules.

My point was that any interpretation could be valid so long as it had a basis in what was written, and wasn't just making up stuff that wasn't there. I have never seen any TO that WASN'T reasonable by my definition, at least not that wasn't immediately shot down by the masses.

Socratov

2012-04-21, 12:34 PM

So, if I deduce correctly, your problem is not with very loose or literal readings of RAW, but with people misreading rules, and presenting that as raw. I mean I have misread my time on the forums, and such misreadings can mean the world of difference. Liek in your example where someone mistakes temorary hitdice for classlevels thinking it can push him into epics (at least, that would be my explanation for why it wouldn't work). Fortunantely the ever watchful masters of the rules and optimization will correct your fault in a friendly manner (well, it's not the first time the mistake would have been made). Besides that, people that don't read too closely, will often give the wrong advice. On the other hand, this is a forum. It's a community for peopel who love the same things. Different people have different levels of cheese, optimization and different classifications of optimization.

In my opinion (not worth a damn for I can't seem to sell it for cash :smallbiggrin:) throwing around TO as a name for advice given on these boards is a bit over the top. TO, or all out written, Theoretical Optimization is the stuff of Pun-Pun, Locate City Bomb/Wightpocalypse/etc. and so on. It's the stuff that for it to work you need to actually keep it strict RAW, and even be a bit lenient (something aoubt 2D/3D anyone, or infinite loops). It's basically the combos that make play impossible since the setuptime is either too long, or it basically allow the player to tell the DM to stick it where the sun won't shine. The next category is PO, or Practical Optimization. It's the stuff that is making legends. It makes the cindy, the mailman, and many more builds. It's where a strict reading of RAW and a slightly lenient DM go a long way. Most builds asked for on the forums ask for the latter (if they stricktly don't want to optimize they'd mention it in the OP like "We're all playing T4-5 and we want to contribute equally", or they'd just meddle along without asking the playground. And if the advice contains a heavily debated wording/feat/whatever, then it is usually mentioned in terms of "Some DM don't allow it, and it's not clear whether it should work or not, but maybe you can run Strongheartvest past your DM to see if you can use it to fuel your Hellfire Blasts" (ok, not neccessarily TO, but it is at least as speculative as some of the TO tricks).

Last, Yes, I too have seen the advice for people telling things like: "Play Pun-Pun..." but that was to help a player show his bully DM one up. Bad advice no the less, but not real TO advice. I too wouldn't mind to see an example (by PM if neccessary)

Talakeal

2012-04-21, 01:18 PM

My point was, simply put:

The wording for many rules is at least partially ambiguous and open for interpretation.

People need to stop pretending that one single interpretation (usually the most broken and overly permissive interpretation) is the one true RAW and all other interpretations are "house rules" "home brew" or "attempts to read the authors mind" and therefore wrong.

Socratov

2012-04-21, 06:24 PM

well, that's the thing, RAW is as it is. it the one way/interpretation that uses the explanation word, for word. It's the interpretation any ruleslawyer would give you, and by that hte most used on forums (unless the forums themselves have adopted a rulechange like the diplomacy system as proposed by Rich Burlew, and even then actually only mentioned as a fix). The thing is, as mentioned before, RAW, and then the word for word version whether it improves the power of the mechanc in question or not, is the only common ground a community of players can use unless a homerule system is used, which would be a horrible nightmare since you will be basically forcing a rules rewrite with a couple of thousand people. Fot that we have the homebrew section. Basically RAW, RAI and RAInterpreted are all variations on interpretations on a rule. RAW seems to be the least discussion on since it is what it is. Question regarding what is meant iwth the exact wording (OR the RAW meaning if you will) arise frequently and are discussed as such. Frequently discussions over build trail off to (re)discuss a certain wording of a mechanic. Even though the (re)discussion usually doesn't change the effect of said mechanic (which tells us it's as close to RAW as it will ever get).

The reason RAW and TO are such closely linked is the fact that when optimizing with a pretty large community (at least, I think several thousands is a large community) is best done at a baseline of constraints, which seem sto be RAW since it will generate the least discussion since it's meaning is just that: The way it is written. Yes DnD 3.5 is riddled with vague descriptions and weird wordings. It's notorious in it's inconsistency and brokeness. But to be fair, the number of books on 3.5 is bloody huge. The forgotten reilms in of itself has more then a 100 (?) books. You'd need a perfect team to check it consisting of a lot of lawyers (to chech the correctness of the wording), writers (to make it all fluffy and storylike), and gamedesigners (to make the crunch, balance it a little, etc.) to make it right. And you will need alot of them with if possible all 3 traits. Good luck on that one. Since mindreading the designers is out, the wording isn't at all consistent or vague at best, and the game is imbalance to begin with, there is only 1 standard to discuss, and that's using the interpretation of the rule where word for word has been established what the mechanic does. You could just decide to throw out all of the bad stuff, where (according to some) the RAW interpretation of the rules clearly goes against the intention of the rules, but then, where is that line? Is it with IHS and Sarrukh? Does it stop at infinite wishloops? It is up to the OP to state what the boundaries of the discussion are. Is ToB allowed? Is third party material allowed? What splatbooks are allowed? If all is fair game, let all be fair game. Eventually, when the player takes his character to the DM, it's up to the DM to say Yay, or Nay to itand explain why (maybe the DM doesn't liek IHS and Sarrukh, maybe he doens't like a whole lot more builds, it depends on the DM and the hosuerules which differ per DM and per 'house').

Talakeal

2012-04-21, 08:51 PM

Fatebreaker

2012-04-21, 08:57 PM

I don't think there is a clear solution to these questions (or dozens of others), and I don't know how you can claim common ground in these situations.

Maybe, maybe not, but RAW at least provides a common starting point. The houserules of your table do not.

It's not perfect, but it's what we have.

Where a group goes from there is up to them.

Talakeal

2012-04-21, 09:40 PM

Maybe, maybe not, but RAW at least provides a common starting point. The houserules of your table do not.

It's not perfect, but it's what we have.

Where a group goes from there is up to them.

Again, when the text itself is ambiguous, what is the answer? Why do you say my interpretation is "house rules" but your interpretation is "RAW"?

Fatebreaker

2012-04-21, 11:16 PM

Again, when the text itself is ambiguous, what is the answer? Why do you say my interpretation is "house rules" but your interpretation is "RAW"?

Spite, mostly.

Naw, I kid, I kid.

Honestly, man, it sounds like you have some specific folks with specific examples in mind. You may want to talk specifically to them about those specific subjects. No one else can tell you how their minds work.

But, if you want my opinion, here's an example of RAW vs. houserule, on a tangent from your Genesis question.

Genesis & Growth
The spell never says how large the demiplane is initially, only that it grows by one foot in radius per day. A DM could rule that, since it has no starting value, it is two feet wide twenty-four hours later, four feet wide forty-eight hours later, and so on and so forth. Now, another DM could equally rule that, since the effect of the spell is centered on you, the demiplane begins large enough to hold you. A third DM could rule that it begins to grow literally inside of you.

The third interpretation is probably wrong. Funny, yes, cruel, yes, but there's nothing in the spell effects to support this, so it's probably not true. The second interpretation is fair, but not directly supported. The first interpretation is also not directly supported, but it operates on the safe side by neither granting an unlisted benefit nor imposing an unlisted penalty. I would feel fairly confident in supporting the first, largely because of how it grants neither unlisted penalties nor benefits. It is the closest to what is written.

There's also the question of when it starts to grow. Now, in my games, I'd choose to have the thing start growing when the spell starts casting, but it doesn't stabilize until the casting-time is up (one week later). So if he's interrupted, it vanishes, but if he finishes, he has something to show for it. The guy already invested a week mumbling and finger-wiggling, no need to make him wait three or four more days just so they can poke their head in the door. But that's my houserule. If I were advising someone else via RAW, I'd go with the "it starts growing only upon successful casting," because again, that's the closest to what is written. They can choose whether or not to go with that, or, like me, adapt the ruling for their own table.

Calanon

2012-04-22, 01:53 AM

since I've seen this very discussion talked about... oh lets just round it up from 982 to a clean 1,000 times a month i'll just sit back and watch with my popcorn...

http://www.planetcalypsoforum.com/gallery/files/9/8/2/8/michael-jackson-eating-popcorn.gif

Reluctance

2012-04-22, 02:08 AM

The only times I see TO mentioned is either when it leads to silliness, or when it's the only way to overcome a certain challenge. I've never seen it seriously recommended, except snidely when some posters think it's a way to win an arms race.

huttj509

2012-04-22, 02:15 AM

I think part of the thing is that there's no good yardstick. I don't know what's OP for your table, unless you manage to tell me. I don't know the norm for your table, unless you manage to tell me. I don't know what your table considers cheese (Heck, I think there's a 3.5 thread going on about where the line's drawn on what's considered cheesy, and there are/were some wildly varying answers). Heck, I might not know what MY table considers cheese until the DM looks at me and says "dude, really?"

If someone comes in asking for a good fighter build, but says their table is low op...well, how do you combine a low op build with a good build? Good at what? Good at making things fall over? Easy to leave the realm of low-op there. How good is "good?" Were you asking for a fighter who donates money to orphans, and there was a miscommunication?

In addition, the line of where PO deviates from TO is REALLY rough to pin down, similar to when things become 'cheese.' Ok, that infinite loop that only stops when you decide it does is probably a bit much, but there's a range between "strong but fair" and "I'm playing Pun-Pun and have the ability 'summon macguffin.'"

So if someone asks for help, and someone else replies with something OP...well, the poster might not consider it OP. We can't really tell people what they SHOULD play, just what they CAN within the rules that we have (and while the Wheaton rule is often in play at gaming tables, anecdotally it's clearly not always).

Terms that are ill-defined:
good
strong
low-op
high-op
Practical optimization vs. Theoretical optimization.
Cheesy
Fair
and probably more.

Solaris

2012-04-22, 04:40 AM

No, usually when someone says RAI they mean "Rules As Intended". While yes, it does generally boil down to as interpreted, that doesn't change the common use of the acronym.

No, when someone says RAI they say it's "Rules As Intended".

I chuckled at that. As near as I could figure, most of the bits I snipped off your post were pretty much just saying the same thing I said - only in a lot more words.

willpell

2012-04-23, 05:43 AM

I know this thread and its counterpart are going to make my head explode, yet here I am subscribing anyway for some reason. Anyway, my 2 cp: I think when players come up with a concept they like (and power might well be much of the reason they like it), they want to know whether the book says it's okay, in the hope that they can use that fact as leverage to persuade the DM to allow it. That the DM's word is final is obvious, but that doesn't mean he can't be persuaded, and the perception of RAW being set in stone, though not accurate, tends to feel like a weapon you can use in your argument.

Phaederkiel

2012-04-23, 06:19 AM

This, pretty much.

Another way to think of it is that TO responses are very easy to write. It doesn't require any effort to name-drop the most powerful build you know (in fact, you don't really even need to know how the system works).

so much this.

<overdramatized and unjust:>

I sometimes have this hunch that half of the people giving advice never play the game themselves, only sit in their comfy chair in their dark little hut in front of their brightly lit monitors and dream;

Dream about playing for real, with people; having these people Acknowledge and confirm these phantasms of omnipotence ill-gotten by bookreading in loneliness;

and forgetting, ever forgetting, that such omnipotence is boring at best to the people they'd love to game with.

</overdramatized and unjust:>

Malachei

2012-04-23, 06:50 AM

All rules come down to interpretation eventually.

Optimisers often talk about RAW as if it's some kind of gold standard, but the truth is that out of all the millions of people who play D&D, everyone reads the rules in a different way.

Yes. It has been said so many times, but people still argue that their reading equals the one and only truth.

It's not like there's some kind of Rule Ninja Police who enforce one and only one interpretation.

I think there is a process, but I fear it is more based on repetition and being vocal.

The closest there was to that was WotC and the FAQ/CustServ people, and half the community didn't even listen to them

I find it interesting that people complain about the quality of the books, and then ignore any source that might help understanding. Even if the source is wrong, it is just another source. But people react so aggressively to FAQ and so on, as if it was a threat to their game. The minimum FAQ represent is a third opinion, and saying this is to be ignored is akin to saying a specific member should not be heard. As they are totally free whether they incorporate FAQ, why the heat?

So when people say RAW they usually mean "rules as interpreted by permissive online optimisers, at least the ones I like", in the same way that when people say RAI, they usually mean "rules as interpreted by my group and most DMs I know".

Exactly. And the personal preference of carefully selecting parts of paragraphs in RAW or heatedly arguing that X works with Y to create or maintain a trick for early entry or another objective serves a social purpose: "My XYZ can do ABC without DEF." Much like other people, gamers love being recognized as experts, and bragging rights can be an important part of being recognized as an expert.

Fu/cheese/loopholing receives more attention, spurs more arguments and delivers bigger results if found to work than subtler contributions.

Darrin

2012-04-23, 07:49 AM

But people react so aggressively to FAQ and so on, as if it was a threat to their game. The minimum FAQ represent is a third opinion, and saying this is to be ignored is akin to saying a specific member should not be heard. As they are totally free whether they incorporate FAQ, why the heat?

Mostly because some of the FAQ responses show such a profound ignorance of the rules, previous FAQ/Ask Sage questions, and official errata that it causes immediate eye-stabbing pain in even the more laid-back and permissive rules-wranglers. Even when some of the more dedicated RAW/RAI experts try to quote the FAQ in the rare instance where it might have got something right, using such an unreliable document for support makes us feel "dirty".

Malachei

2012-04-23, 08:11 AM

Mostly because some of the FAQ responses show such a profound ignorance of the rules, previous FAQ/Ask Sage questions, and official errata that it causes immediate eye-stabbing pain in even the more laid-back and permissive rules-wranglers. Even when some of the more dedicated RAW/RAI experts try to quote the FAQ in the rare instance where it might have got something right, using such an unreliable document for support makes us feel "dirty".

Why not deal with those responses that clarify?
Should a member whose answers are sometimes wrong be ignored when he/she is right?
Who defines ignorance? The ones who claim their reading of RAW equals the one true way?

Why do we accept purposeful ignorance on the reader's part, because otherwise, it would lead to closing ambiguity or loopholes?

Why do we accept that people read the laws by the letter instead of the spirit? Because it takes less time? Because we might disagree? Does this lead to better solutions or make the forum discussions less controversial?

This attitude has led to answering practical questions about mid-level parties with advice on how to use gate and ice assassin to become invincible. Including leading threads off-topic because then the usual arguments start, the defense always being "it works RAW" etc.

Idolizing RAW has advantages, but it also has disadvantages. IMO, banning interpretation and context from discussions just to allow things to "fly" is not enriching.

Curmudgeon

2012-04-23, 08:28 AM

Most of the FAQ answers are right, just as answers from most well-experienced D&D gamers are right. But there's no way of distinguishing the right from wrong (and sometimes really bone-headedly wrong) answers in the FAQ, except by looking in all the relevant RAW sources and figuring out the correct answer yourself. Referencing any particular FAQ answer is no guarantee that you've got a factually correct point ─ but it does show that you didn't expend the effort to go to the books yourself. So that's the biggest source of ire when someone just parrots a FAQ answer: it adds a new issue, but doesn't resolve anything.

One interesting fact worth considering: the FAQ is a list of official questions. Selecting those questions, from the thousands of submissions by D&D gamers, took a lot of effort and was done to illustrate significant issues in the D&D rules. The answers: not official. And sometimes not even in agreement with each other. Over time, new releases of the 3.5 FAQ have quietly dropped questions and answers that the people at Wizards of the Coast wished to pretend out of existence. Were there any new releases of this document, I'm sure that some of the existing bone-headed answers would have quietly vanished, too.

Gwendol

2012-04-23, 09:03 AM

Also note that some things actually don't work under the RAW: Mounted combat being a prime example once you include charging, ride by attack, etc.
Those deficiencies are important to point out, since a player planning to create e.g. a mounted fighter probably needs to work out how this will work with the DM beforehand.

nyarlathotep

2012-04-23, 09:48 AM

so much this.

<overdramatized and unjust:>

I sometimes have this hunch that half of the people giving advice never play the game themselves, only sit in their comfy chair in their dark little hut in front of their brightly lit monitors and dream;

Dream about playing for real, with people; having these people Acknowledge and confirm these phantasms of omnipotence ill-gotten by bookreading in loneliness;

and forgetting, ever forgetting, that such omnipotence is boring at best to the people they'd love to game with.

</overdramatized and unjust:>

I thought about doing an overly dramatic parody of your rant, but that would be wrong.

Now I know this may be hard for some people to understand, but some people find the ins and outs of the rules to be a fun part of roleplaying games. This has little to no effect on the quality of their roleplaying, just like whether or not you like FPSs has little to no effect on how well you play strategy games. Additionally most of these people are playing characters that have a large number of options because they are actually using them in an actual GAME. They want a character to have interesting options so they will actually be fun to play. This is why uberchargers are hardly ever suggested as builds, they are boring just like sword and board, and every other fighter build whose options come down to "I attack".

Is playing Pun-Pun boring? Of course he is, that's why no one suggests him seriously. That being said giving someone a horizon tripper build, or a basic godwizard, or a codzilla, is no and never has been TO.

{{Scrubbed}}

Menteith

2012-04-23, 09:49 AM

Additionally, a substantial amount of "TO" (which, by definition, is something that will never see play in an actual game) is perfectly legal, both by RAW and arguably by RAI. Take a Candle of Invocation, a staple of TO. Using it to grab a Solar, or any other wish granting creature, is using the item exactly the way it was designed - to grab a powerful outsider to aid me. Wish itself is clear with regard to RAW. Is it a problem that the spell is insanely powerful? Sure. But that doesn't change the fact that a Scroll of Wish can set off shenanigans really easily. TO requires a strict reading of RAW, and rarely relies on RAI, since that level of optimization is scrutinized to such a degree, that someone breaking the rules would generally be called out in a heartbeat.

For your second point, I haven't seen people pushing "TO" on other people. Playing an Unarmed Swordsage over a Monk isn't TO. Nor is telling a charger to take Shock Trooper. These are squarely PO, and are generally good advice. If someone is ignoring what the OP asked for, that's something else, but I haven't seen what you claim is pervasive on the boards.

Curmudgeon

2012-04-23, 09:58 AM

Additionally, a substantial amount of "TO" (which, by definition, is something that will never see play in an actual game) is perfectly legal, both by RAW and arguably by RAI. Take a Candle of Invocation, a staple of TO. Using it to grab a Solar, or any other wish granting creature, is using the item exactly the way it was designed - to grab a powerful outsider to aid me.
That's fine as far as summoning the creature goes; it's all legal. But after that your TO approach assumes successful acquisition of a Wish, which is exceedingly unlikely if the DM has thought things through.

Any DM can deal with the issue of "Wish n/day" on called/summoned creatures in a straightforward manner. The obvious starting point is that "Wish n/day" is a valuable ability; that's why the PCs want it. But back wherever this creature calls home it's still a valuable ability. So why would any reasonably thoughtful or wise being let this ability go to waste? The answer is, they wouldn't. While the rules may prevent them from using it on themselves, the rules don't keep the creature from selling or trading that ability. And since calling/summoning is a weaker ability than "Wish n/day", every such creature will know there's a risk that they could be whisked away and forced to perform for some random spellcaster on another plane. Thus right at the start of their personal day they should already have a contract in place to trade their valuable ability for something the creature values in turn. With that as S.O.P., the chance of any PC getting a creature who hasn't already used up their "Wish n/day" is really, really low.

Menteith

2012-04-23, 10:10 AM

That's fine as far as summoning the creature goes; it's all legal. But after that your TO approach assumes successful acquisition of a Wish, which is exceedingly unlikely if the DM has thought things through.

Any DM can deal with the issue of "Wish n/day" on called/summoned creatures in a straightforward manner. The obvious starting point is that "Wish n/day" is a valuable ability; that's why the PCs want it. But back wherever this creature calls home it's still a valuable ability. So why would any reasonably thoughtful or wise being let this ability go to waste? The answer is, they wouldn't. While the rules may prevent them from using it on themselves, the rules don't keep the creature from selling or trading that ability. And since calling/summoning is a weaker ability than "Wish n/day", every such creature will know there's a risk that they could be whisked away and forced to perform for some random spellcaster on another plane. Thus right at the start of their personal day they should already have a contract in place to trade their valuable ability for something the creature values in turn. With that as S.O.P., the chance of any PC getting a creature who hasn't already used up their "Wish n/day" is really, really low.

And that's an excellent way to counter the ability in an actual game - but that isn't something specified by RAW, any more than a Solar having additional stat bonuses (by virtue of its Wish Spell Like) is RAW. Playing a creature intelligently is important, but that's not a behavior specified, and unless Gates are being thrown out with impunity (which, in my experience, is still a fairly rare event, even if the Players are frequently using them), this sort of defense wouldn't be something that was needed.

If you want to find a way around this, you absolutely can - but what you're presenting as a counterargument is something that you have created on your own. It is reasonable, well thought out, solves the issue, and isn't RAW.

Darrin

2012-04-23, 10:12 AM

Why not deal with those responses that clarify?

It's more work to separate the wheat from the chaff in the FAQ. If the FAQ is actually right, then that's probably because you can factually support that conclusion from somewhere else other than the FAQ... so you can then skip the FAQ entirely.

Should a member whose answers are sometimes wrong be ignored when he/she is right?

I think you're trying to say that the FAQ should be considered as a valid interpretation in some situations numbering above zero. My response: No. Do not go there.

(One of my major gripes with the FAQ is it's a hodge-podge of interpretations from a wide variety of sources, but they don't identify who is responding... that is, is this a Sage ruling from Skip Williams' tenure, is this a non-Skip Sage ruling, is this a CustServ response, or is this some low-level intern trying to clean out a mailbox... even if we can identify some of the more reliable sources, even Skip occasionally gets some things wrong.)

Who defines ignorance?

Curmudgeon.

The ones who claim their reading of RAW equals the one true way?

All sides claim that. If they didn't, they wouldn't be arguing.

Why do we accept purposeful ignorance on the reader's part, because otherwise, it would lead to closing ambiguity or loopholes?

It gives us something to talk about on the forums.

Why do we accept that people read the laws by the letter instead of the spirit? Because it takes less time? Because we might disagree? Does this lead to better solutions or make the forum discussions less controversial?

Establishing something by RAW cuts down on some of the "I'm a perfect butterfly and the rest of you are all depraved mutant caterpillars" chest-thumping. Yes, every game is unique, and everybody *should* interpret the rules their own way to make sure most everyone in their group is having fun. And "Rule 0" kinda trumps all online discussions (you always get to define what's legal and fun in your own game, forums be damned).

So I think what you're asking is, why are we spending so much time arguing about rules, when it's impossible to definitively determine who is right, and what we really should be doing is enjoying the game and having fun. Which would be a fine point to make, but we're gamers, which means a lot of us enjoy arguing abou the rules, sometimes more than playing the game itself. So asking some of these people, "why are you arguing about the rules?" is a little like asking "why are you breathing?" And this particular subset of gamers... they like to hang out in forums and argue about rules there, because a lot of them don't have enough time to actually play the game, but they have a lot more time to hang out in forums. So... I guess if you're concerned that these forums waste too much time arguing about rules... then... maybe don't post questions in these forums asking us why we're arguing when it's impossible to establish the One Universal Truth for Everybody? Yeah, that would probably be a really long thread... If I had a point when I started this paragraph, I think I completely lost it.

This attitude has led to answering practical questions about mid-level parties with advice on how to use gate and ice assassin to become invincible.

Oh, well, that's Emperor Tippy. When he posts in your thread, it's like hitting your campaign world with a Jupiter-sized wrecking ball made of anti-osmium. That's just what he does. Ok, sure, probably confusing for some newbies, but I don't think we'd want him any other way.

Including leading threads off-topic because then the usual arguments start, the defense always being "it works RAW" etc.

That may be a shorthand for "we've already argued about this, and the majority of the established forum members have already decided that there may be something of what we laughably call a consensus on this issue". It helps to dig up older threads, but that's time-consuming, and oddly enough, not entirely as conclusive as some of us might think.

I think appealing to RAW helps cut down on the size/proliferation of threads. Does it crush some unique perfect snowflakes and drive them away from the forums? Umm... probably.

Idolizing RAW has advantages, but it also has disadvantages. IMO, banning interpretation and context from discussions just to allow things to "fly" is not enriching.

"Rule 0" is the trump card for RAW... for YOU only. Generally won't work for the rest of us, because our games are different.

Ok, so I think what you're getting at is:

Newbie: "Hey! We're doing X in our game, is this how it works?"
Forum: "No, you're doing it wrong. By RAW, it should be Y. End of discussion. Don't even try to argue with us, we settled this back in 2005."

You'd much rather see:

Forum: "Well, that's one way to do it. RAW says Y, but if it's working for you and everybody is having fun, then stick with X. But some of us have dealt with this before, so you might want to consider Z1, Z2, or Z3."

I think RAW is held aloft as an inviolate ideal because there's a belief in some slightly nonzero chance that we may all find ourselves sitting down at a table at Gencon one day, pulling out our most embrassing character sheets from that old high school trapper-keeper, and then having some sort of huge battle-royale style throwdown over all our "perfect unique snowflake" rules, and whoever doesn't storm away from the table in a wake of invectives, then for whoever's left RAW kind of gives us all a somewhat shaky starting point to build some common ground so we can stop arguing and start actually playing. A very thin glimmer of hope, maybe.

Emperor Tippy

2012-04-23, 10:20 AM

I don't quite follow. You seem to be saying RAW is absolute, but at the same time D&D writing is ambiguous and inconsistent.

Going by pure RAW:

Why is a sarrukh allowed to bypass the restriction on multiple uses of the same supernatural ability not having cumulative effects?
It's not. What you are doing is using a later effect to replace a formed effect. For example, use MF to set my familiars strength to a base of 18. Give my familiar a belt of strength +6. Have my familiar set my strength to 24 using MF. Use a belt of strength on myself and then use MF to give my familiar a strength of 30.

Each application of MF replaces the previous application.

Does Genesis allow the creator to manipulate the time trait?
Yes, the time trait is one of the environmental traits and Genesis allows you to set them. If you want RAI, the psionic genesis power specifically disallows manipulation of the time trait; which wouldn't be necessary unless it would otherwise be allowed.

Does non detection or mind blank block true seeing or foresight?
True Seeing yes, it is a divination that attempts to provide information about the person under mind blank. Nondetection is a bit less clear but it specifically calls out that it blocks the entire "Detect" line of spells, which operate functionally identically to True Seeing.

Neither block Foresight because foresight (at least the never being flatfooted part) sees the users own future.

What happens when an Aleax has two singular enemies?
It depends how both were gained. If one is gained using the Illithid Savant then both abilities function as normal and someone needs to pass the qualifications of both Singular Enemy abilities to harm them. This arises from the fact that IS benefits from his abilities independent of all other abilities and exactly as if he was the creature who he consumed the ability from.

I don't think there is a clear solution to these questions (or dozens of others), and I don't know how you can claim common ground in these situations.
What you listed has clear, RAW, solutions.

Most of the brokenly powerful stuff in D&D is incredibly unambiguous RAW wise. That doesn't change the fact that it's actual power level was probably unintentional. Take the Wish as an SLA question and wishing for magic items. It is clear cut, RAW legal. Wish has a list of things it can always do, one of them is make magic items with the only constraint being how much XP has to be sacrificed. SLA's (and SU's) specifically remove the XP component in all but a few exceptions. RAW you can use an SLA to Wish up whatever you want without paying any cost.

----
In regards to your OP, advice is given based on the RAW because it is the only common basis that we have to work with. There might be some legitmate debate over what the RAW actually is but it's a debate that can be had. When you start talking about house rules, rules as generally used, rules as intended, etc. you run into a situation where no legitimate debate is possible 99% of the time (the Dead condition and Drowning being the two biggest cases where we can pretty much all agree what the rules should be).

So absent an OP asking a question and saying "These are the houserules in play", you will get RAW responses to any given thread.

As for power levels, it's always easier to weaken a character and you are the only one here who knows what power level you want. Without a clear statement of that power level (and not just low, mid, or high op), you will get whatever the person considers high end practical optimization.

Malachei

2012-04-23, 10:32 AM

I don't think we'd want him any other way.

I'm sure I don't want him any other way. He serves as a fine example for both the advantages and disadvantages of a mechanics-focused style of discussion.

Talakeal

2012-04-23, 11:29 AM

Stuff.

None of those examples do I have personal stake in, and some of them are likely wrong, but they were just things I see debated on this forum all the time and so I figured that they were at least a little ambiguous.

The only one I have actually studied is the Genesis one. Again I could be wrong, there might be a further clarification of time that I haven't seen or a more recent version of Genesis, but I don't think so.

Genesis says the caster determines the environment. By RAW Time is listed as a Physical Trait, I don't see the words physical or trait anywhere in the Genesis spell listed in the SRD (which is the most current version as far as I know). In non rules terms, when I use the environment in everyday life I am talking about the weather and the shape of the terrain, not about time.

Now, one could argue that time is a part of the environment, but I don't see how you can argue that it is an open and closed black and white certainty as you do.

As for the Psionic Genesis saying no, that is , as you say, an appeal to RAI rather than an appeal to RAW, you are using an outside source to determine what the author of arcane genesis was thinking. This is weird because the books don't share any authors.

As a RAI solution, let me ask you why one of these is more likely than the other:

A: Arcane Genesis can manipulate time. The author wants Psions to be even weaker than mages for some reason, and so throws in a giant nerf to the spell.

B: Arcane genesis was never intended to manipulate time, but the wording was ambiguous. The author of the psionic version, which was the last version ever published, saw people making the argument and decided he better insert a non ambiguous wording.

Further, if you want to argue RAI, Genesis couldn't have been meant to alter the time trait because the time trait didn't even exist yet when Genesis was written. Genesis was first published, as far as I know, in May 2001, the Time Trait in September 2001.
And, Genesis as written even goes out of its way to clarify what it means by environment, listing atmosphere, temperature, water level, and general shape of the terrain. Although admittedly going by strict RAW this list is not said to be mutually exclusive or even mechanically connected to the previous sentance.

moritheil

2012-04-23, 12:17 PM

Over the past few weeks I have noticed a trend on this forum and, to a lesser extent, several others, where someone asks a question and then gets a response that is purely theoretical optimization (TO) and would never fly in most games. When someone questions the TO advice, they are being told that not allowing TO is favoring Rules and Intended (RAI) over Rules as Written (RAW) and that doing so amounts to house rules or home brew.

Technically, this assertion is correct (in a legalistic sense) but I can certainly see how you might feel it's unfriendly.

I have seen this same trend dozens of times in the last week, and I am sure if you look at the front pages of the RPG boards you will see many examples, most closed after devolving into a RAW vs. RAI flame war.

Doesn't seem any different to me than when I was reading up on ENWorld in 2007, or Gleemax before then. The RAW-RAI thing is very old (in Internet terms.)

To me, this seems a bit unreasonable. First, it is rarely a question of Rules and Intended, but Rather Rules as Interpreted. The difference is, the first is attempting to divine the authors intent, an impossibility. The second is simply a fact of the English language being as ambiguous as it is. Words have multiple meanings, people talk in metaphors, similes, and generalizations, and the authors of the books didn't try and analyze every single word they used with the care of a hybrid English professor / Contract lawyer.

This lack of airtightness is - and I'm not even being facetious - widely held up as one of the major failings of the WOTC editorial staff. (Whether reasonably or not, I leave for the reader to decide.)

Second, it was my understanding, at least initially, that TO assumed the most permissive possible reading of the rules that could still technically be applied to RAW, rather than the most sensible reading or the reading that made for the best game. Indeed, I can't imagine a game where the DM allowed for full TO level permissiveness to get anywhere.

I've done it quite a few times. There was only one campaign in which it failed and that was because my permissiveness attracted cheaters who thought (mistakenly) that if I allowed that I would allow anything. In short, it wasn't a problem with the RAW, but rather with the perceptions of the RAW posted in threads like these.

These are legitimate errors. They might be mistakes on the part of the author, typos, a relic of previous editions or copy pasting rules, misunderstandings between multiple authors, etc. This is the one case where an educated person actually can determine RAI with a reasonable certainty, even though RAW clearly disagrees.

I'm not sure that this is always the case. If you mean stat block errors and the like, sure, sometimes you can catch the errors, but sometimes it legitimately isn't clear whether the creature has some kind of exception that trumps the rules. Consider the Maug: it has construct HD but gets Outsider skills. This is spelled out. What if it wasn't? Or what if there was an error in the saves from the HD, that gave them Outsider saves too? It wouldn't be clear whether that was intended or not.

This is really the only case where a traditional RAW vs. RAI approach applies, one side being reasonably sure what the author meant, the author being reasonably sure what the author wrote.

If we accept your argument, I would think this would be the last case where a RAW vs. RAI approach is desirable, since according to you, we already know what the rules are "supposed" to be and what the book was intended to read.

Number 2: The oversight

These aren't errors so much as things the author simply never considered.

These cases do have a fairly clear RAW. They do not have any sort of RAI however, because that section is blank. There is no RAI in this case, because the author simply never thought about it, there was no intent.

Or, there was negligence. Again, depending on whether or not you believe a ruleset should be released only after it's rigorously tested to be unbreakable.

In this case the RAW people are correct, but they usually overstep their bounds and assume the lack of a rule means they can do whatever they want, which won't work in actual play. This is really the only situation where the classic argument "I go by RAW because RAI in unknowable" actually works, and is likely to result in huge arguments on the forum and at the table until you find a working system.

But you've just argued that RAI is knowable, and further, that it is known to all the parties involved. To wit: it was not the author's intent to bring up anything that might break the game; it was not their intent to frame things in such a way that interacted with certain other things in other books, etc. That's a huge statement of intent right there. Justified? Maybe. But it's a statement of intent.

Number 3: The Ambiguous
Examples: Can a treents animated trees self replicate? Can Genesis modify the planar time trait? Do lore drake kobolds count as dragons? Can I replicate Divine Ranks with Ice Assassins of Sarruks? Are there an infinite number of any given outsider due to the infinite nature of the planes? Virtually any alignment question.

Amusing that you included the last, as I have always found any "unanswerable" alignment questions are treating alignment as having substance beyond the granularity the abstraction of alignment was intended for - or in short, they categorically just aren't legitimate questions, though it may not appear that way at first glance.

In this case the rules are not clear. The wording is poor or ambiguous, the wording means two things, the RAW is incomplete or the text in multiple places is contradictory. This is the point where there is no clear RAW or RAI, and therefore the argument falls to pieces. The rules are subjective, and each person who reads it has their own opinion on what it means. Claiming that you know the one true RAW OR the author's RAI in this situation is unreasonable and arrogant. You can try and argue semantics to establish RAW, and you can try and argue common sense to establish RAI, but neither approach will prove you write or come to a conclusion which is good for the game.

If the other examples are like the alignment one - that is, if they are ultimately theological issues - then they are unanswerable in the first place and therefore neither RAI nor RAW are needed. But yes, I can see that a lot of frustrating debate results.

Number 4: What the Hell where they thinking?
Examples: Though bottle. Shape change. Illithid Savant. Wraith bombs.
Yeah, someone at WoTC was not in their right state of mind. These rules are not ambiguous, they clearly say what they mean, but it is just plain broken. These are the type of things that would get patched quickly in an MMO, and will be banned at most tables, but they are still undeniably part of RAW. In these cases attempting to ban or modify the broken things is clearly homebrew or a house rule that contradicts RAW. For a forum discussion I imagine it is all right to assume these are in play unless the OP specifies otherwise, if we don't we have no common ground, but I would still imagine most individuals would fix them in their games.

So, by RAW, you have nothing to say against these, but you still have something against these. Okay.

TLDR: RAW vs. RAI is not always black and white, and people trying to force TO into every discussion need to stop acting like it gives them the moral high ground (and vice versa).

It's not that TO is the norm so much as RAW is the norm. And keep in mind we are dealing with an exercise in suspending disbelief. By the modern laws of chemistry, the elemental system is utterly ridiculous and preposterous. By the laws of thermodynamics, Fireball, which manages to give a tremendous amount of heat with no pressure change, is utterly absurd. The worst abuses of TO that we can think of merely happen to be cases where the absurd incongruity of the rules of "game reality" are easily understandable to us, places where the absurdity is apparent rather than hidden behind our own ignorance.

Oh, yeah, there are some great people on here. It's gotten to the point where sometimes I just skim threads to see if anyone I respect has posted on the assumption that everything else will be "LOLOLOLOLOL PUN PUN"

I feel like there's a fine line between "Everyone is playing with the same rulebook" and "Since everyone has the same RAW, the silliest consequences of RAW should be treated as universal."

It's not a fine line, but rather an unfortunate consequence of what appear to be a number of individually logical steps. Basically, since common sense doesn't apply to an unfamiliar fantasy world, we can't reject things based on common sense. Since in rules interpretation the author is dead, we can't say "But Skip Williams said X on the WOTC boards." So on and so forth, until we eventually arrive at strict RAW.

Pun Pun is a stupid meme that doesn't occur outside of forums, and posting it in response to an honest question like "I wanted to play a wizard, what's a decent build?" is completely unproductive. Explaining drowning healing is completely unhelpful in every situation.

The only time that these absurdities are meaningful is if you're in a situation like the above posted who was having trouble understanding his dislike of 3.5, which isn't going to be the case for most people who post a simple question.

I don't know about that. The very fact that such things are possible has been rather eye opening for several of my players in the past (causing them to wake up and actually learn the rules better.)

I understand your position, but remember that RAW is the only thing we as players have in common, everyone plays with different houserules, but everyone has the same book. RAI is only really useful in situations where it is obvious a mistake is made, but otherwise we have no way of figuring out RAI short of asking the creators.

It's debatable whether RAI is even desirable, frankly: once a book is published and shipped, according to literary theory, it's finished and the author has no more right to exert control over interpretations of it by telling one group that their interpretation is "correct" and another that theirs is "incorrect." He or she can, of course, say what was intended, but then it's not the book itself that is the authority.

Further, anyone can make a weak or even average character, if you're coming for help on the boards, you likely want a powerful character.

Very true.

Water_Bear

2012-04-23, 01:41 PM

I think part of the problem are the terms RAW and RAI.

Rules as Written (RAW) is, from what I've seen, composed of three parts.
1. Clear unambigous wording that most people can agree on, based on a common ability to read.
2. Strangley worded passages which are interpreted on their exact wording rather than on logical meaning.*
3. Typos or omissions which are left uncorrected because they are "the rules" and anything else would be Homebrew.*

Rules as Intended (RAI), is made of a few popular elements.
1. Clear cases where design documents and Errata leave no doubt about designer intent.
2. Ambiguous passages which are read in the context of the other rules and the Fluff provided, where most people can agree on a single likely meaning.
3. Popular "Fixes" like assuming Monks have proficiency with their Unarmed Strikes or that Deities will not permit infinite Wish loops based on their established fluff and powers.

Really, if you want to parse every sentence in an unnatural way and permit clear typos and omissions, fine. But "RAW" is not the Sacred Dogma of D&D.

*Do not tell me "it's not possible to know intent." Reading to determine likely intent and meaning of a passage is literally the core of what it means to read English fluently.

Without that, Sarcasm Metaphor and literature as we know it would be impossible. Even Scientific Journals and Law books are not expected to be read purely on their exact words, and contrary to popular assertion it is usually quite easy to determine likely intent based on context clues and diction.

No system made by Humans using non-mathematical languages can ever have one single correct interpretation. Humans write understanding that other people will use their language skills to analyze the text and come away with their intended meaning.

GoodbyeSoberDay

2012-04-23, 02:19 PM

When there aren't big stakes behind different interpretations people tend to just go with the flow and accept the majority interpretation. That's how we communicate. Once there are high stakes, however, like in law, you get lots of arguments on the "logical meaning" of different phrases, no matter how carefully worded they get. Here, academic points count as relatively high stakes, because it's the internet. So... yeah.

Phaederkiel

2012-04-23, 04:11 PM

I thought about doing an overly dramatic parody of your rant, but that would be wrong.

snip

Now I know this may be hard for some people to understand...

snip

TL;DR Just because you can't understand the game well enough to enjoy it does not mean that those who can understand it are "doing it wrong".

I can take it. O yes, please give me a rant. you can pm me one, if you like.:smallwink:

Do I take it by your questioning my intellect not once, but twice that you thought i talked about you? I am sorry to hear that, I did not wanted to attack you personally.

...They want a character to have interesting options so they will actually be fun to play.

I am sorry, but often someone enters a thread, and throws down his favorite catchphrase, shows by this way how 'leet he is and vanishes, without shedding a single drop of useful information. Look at some "how do I build a wizard?" threads. I will be darned if you will not find a heap o' solars in the advice.

And so awful little about how fragile these guys are. If I look at this forum, it seems wizards (and all casters, by that) are invincible by lvl 3. Which they are far from, if your DM knows what he is doing. I have, while building my own first wizard, seen so many posts that work on the basis of:
"we can rest whenever we want". This is Theoretical Optimisation at its worst.

In fact, when I built my little conjurer on the basis of what the forum gave me as optimal (as a little experiment), he sucked enormously. The reason: Lack of Direct Damage.

yes, this might solidify your opinion that i am far too stupid to play the game and enjoy myself doing so; but I like to think of it rather as: I test my theories in practical gaming.

which, as is my point, some people do obviously not do. (please, do not think I refer to you - how should I ? I do not remember you to be in these threads.)

(My solution, by the way: Acidic Breath and sudden maximize. subpar spell and subpar feat. yet so much better than all the good spells i had beforehand that couldn't kill enemies).

nyarlathotep

2012-04-23, 04:42 PM

I am sorry, but often someone enters a thread, and throws down his favorite catchphrase, shows by this way how 'leet he is and vanishes, without shedding a single drop of useful information. Look at some "how do I build a wizard?" threads. I will be darned if you will not find a heap o' solars in the advice.

And so awful little about how fragile these guys are. If I look at this forum, it seems wizards (and all casters, by that) are invincible by lvl 3. Which they are far from, if your DM knows what he is doing. I have, while building my own first wizard, seen so many posts that work on the basis of:
"we can rest whenever we want". This is Theoretical Optimisation at its worst.

In fact, when I built my little conjurer on the basis of what the forum gave me as optimal (as a little experiment), he sucked enormously. The reason: Lack of Direct Damage.

yes, this might solidify your opinion that i am far too stupid to play the game and enjoy myself doing so; but I like to think of it rather as: I test my theories in practical gaming.

which, as is my point, some people do obviously not do. (please, do not think I refer to you - how should I ? I do not remember you to be in these threads.)

(My solution, by the way: Acidic Breath and sudden maximize. subpar spell and subpar feat. yet so much better than all the good spells i had beforehand that couldn't kill enemies).

Well with rope trick you can rest whenever you want, but that's a bad idea because the badguy will be doing things to get ready for you. However if your main obstacle is number of spell slots and time then direct damage spells would be an even worse option as they are using up a finite resource.

I've just never found a time outside of extremely specialized builds(mailman) or mass scale battles(birthright) where direct damage was ever better than buffing your weapon using compatriots, or using control spells to make your non-caster party members better able to kill the weakened enemy. Sure you don't get "l33t kills" but you're contributing more to the combat. Even more importantly though if you are throwing about huge damaging spells all nilly willy chances are that your novaing display of immediate damage is prone to tick off the other party members as you are stepping on their toes.

Were you playing in a game with huge masses of orcs in tightly enclosed rooms? I've never really done the whole dungeon thing straight. The only times I have ever had an adventure that would be termed a "dungeon" proper were cultist headquarters or literal prisons. Most games I have played in were primarily concerned with buildings and locations that people would actually use or live in. For example when you go to infiltrate the enemy king's castle to steal some magical artifact the majority of rooms are not 20x20 with 2d4 enemies, they have specific functions: the keep house above the gated entrance, the barracks, the chapel, the kitchen. Similarly if you go about killing people louding with huge explosions you are likely to have the whole fortress bearing down on you, quicker if they reach a gong or similar warning device. If you fail to disable or kill a guard running out of the room shouting warnings we will likely be able to get the Evil King, his pet demon, the court wizard, and all the other "boss" type creatures in the building fighting you at once. So spells are neatly divided into a pile that stop him in one round and those that are a waste of time. I could magic missile him, but it likely won't kill him, grease on the other hand is guaranteed to give me another turn to come up with a plan and is likely to stop him for longer than that.

Phaederkiel

2012-04-23, 05:13 PM

no, it was a nice mixed adventure, the witchfire trilogy. We had social stuff, which my build aced, and we had fighty stuff. Which the druids animal companion won...eventually.

One thing that all those threads seem to misvalue is party composition. I ended, by some chance, up together with a lone summoning druid. Since we played (for our standards) a high OP Game, she had greenbound, ashbound, augmented summoning, the whole shibang. But since my spellslots could not really accomplish kills, and our Days had 5-7 encounters easily, we ground through her spellslots like nothing good.

So one of the parts I missed in the threads was: what kind of party do you have? (okay, i did not know much about it beforehand, but still) Is it caster-heavy? (which, considered it was High OP, and wizards are High OP nearly outa the box, it should be) IF THERE ARE NO MELEES, DO NOT BAN EVOCATION.

There, I said it.

______
At the moment, I DM A game of Red Hand of Blood. And boy, are blasters good there. Reflex is probably the most important save in the whole campaign. Oh, and constitution, in case someone gets breathed on by a dragon, and has to roll a massive dmg on top.

I try to inconvenience my players with some will targeting stuff, but even at lvl 14, inconveniencing them is everything i do sometimes.

Especially since caster-types get ubercharged off the map 90 % of the time. By the Cleric!

This example again goes against what I had read. It severely shook my belief in some ways of optimisation practised here. They seem awfully theoretical, in my experience.

Clustered Chaos

2012-04-23, 05:27 PM

RHoD has a ton of Reflex save effects and almost no effects of the other types. Just because you encounter something frequently doesn't make it powerful.

Mass Resist Energy does the same thing except better. You should boost saves anyways of course, but that campaign is very atypical in the range of attacks you face.

I agree that TO shouldn't be the norm but a lot of people here are using that term to describe any form of optimization or simply anything powerful instead of using the term as it is intended.

Phaederkiel

2012-04-23, 05:46 PM

it does not make it powerful, but it sheds a ungainly light on those that say reflex is the least important save.

and I reworked nearly the whole campaign into a higher lvl, so I already diversified the enemy attacks a lot.

And sorry, Mass energy resistance /protection is all nice and well, but nearly always only if you can find that action to use it. If you get ambushed by a Dragon, it is probably too late.

To say again: I have no beef with people working on powerful builds in the small of their brain. Normally the guys who do the actual thinking KNOW what is important and what is not.

I dislike the guys who jump into a thread, drop a catchphrase the contents of which they neither developed, understood nor tested and then feel like kings, because everything the sensible persons said was (obviously) less powerful than what they offered.

This is the Theoretical Optimisation I dislike. A hammer that, in lieu of nails, is used on screws.

Flickerdart

2012-04-23, 05:53 PM

Reflex is definitely the least important save - not because of the frequency of any particular module, but because the consequences of failing it are often much less severe than the other saves ("some more damage" VS "death or mind control") while passing it is the least benefit, since most effects are Reflex half instead of negates.

Also, if there are no melees, Transmutation (now you are the melees) and Conjuration (now this fiendish badger is the melees) is more effective, slot-wise, than Evocation.

nyarlathotep

2012-04-23, 05:58 PM

So one of the parts I missed in the threads was: what kind of party do you have? (okay, i did not know much about it beforehand, but still) Is it caster-heavy? (which, considered it was High OP, and wizards are High OP nearly outa the box, it should be) IF THERE ARE NO MELEES, DO NOT BAN EVOCATION.

Usually we have 1-3 direct damage dealers (sneak attack focused rogues, mailman sorcerers, twohander fighters, barbarians, pathfinder alchemists, pathfinder paladins, etc), 1-2 buff based caster (cleric, bard, druid, buff wizard or sorc), 1-2 battlefield controllers (trip fighters, necromancer, summoners, debuff wizards, etc). This is rather overly broad and only covers our in combat capabilities. So the party face, party transportation guy, information gatherer, and the like are independent of combat role and could be grabbed up by any of them depending on character concept. This all being said there have been times when this has been switched up or changed as it all depends on the campaign. For instance in our realm ruling games few if any of us play direct damage dealers, because most of what we're focused on is being a good ruler and obtaining power through our realm and political relations, something damage from one man helps little with unless he's so well optimized that he counts for a significant portion of an army.

navar100

2012-04-23, 06:05 PM

I can take it. O yes, please give me a rant. you can pm me one, if you like.:smallwink:

Do I take it by your questioning my intellect not once, but twice that you thought i talked about you? I am sorry to hear that, I did not wanted to attack you personally.

I am sorry, but often someone enters a thread, and throws down his favorite catchphrase, shows by this way how 'leet he is and vanishes, without shedding a single drop of useful information. Look at some "how do I build a wizard?" threads. I will be darned if you will not find a heap o' solars in the advice.

And so awful little about how fragile these guys are. If I look at this forum, it seems wizards (and all casters, by that) are invincible by lvl 3. Which they are far from, if your DM knows what he is doing. I have, while building my own first wizard, seen so many posts that work on the basis of:
"we can rest whenever we want". This is Theoretical Optimisation at its worst.

In fact, when I built my little conjurer on the basis of what the forum gave me as optimal (as a little experiment), he sucked enormously. The reason: Lack of Direct Damage.

yes, this might solidify your opinion that i am far too stupid to play the game and enjoy myself doing so; but I like to think of it rather as: I test my theories in practical gaming.

which, as is my point, some people do obviously not do. (please, do not think I refer to you - how should I ? I do not remember you to be in these threads.)

(My solution, by the way: Acidic Breath and sudden maximize. subpar spell and subpar feat. yet so much better than all the good spells i had beforehand that couldn't kill enemies).

That correlates with 3E derangement syndrome - those who bash 3E while yelling about Tiers because wizard and CoDzilla pwn everything. As you have experienced, actual game play does not translate to the horror some ascribe here about 3E. Even direct damage gets frowned upon as people gloat (colloquially and facetiously speaking) about making evocation an opposition school. Direct damage has its place and works. I've experienced it myself with my Sorcerer. I get along fine with Glitterdust and Silent Image, but no question Magic Missile and Scorching Ray helps the party a lot.

Bad guys makes their saving throws. Spellcasters do not always have the most perfect spell for the occasion when they need it. Fighters make their Will saves. Bad guys actually do attack them just because they're there.

Phaederkiel

2012-04-23, 06:12 PM

my last words about reflexsaves:

That depends. If you have 65 Hp and your Enemy fireballs you for 10d6, reflex halves, that is true. If your enemy Breathes a maximized 10d12 Breath on you, you will pray that you make the save.

and if three lowlvls bombard you with 7d6 fireballs from hiding (and have cover, and 400ft between you and them, you will hope that you make the saves.

And if you want to kill a group of 15 lvl 4 Hobgoblins, you will want to use fireball rather than hold person.

There is a reason the mailman works.

In my experience up to this date, reflex and fort are more important than will. If one of your chronies gets mind-affected and you kill the BBEG the same round with a barage of charges and disintegrate, he has not accomplished anything. At higher lvl, will save gets obviously more important, and reflex saves get less important - but we are not always talking about high lvl, are we?

Just for the chance that he has, has dictum mortum a graph at what point of the game which save has the most devastating effect?

Now, as much as I discuss the faultiness of my experiences, could we rather discuss my theory of the people that having only a hammer, see everything as a nail? :smallsmile:

Flickerdart

2012-04-23, 06:28 PM

Phaederkiel

2012-04-23, 06:34 PM

ok, you are right. Mailman uses mostly things that give neither save nor sr, but it uses some mass damage with reflex saves. At least in the spell lists i have seen.

Snowbluff

2012-04-23, 07:17 PM

All this being said, TO can legitimately lead to practical advice. EX: The record for the highest HD AnC, the principles can be applied to give a paladin's mount the oomph it deserves without being broken.

I'd also point out Occam's Razor. RAI, the Razor tells us to avoid making too many assumptions in order to come to a simple conclusion. For example, the Swordsage really does get x6 at first. (I think text somewhere in the PhB overrides this, since text trumps tables, and the skills for SS are in a table.)

The DM won't lament your extra 10 skill points over the course of 20 levels any way. The boomerang doing 24 damage isn't done by dice roll, very outside the norm for DnD, therefore a simple solution that satisfies the reader is "Typo, duh!" :smalltongue:

Malachei

2012-04-23, 07:28 PM

no, it was a nice mixed adventure, the witchfire trilogy.

That is a nice campaign.

IF THERE ARE NO MELEES, DO NOT BAN EVOCATION.

Well: If there are melees, still do not ban evocation. There, I said it, too.

Reflex is probably the most important save in the whole campaign.

Reflex is probably the save that kills most PCs. One reason being that you can protect against some issues that target Fort (Death Ward, for instance), and Will, while powerful often has temporary effects. Reflex is underestimated, it actually brings a lot of damage your way. I think Saph conducted an analysis on this.

people that having only a hammer, see everything as a nail?

Which, IMO, is exactly the point. Repeating "generic invincibility-type" advice over and over again with no reflection on whether it actually applies to the situation and what was asked for.

PlzBreakMyCmpAn

2012-04-23, 10:23 PM

Clustered Chaos

2012-04-24, 07:18 AM

it does not make it powerful, but it sheds a ungainly light on those that say reflex is the least important save.

and I reworked nearly the whole campaign into a higher lvl, so I already diversified the enemy attacks a lot.

Higher level doesn't mean more diversity either. If you changed it so more enemies do something besides hit you with a weapon or cast a damage spell or effect you did.

And sorry, Mass energy resistance /protection is all nice and well, but nearly always only if you can find that action to use it. If you get ambushed by a Dragon, it is probably too late.

One Mass Resist is all it takes. If a dragon ambushes you and breathes and you have no resist... you can survive that and then cast that resist. If it ambushed you and did something else, people would die. You want it to breathe on you, as that is its least threatening action.

Reflex is definitely the least important save - not because of the frequency of any particular module, but because the consequences of failing it are often much less severe than the other saves ("some more damage" VS "death or mind control") while passing it is the least benefit, since most effects are Reflex half instead of negates

This.

That depends. If you have 65 Hp and your Enemy fireballs you for 10d6, reflex halves, that is true. If your enemy Breathes a maximized 10d12 Breath on you, you will pray that you make the save.

If you get hit for 120 and only have 65, you're going to want some form of blocking the breath entirely because you're either fighting something much higher level than you, or something that has optimized well enough that it will just kill you if you can act. There's also the small matter of there being no D12 based breath weapons, and to get 12d10 for the same effect, the dragon would have to be at least CR 15. Yet you have only 65 HP. Somehow I think the breath weapon is the least of your problems.

and if three lowlvls bombard you with 7d6 fireballs from hiding (and have cover, and 400ft between you and them, you will hope that you make the saves.

3 CR 7s... and for them to be low level that means you're high level. I don't think it much matters unless you have worse problems.

And if you want to kill a group of 15 lvl 4 Hobgoblins, you will want to use fireball rather than hold person.

And you will want to use Glitterdust or Slow over both of those things so that you do not have 15 hobgoblins still standing and still fully able to fight back.

There is a reason the mailman works.

The mailman optimizes blasting to the point where it actually kills things.

In my experience up to this date, reflex and fort are more important than will. If one of your chronies gets mind-affected and you kill the BBEG the same round with a barage of charges and disintegrate, he has not accomplished anything. At higher lvl, will save gets obviously more important, and reflex saves get less important - but we are not always talking about high lvl, are we?

Glitterdust: You're not doing anything this combat, except being easy to kill.
Slow: You're not doing anything this combat, except being easy to avoid and kill.

Those are high level?

It's easy to say module x has a lot of attack y, so defending against attack y is important. You have to consider what that attack is actually doing though, and if you were being hit with the same number of attack z instead and that would cause a lot more trouble then clearly Reflex saves effects are weak. Saves themselves are not, but the effects targeting Reflex near universally are.

On a side note: My group has one melee. The casters banned Evocation. They still put out enough damage to kill things. Their banning Enchantment has been far more annoying. Melee characters are the easiest to replace.

Phaederkiel

2012-04-24, 10:03 AM

Clustered Chaos

2012-04-24, 12:00 PM

yep, you are right, it is 12 d10. Which is cr 15, which is quite within the range of a group of 3 lvl 13 characters. A Dragon with flyby attack (or its breathing equivalent, though i think it was flyby), maximize breath and quicken breath (note that he can't use maximised quickened breathes, what a relief) can easily grill a caster with 12d4 life (equalling 31.5) and 16 constitution (which will kinda gimp him somewhere else)=77.5 life. Yes, 65 was a little low, but those 7.5 life do hardly matter.

And a level 13 character with 65 HP has far worse problems than dragon breath, given that that is around half what it should be or even less. Especially if it is then going to go fight a dragon 2 levels higher.

A level 13 wizard would have, at the minimum 86, and would also have all manner of different defensive measures. 16 Con is low, and it is in no way a sacrifice to have a better Con. (the Wizard would also have high saves across the board, but that's another topic)

If the enemy is a dragon optimizing breath weapons, you should be far more concerned about him casting Stunning Breath.

Glitterdust and slow are good against monsters. Against players? not so much. someone will dispell the effect really quick.

No they won't. It takes too many actions and might not even work and can easily backfire by dispelling all the wrong things.

And even Monsters are not completely helpless.

a) both spells have a much smaller radius than a good blast spell /target less creatures than a fireball can. This is often irrelevant, but can become relevant easily.

Slow hits more creatures. Glitterdust will probably hit less, unless you Sculpt it (bringing it to the same level as the others, instead of one level lower) in which case it will easily hit more.

b) both saves do nothing if resisted. well, okay, glitterdust makes things sparkle, but things you want to make sparkle can probably defeat the will save.

Glitterdust and Slow have a chance of stopping things from attacking you. Fireball does not have a chance of stopping things from attacking you. They're either alive and unhindered, or alive and unhindered, as opposed to alive and unhindered vs alive and can hardly act.

c) It is not as if blinded creatures /slowed creatures cannot do anything. Massed charges for example may still hit very good, because when ten critters charge with a plus 12 on their to hit, 4 will probably hit.
and even a slowed creature can partial charge you.

Partial charges at half speed. It's easy to play keep away, and they cannot full attack. Casters are less hindered but cannot move and cast in the same turn.

Blinded creatures cannot charge anything.

Or, if you do not like all that charging: both negative stati do not hinder you in throwing a bottle of alchemists fire (at a general direction, at least).
Long story short: enemies that get hit with these spells still need killing.

They're throwing 1d6 damage about randomly. Regardless of who or what, if anything it hits, that doesn't matter. If they're doing that instead of whatever they would do normally they are greatly hindered indeed. For all intents and purposes they are doing nothing.

Phaederkiel

2012-04-24, 12:27 PM

Clustered Chaos

2012-04-24, 12:41 PM

ok, I stole that wizard a lvl. He still will go down if he does not get his reflex save. In my Campaign that dragon nearly took out the melees.

ehm, with fireball, you wrote the same thing twice. you mean: either half dead and unhindered or dead and hindered as opposed to either unhindered or hindered.

No, I wrote exactly what I intended to write and exactly what would get the point across. Alive and unhindered vs alive and unhindered as opposed to alive and unhindered vs alive and very hindered.

Half dead, in addition to being a meaningless state also isn't a possible one. A quarter dead, perhaps. Completely dead simply isn't happening at all unless you are a Mailman, who does not deal in saves.

As for the Wizard, I've already described how he deals with it. One other thing. That's the strongest breath weapon. Any other dragon type means weaker breath.

Beeing dead is somewhat hindering in itself.

True, but already covered.

who is interested in full attacks? Mooks never do much in full attacks. They deal their damage through massed charges which can penetrate any Armor you have. Getting away is not that easy, either, since you had to get quite close for that slow. If you are lucky you are out of charging distance, but most probably not out of spear-hurling distance.

All melees are. If you can make them only attack once at most, and only if you're very close (closer than Slow range) they're helpless.

not to mention that some of them WILL get the save.

A few might. Stopping most of them is better than stopping none of them.

please quote the srd. Moves half speed, yes, but there is no mention of difficult terrain.

"If you don’t have line of sight to the opponent at the start of your turn, you can’t charge that opponent."

A blinded creature does not have line of sight to anything.

no, not randomly. some of them are bound to get the save. "everyone! throw to where you hear the explosion". Listen check, for example, for how precise they throw.

So at least a 50% miss chance if they hit the right square, and they're just throwing javelins. Sounds very hindered.

for all intents and purposes, you have allowed an enemy to take another turn.
Nothing good ever comes from this.

Taking another turn to play around with low damage effects vs taking another turn to fight back at full effectiveness.

Those other spells are looking better by the moment!

GoodbyeSoberDay

2012-04-24, 12:47 PM

Wings of Flurry makes me want to pump my reflex save. It's a bit of a corner case though.

Andorax

2012-04-24, 12:54 PM

Clustered Chaos

2012-04-24, 01:01 PM

Talakeal

2012-04-24, 01:01 PM

Well, Talakeal, all I can say is that I understand where you're coming from. I haven't exactly seen this as a new trend (actually, I've seen similar happen since the day I first started reading here, which is quite some time ago), but I have seen an awful lot of it.

It's part and parcel to why I started up the Rules as Common Sense Dictates (RACSD) thread...and would welcome your thoughts there.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=240218

I would love to help, but I am not actually an expert on 3.5 rules, and am not comfortable voting on issues I don't have a firm grasp of. I usually play home brew or white wolf games, and haven't played a serious game of D&D in years. That is actually one of the reasons I made this post, I try and ask system neutral setting or adventure design advice and get bombarded with crazy suggestions that won't work unless you are exploiting some of D&Ds more ambiguous or idiosyncratic rules.

{Scrubbed}

I really shouldn't respond to such a hostile post, but I will say this:

You are correct that my post could stand to be better organized, I was in a hurry when writing it and it tries to get across several ideas at once.

If it is a major problem I will go back and edit it if the thread sticks around, but I still don't think it approached "rambling".

Also, there are no "definitions" in my post. There are categories, which is what I think you are referring to, but they are neither random nor definitions. As for the examples, they are just that, examples. As I have said I am not an expert on D&D 3.5, and they may well have some errors in them. I don't see how asking people to avoid nitpicking examples and ignoring the post is a bad thing or worthy of mocking, lots of debate moderators ask the participants to avoid not being "unable to see the forest for the trees".

And looking over my TLDR, it seems to be pretty much an exact summary of my second and third paragraphs, which thesis and the majority of the body of my post, I am not sure why you think it is inadequate.

GoodbyeSoberDay

2012-04-24, 01:39 PM

Wings of Flurry is one of the very few effects that does something significant on a failed Reflex save and that Freedom of Movement doesn't make you entirely immune to as most of the others restrict movement. That said, it's a single effect and while it is a good one, you're either going to have good saves across the board or bad saves across the board regardless with no in between due to the way saves work. Nothing in the campaign he mentions casts that spell and non core spells in general are rarely seen there.I'm not really speaking for any particular proponent for reflex saves/evocation spells. I understand that resistance items and spells add to all the saves generally, but various dips help with reflex saves (of course, this works best for non-casters, hm...) My favorites include Feat Rogue 2, Incarnate 1 or 2, Warblade 1 or 2, and Factotum 1 or 2. If you know that this campaign is going to primarily feature enemies who attack you with reflex: half effects, then these dips may certainly be worth it.

Phaederkiel

2012-04-24, 01:41 PM

A blinded creature does not have line of sight to anything.

this is just plain wrong. They have line of sight. They just see nothing. This is a difference.

to the rest of your post: since you do think you got your point across, and else only make claims (to which i can only make conterclaims) let us bury this discussion, yes?

Clustered Chaos

2012-04-24, 01:51 PM

Almost everything that boosts saves boosts all three at once. Many of the things that do only boost one save are bad, or at least inferior to the all boosting effects. For example, there are few things a feat Rogue 2 dip does that a Monk 2 dip does not do better. You still get 2 feats, but you also get +3 all saves and some other minor stuff. When a Monk can honestly be argued to do something better, it's safe to say the alternative is a bad one. Warblade dips are for maneuvers. They don't actually help with Reflex saves at all since Warblades have the same base save array as the Fighter and even if you have the Int Battle Clarity is capped at your Warblade level. The other two just seem like bad ideas entirely.

If you know you will primarily encounter reflex half effects you make sure the CoDzilla keeps a Mass Resist or two ready, as that is much more effective. Combined with the save boosting you'd do anyways you can easily have the party taking 0 damage.

In order to have line of sight you must be able to see your target. A blinded creature cannot see its target or anything else. It's blind. Same as if the target were behind a high wall, in fog, etc. As much as I'd like to say this isn't just a matter of common sense, the rules explicitly spell this out I can't find the official definition for line of sight anywhere.

Malachei

2012-04-24, 02:14 PM

Line of Sight, p. 81 Rules Compendium.

The text explains that having the blinded condition means you do not have line of sight.

Of course, it would be nice if the blinded condition would refer to how it interacts with Blindsense and Blindsight in terms of targeting / LOS. ;)

GoodbyeSoberDay

2012-04-24, 02:20 PM

Almost everything that boosts saves boosts all three at once. Many of the things that do only boost one save are bad, or at least inferior to the all boosting effects. For example, there are few things a feat Rogue 2 dip does that a Monk 2 dip does not do better. You still get 2 feats, but you also get +3 all saves and some other minor stuff. When a Monk can honestly be argued to do something better, it's safe to say the alternative is a bad one.Feat Rogue gives more skill points, reasonable feat choices, possible ACF-chaining for dungeoncrasher depending on DM reading, and the Monk stuff isn't that great.
Warblade dips are for maneuvers. They don't actually help with Reflex saves at all since Warblades have the same base save array as the Fighter and even if you have the Int Battle Clarity is capped at your Warblade level.Maneuvers include action before thought.
The other two just seem like bad ideas entirely.For casters, sure. For melees who can sacrifice a point of BaB for some skills and utility effects, you'll have to make a stronger case.
If you know you will primarily encounter reflex half effects you make sure the CoDzilla keeps a Mass Resist or two ready, as that is much more effective. Combined with the save boosting you'd do anyways you can easily have the party taking 0 damage.If you're facing mostly AoE energy damage, you're probably facing more than one type. That said, yes, Clerics can do most things well.
In order to have line of sight you must be able to see your target. A blinded creature cannot see its target or anything else. It's blind. Same as if the target were behind a high wall, in fog, etc. As much as I'd like to say this isn't just a matter of common sense, the rules explicitly spell this out I can't find the official definition for line of sight anywhere.The definition is also in the glossary of the phb, pg. 310.

Clustered Chaos

2012-04-24, 03:32 PM

Feat Rogue gives more skill points, reasonable feat choices, possible ACF-chaining for dungeoncrasher depending on DM reading, and the Monk stuff isn't that great.Maneuvers include action before thought.For casters, sure. For melees who can sacrifice a point of BaB for some skills and utility effects, you'll have to make a stronger case.If you're facing mostly AoE energy damage, you're probably facing more than one type. That said, yes, Clerics can do most things well.The definition is also in the glossary of the phb, pg. 310.

Skill points do not matter. The feats can just as easily come from Monk (with all the different fighting styles out there, there will likely be one that gives two feats you want) which also gives +3 to the other saves.

Feat Rogues cannot be Dungeoncrashers, it's a Fighter sub level. Having the same feature doesn't make you a Fighter.

The maneuver that replaces a Ref save is level 3. So you're level 8 and then dipping Warblade to try and take it and then trying to get maxed Concentration from somewhere so you have a decent chance of passing a single save. No. When I said dipping for maneuvers I meant things more immediately and broadly useful.

If you want to swap a BAB for some other stuff, the Monk dip is the best out of anything you mentioned.

You most likely are not facing multiple types. It's either color coded dragons, Fireball spammers, possibly a different element if a good enough spell of that type can be found. But once you know what that is you can stop it, and that can easily be before the fight begins. The module he mentioned gives so much advance warning before almost every significant fight the only way you can possibly not be prepared is if you choose not to prepare. This much advance warning is not typical, but even so if you're being hit with spells that won't do anything even if they work you're still better off than if they got serious.

Going back to one of his earlier examples, say instead of casting 3 7d6 Fireballs they cast Black Tentacles, Solid Fog, and Vortex of Teeth.

There's ways out of that but any party that would be even mildly inconvenienced by a few weak Fireballs at the levels he was assuming (13-15) is going to flat out die if hit with serious spells.

Phaederkiel

2012-04-24, 03:56 PM

ok, I am beaten. concerning the line of sight, anyways.

but could you please, please edit in that skill points "do not matter in choosing between feat rogue and monk" instead of "at all"?

Because I do positively think that someone who calls skill points completely useless does not really play the game.

just the same with the
"If you know you will primarily encounter reflex half effects" How will you ever know that? By having a bloody stupid DM, that is the only option. By a DM which allows you to use one day per encounter, so that you nicely can load on divination, find out anything and prepare. This is something a DM should only allow when it costs you at another place. There should be surprises.

There should be surprises. Perhaps this is the best way to refute TO.:smallyuk:

oh, and the exsample with the three fireballlaunchers? All three have cross-class ranks in spot and hide, have a telescope, have used a spell to bolster their spot, and one for hide.

Plus, a vantage point with cover for each of them, some space between them. And you in the open field.

When you come into their proximity, they fireball you together from 400 ft away. What can you do? you cannot even say where they are, because the distance alone makes spotting them nigh impossible.

If they see you hide, they bombard the general area for two rounds, then retreat.

If they think you take no damage from the spells, they retreat. And try to set up another ambush 3 Hours later, so your spell went to waste.

Malachei

2012-04-24, 04:05 PM

but could you please, please edit in that skill points "do not matter in choosing between feat rogue and monk" instead of "at all"?

I know this is not directed at me, but it deserves a comment:

Confusing opinion with fact is enormously en vogue here.

Flickerdart

2012-04-24, 04:29 PM

Because I do positively think that someone who calls skill points completely useless does not really play the game.
I like how you can authoritatively say which game we're playing.

just the same with the How will you ever know that? By having a bloody stupid DM, that is the only option. By a DM which allows you to use one day per encounter, so that you nicely can load on divination, find out anything and prepare. This is something a DM should only allow when it costs you at another place. There should be surprises.
It's trivial, beyond 5th level, to channel remaining spells into divinations at the end of an adventuring day. Or just use scrolls. Or spend down-time researching. Or just use a load-out that can deal with a wide variety of threats, which is what any normal caster will do.

There should be surprises. Perhaps this is the best way to refute TO.:smallyuk:
I'm not sure you understand what TO is. TO is Pun-Pun. TO is Hulking Hurler dealing quadrillions of damage. TO is being able to enslave everyone who can see you by jumping hella high. It doesn't matter of you surprise them, because their single answer is an answer to any problem - complete and utter obliteration or enslavement of anything that stands in their way. Playing the game smart isn't TO, it's competence.

oh, and the exsample with the three fireballlaunchers? All three have cross-class ranks in spot and hide, have a telescope, have used a spell to bolster their spot, and one for hide.
And with CC ranks, they can't see you from the range their spells are hitting at. Nice job. At 400ft you're looking at a -40 penalty to Spot. Their CC ranks are worth nothing.

Plus, a vantage point with cover for each of them, some space between them. And you in the open field.
So they lured you there with promises of cake, did they?

When you come into their proximity, they fireball you together from 400 ft away. What can you do? you cannot even say where they are, because the distance alone makes spotting them nigh impossible.
Fireball fires a glowing pellet. You can see where it's coming from easily.

If they think you take no damage from the spells, they retreat. And try to set up another ambush 3 Hours later, so your spell went to waste.
You mean the Silent Image you used to convince them you'd died? Yeah. Hell, even if they do manage to do damage with their pathetic handful of d6es of damage, a Wand of Lesser Vigor neutralizes their efforts, so they're down valuable spell slots and you're down some spare change.

In conclusion, even if you stack the odds, Fireball is still useless.

Clustered Chaos

2012-04-24, 04:59 PM

but could you please, please edit in that skill points "do not matter in choosing between feat rogue and monk" instead of "at all"?

Because I do positively think that someone who calls skill points completely useless does not really play the game.

I will not, as once again I have said exactly what I intend to say, that being both that 4 skill points do not justify small to large losses in every other area and that skill points do not matter at all in general. The first question one must always ask when assessing the power of something is "What does it do?"

If the answer is "Not much." as is the case with skills, you don't regard them as a consideration. This is evident to both theorycrafting and direct experience.

just the same with the How will you ever know that? By having a bloody stupid DM, that is the only option. By a DM which allows you to use one day per encounter, so that you nicely can load on divination, find out anything and prepare. This is something a DM should only allow when it costs you at another place. There should be surprises.

There are plenty of ways you can find this stuff out in advance. Though learning from direct experience makes it a moot point. You encounter lots of blasters > everyone gets Mass Resists. You encounter lots of archers > everyone gets Arrow Deflection crystals. You encounter lots of chargers > everyone gets Steadfast Boots.

oh, and the exsample with the three fireballlaunchers? All three have cross-class ranks in spot and hide, have a telescope, have used a spell to bolster their spot, and one for hide.

Plus, a vantage point with cover for each of them, some space between them. And you in the open field.

First: What sort of party is walking around on the ground, out in the open, at the levels you're assuming? The answer is one that has long since been killed. If they're traveling overland at all, they're flying.

Second: They're still low level.

When you come into their proximity, they fireball you together from 400 ft away. What can you do? you cannot even say where they are, because the distance alone makes spotting them nigh impossible.

You see the Fireballs coming from a particular direction, take little/no damage, and then go kill them. Perhaps if they went for the SF/BT/VoT instead they'd still be alive.

If they see you hide, they bombard the general area for two rounds, then retreat.

If they think you take no damage from the spells, they retreat. And try to set up another ambush 3 Hours later, so your spell went to waste.

They use multiple Fireballs each, as level 7 casters.

You use one Mass Resist total, as a level 13 caster. It could also still be up in 3 hours, but we'll say it is not.

I am completely fine with that matchup.

I like how you can authoritatively say which game we're playing.

I'm not the only one?

It's trivial, beyond 5th level, to channel remaining spells into divinations at the end of an adventuring day. Or just use scrolls. Or spend down-time researching. Or just use a load-out that can deal with a wide variety of threats, which is what any normal caster will do.

That last one, or direct experience was what I was thinking of. The other methods work sure. But they're hardly necessary, especially for something like this. Preparing for typical circumstances then finding out enemies think Fireball is the best thing ever? That's a relief.

You mean the Silent Image you used to convince them you'd died? Yeah. Hell, even if they do manage to do damage with their pathetic handful of d6es of damage, a Wand of Lesser Vigor neutralizes their efforts, so they're down valuable spell slots and you're down some spare change.

In conclusion, even if you stack the odds, Fireball is still useless.

That should say unoptimized blasting is useless. Optimized blasting, that does enough damage to make a difference has its uses. However since the Mailman doesn't deal in saves, that's a different subject.

Flickerdart

2012-04-24, 05:10 PM

That should say unoptimized blasting is useless. Optimized blasting, that does enough damage to make a difference has its uses. However since the Mailman doesn't deal in saves, that's a different subject.
Indeed, Mailman is another story entirely. But Mailman doesn't need to go through the ridiculous song-and-dance of playing Kobold, he just shoots you and then you die.

Clustered Chaos

2012-04-24, 05:27 PM

Indeed, Mailman is another story entirely. But Mailman doesn't need to go through the ridiculous song-and-dance of playing Kobold, he just shoots you and then you die.

I'd make him an invisible flier just because, and to help him get closer so he can shoot things. Still, I see and agree with your point. When it takes 3-4 of something to equal 1 of another thing, it's safe to conclude the first thing is not very good.

Akal Saris

2012-04-24, 07:37 PM

If you think unreasonable expectations of very high optimization vs. more practical optimization are bad on this board, believe me, the new BG min/max boards are worse ...:smalleek:

I do see more "high end" optimization now than I did a few years ago (or at least I started to notice it more), and I think a lot of it boils down to fewer new players and more die-hard fans posting about stuff that is well known.

It's quite different on the Paizo boards, actually, since there are a lot more new player questions. Of course, then you also have plenty of people with a low or poor understanding of the system answering questions as well, but that's life.

Flickerdart

2012-04-24, 07:41 PM

PlzBreakMyCmpAn

2012-04-24, 09:56 PM

Fatebreaker

2012-04-24, 10:02 PM

I think a lot of it boils down to fewer new players and more die-hard fans posting about stuff that is well known.

This right here is a big part of it. Over an edition's lifespan, the difference between what the designers thought would happen and what actually happens diverges. The more the community interacts with both the system and each other, the more combos and tricks and traps they discover and share. Over time, the general power level rises. Then a new edition is released and it all starts over again.

Folks who stay with 3.x, however, have no place to go but more and more optimized. The 3.x population will continue to shrink as players die, quit, or move to new editions. The influx of "new blood" to the community at this point depends on that shrinking pool of dedicated current players to find and convince converts to buy into an unsupported system. The net result is an increasingly veteran community which becomes more and more aware of the capabilities and realities of the system.

Greater optimization is the end result of that.

Clustered Chaos

2012-04-25, 06:52 AM

sonofzeal

2012-04-25, 07:43 AM

Malachei

2012-04-25, 07:48 AM

I've been noticing more and more formulaic responses that simply ape "common wisdom" even when it's inapplicable or even when it has been thoroughly disproven.

Exactly. Excellent point.

And it also belongs to the problem that while it is en vogue to confuse opinion and fact, it is even more en vogue to generalize and wildly claim one's opinion ("fact") applies to all situations of gaming. And if you don't agree, they state that your understanding of the game must be "wrong" or "weird" or "odd".

It's so saddening. * sniff *

;)

navar100

2012-04-25, 08:00 AM

This right here is a big part of it. Over an edition's lifespan, the difference between what the designers thought would happen and what actually happens diverges. The more the community interacts with both the system and each other, the more combos and tricks and traps they discover and share. Over time, the general power level rises. Then a new edition is released and it all starts over again.

Folks who stay with 3.x, however, have no place to go but more and more optimized. The 3.x population will continue to shrink as players die, quit, or move to new editions. The influx of "new blood" to the community at this point depends on that shrinking pool of dedicated current players to find and convince converts to buy into an unsupported system. The net result is an increasingly veteran community which becomes more and more aware of the capabilities and realities of the system.

Greater optimization is the end result of that.

3E isn't dieing. It's evolving into Pathfinder. It is to be seen whether 5E is WOTC's attempt to apologize for firing its customers, which doesn't mean the same game with the 3 replaced with a 5, just familiar and interesting in its new mechanics. Paizo will be watching. Curious what their response will be.

Clustered Chaos

2012-04-25, 08:52 AM

Along these lines, I've been noticing more and more formulaic responses that simply ape "common wisdom" even when it's inapplicable or even when it has been thoroughly disproven.

There are people that simply repeat commonly known things without understanding why those things are or are not true. AC isn't one of those things, as by RAW it doesn't keep up at all but some other things are.

I was mainly describing that if you ask for help from random people your responses will most likely either be TO material or practical optimization that is too low quality to actually be practical or optimization.

As the amount of "common knowledge" grows, the quality of PO advice deteriorates because more and more is based on it rather than independent thought or experience. And hey, a lot of it's true - Conjurers and Transmuters make the best Wizards, Monks are weak, and Improved Trip is a great basis for a melee build. But a lot of it is also questionable, or gets exaggerated beyond the point at which it applies, or gets repeated without necessary caveats. And at this point, trying to reverse the trend is like trying to stop a waterfall with an umbrella.

There is very little independent thought or experience though, and a number of people whose entire arguments are that because [typical standard build] is advocated by an optimization board it must be good. This is the epitome of circular logic. It does not take into account why that build is effective or why it isn't, it doesn't take into account anything other than that it is optimized, so it must be effective.

A Monk with INA: Unarmed Strike and a high Str is optimized. That does not mean it will hold up well in encounters.

A Wizard with a high Int and Glitterdust is not optimized. That does not mean it will not hold up well in encounters.

All optimization is not created equal.

sonofzeal

2012-04-25, 09:22 AM

AC isn't one of those things, as by RAW it doesn't keep up at all but some other things are.
Do I need to break out the table again?

A CR 13 Iron Golem has +23 to attack
A CR 16 Hound Hero Archon has +25 to attack
A CR 17 Frost Giant Jarl has +30 to attack
A CR 17 Marilith has a bunch of attacks at +25.
A CR 20 Balor has +33 to attack.

These are all melee-heavy monsters (at least in theory, in the Balor's case). Do those sound like numbers that characters of that level can't meet?

Justify your claim.

A Monk with INA: Unarmed Strike and a high Str is optimized. That does not mean it will hold up well in encounters.

A Wizard with a high Int and Glitterdust is not optimized. That does not mean it will not hold up well in encounters.

All optimization is not created equal.
Vastly depends on the campaign, the player, and the rest of the group. Honestly, I can think of several types of campaigns where I'd rather see that Monk over that Wizard. The utter infallibility of Wizards and the utter uselessness of Monks is another one of those things that I think get carried out of proportion.

LordBlades

2012-04-25, 09:31 AM

3E isn't dieing. It's evolving into Pathfinder. It is to be seen whether 5E is WOTC's attempt to apologize for firing its customers, which doesn't mean the same game with the 3 replaced with a 5, just familiar and interesting in its new mechanics. Paizo will be watching. Curious what their response will be.

Except Pathfinder is going into a direction that has/will put off quite a few people (namely anti-optimization, both through game design and general boards attitude).

Malachei

2012-04-25, 10:03 AM

Except Pathfinder is going into a direction that has/will put off quite a few people (namely anti-optimization, both through game design and general boards attitude).

I hope that WOTC doesn't read this and gets the impression it has to include nice loopholes for easier game-breaking in D&D Next.

While optimization is a play-style which, like any other, has its place and its merits, IMO, designing a system to appeal to appeal to it is dangerous: You may end up with drilling holes into your rules to get more swiss cheese.

Clustered Chaos

2012-04-25, 10:22 AM

Do I need to break out the table again?

Over half of those are casters, the rest are weak melees.

Just as Monks sucking doesn't mean all melees suck, having casters and weak melees melee doesn't mean AC protects you.

Even if we ignore that, that's AC 39 at 13, AC 41 at 16, AC 46 at 17, and AC 49 at 20 to protect against these very weak melee enemies. Some of those are possible, as nearly the maximum obtainable at that point and some of those are not.

If you fight melee enemies that are meant to melee, their to hit bonuses and by extension required AC values rise drastically.

Vastly depends on the campaign, the player, and the rest of the group. Honestly, I can think of several types of campaigns where I'd rather see that Monk over that Wizard. The utter infallibility of Wizards and the utter uselessness of Monks is another one of those things that I think get carried out of proportion.

No, it doesn't. The Wizard is not optimizing and is an effective character. The Monk is optimizing and is not an effective character. All optimization is not created equal, and because the Monk is so inherently weak it must try a lot harder in order to contribute. The Wizard, while not infallible is inherently strong enough to not need to optimize in order to handle a typical campaign. This isn't about that specific example, it's about not all optimization being equal.

Anyone coming in with the stance that all optimization, or classes, or roles, or any other such thing are equal is going to come to nothing but wrong conclusions because those things are not equal.

nyarlathotep

2012-04-25, 12:47 PM

I hope that WOTC doesn't read this and gets the impression it has to include nice loopholes for easier game-breaking in D&D Next.

While optimization is a play-style which, like any other, has its place and its merits, IMO, designing a system to appeal to appeal to it is dangerous: You may end up with drilling holes into your rules to get more swiss cheese.

Designing to cater to people by including loopholes that blatantly go against what is intuitive is bad. IE making polymorph invalidate physical ability scores.

Designing to cater to optimization by make synergies that create a final product much more effective than its pieces is good. Say combining combat patrol with a 3.5 spiked chain.

GoodbyeSoberDay

2012-04-25, 12:57 PM

I hope that WOTC doesn't read this and gets the impression it has to include nice loopholes for easier game-breaking in D&D Next.

While optimization is a play-style which, like any other, has its place and its merits, IMO, designing a system to appeal to appeal to it is dangerous: You may end up with drilling holes into your rules to get more swiss cheese.I think he meant that an anti-optimization attitude is one that keeps broken options in the books because critics of those options are obviously munchkins and should be disregarded.

Malachei

2012-04-25, 12:58 PM

Designing to cater to people by including loopholes that blatantly go against what is intuitive is bad. IE making polymorph invalidate physical ability scores.

Designing to cater to optimization by make synergies that create a final product much more effective than its pieces is good. Say combining combat patrol with a 3.5 spiked chain.

I agree, of course. It is a fine line, though, and because we can only speculate about RAI, with 3.5 it is hard to say what was intentional and what was an oversight.

LordBlades

2012-04-25, 01:31 PM

I think he meant that an anti-optimization attitude is one that keeps broken options in the books because critics of those options are obviously munchkins and should be disregarded.

Yeah. My point was that Paizo's system has more holes than Swiss cheese (especially in regard to widening the gap between casters and non-casters) and they're trying to cover it up by promoting an 'optimization is bad' attitude, as opposed to doing any effort to actually plug said holes.

Snowbluff

2012-04-25, 01:45 PM

Yeah. My point was that Paizo's system has more holes than Swiss cheese (especially in regard to widening the gap between casters and non-casters) and they're trying to cover it up by promoting an 'optimization is bad' attitude, as opposed to doing any effort to actually plug said holes.

Yeah. The "OP is bad" attitdue is counter productive regardless. Might as well say "We don't want you to have fun with this significant portion of this system" (the BEST part of 3.5 IMHO) or "The first DLC will be released on the same day as the game". :smallmad:

nyarlathotep

2012-04-25, 01:45 PM

Yeah. My point was that Paizo's system has more holes than Swiss cheese (especially in regard to widening the gap between casters and non-casters) and they're trying to cover it up by promoting an 'optimization is bad' attitude, as opposed to doing any effort to actually plug said holes.

It really really is. Though ironically ultimate combat and other splats have been reducing the gap somewhat, though they seem to be the sort of books that the core design team has the least actual input on.

TuggyNE

2012-04-25, 05:21 PM

Do I need to break out the table again?

Aside, building a character that can meet the CR 13 standard at a 75% whiff rate, with reasonably good offensive capabilities and little or no cheese:
Strongheart Halfling Scout 4/Ranger 9
110kgp WBL
Starting scores: Str 9, Dex 19, Con 14, Int 8, Wis 16, Cha 8
Current scores: Str 7 (-2 size), Dex 28 (gloves of dexterity +4, level-up +3, +2 size), Con 14, Int 8, Wis 20 (periapt of wisdom +4), Cha 8
Gear: monk's belt (13000gp), gloves of dexterity +4 (16000gp), periapt of wisdom +6 (16000gp), dusty rose prism ioun stone (5000gp), ring of protection +2 (4000gp), +1 splitting longbow (32000gp), pearl of power I for mage armor (1000gp), pearl of power II for barkskin (4000gp), permanancied reduce person (3040gp for casting :smallfrown:); 15960gp remaining for utility

Notable feats: Swift Hunter, Practiced Spellcaster

AC breakdown:

+2 size
+8 dex
+1 untyped (monk's belt)
+1 insight (ioun)
+3 enhancement to natural armor (barkskin, 3/day for 60min each)
+5 wisdom (monk's belt)
+4 armor (mage armor, long-duration buff, cast using lent pearl of power)
+3 skirmish
+2 deflection (ring of protection)

Total: 39 AC; the iron golem would need a 16 or better to hit, meeting the 75% protection goal.

I'm certain any capable high optimizer can easily beat this figure with less resources invested and less reliance on allies (current: one hrs/level buff spell with pearl of power in exchange; one NPC caster's services), but I consider this a solid baseline that took me about two hours to construct and reorganize. Conclusion: at CR 13, a credible melee threat can still be largely neutralized (<25% chance of hitting) by AC only.

1
*Addendum: Making 10'-tumbles reliably
Here I'm not so confident in my abilities, but it's largely irrelevant to the main point.
Tumble breakdown:
16 ranks
+8 dexterity
+2 synergy from Jump
+2 circumstance from masterwork tool (DM-adjudicated) OR +2 from Acrobatic (:smallsigh:)
+11 competence from custom boots of tumbling +11 (12100gp)
= +39, enough to tumble 10' on a 1.

Honestly, though, from past discussions I'm not sure this will ever get resolved.

Clustered Chaos

2012-04-25, 05:25 PM

Fatebreaker

2012-04-25, 05:43 PM

I've noticed the exact opposite problem. In terms of practical optimization, the quality has gone down over time. The chances that the suggested optimized builds will be unable to function in the campaign you are wanting them for are very high. Some of this is because inexperienced players are the ones proposing them, but not all.

CC, I'm not saying whether the optimization is practical or theoretical. I'm just saying that "optimization" of some variety increases as time goes on and a community accrues knowledge of the game system. It may be based on assumptions that do not carry through in individual games. But certainly over time, the upper limit of optimized builds increases.

Like you say, not all optimization is created equally, nor does it necessarily hold up in play.

3E isn't dieing. It's evolving into Pathfinder. It is to be seen whether 5E is WOTC's attempt to apologize for firing its customers, which doesn't mean the same game with the 3 replaced with a 5, just familiar and interesting in its new mechanics. Paizo will be watching. Curious what their response will be.

No, 3.x isn't dying. It's dead.

Do not confuse 3.x and Pathfinder. For all the similarities between them, they are still two separate sets of rules produced by two different companies. I cannot go out and buy 3.x material in a store, unless it is 3.x material that has been sitting on the shelves since 3.x went out of print.

People may (and do) still play it. But it is not a "live" system. Pathfinder is a live system.

A small point, but one I feel compelled to point out, is that 3.x cannot "evolve" into Pathfinder. My 3.x books will not suddenly become Pathfinder books. They will always be 3.x books. And the longer Pathfinder goes on, the more the systems will diverge. 3.x is not evolving into Pathfinder; Pathfinder is evolving out of and away from D&D3.x.

I hope that WOTC doesn't read this and gets the impression it has to include nice loopholes for easier game-breaking in D&D Next.

While optimization is a play-style which, like any other, has its place and its merits, IMO, designing a system to appeal to appeal to it is dangerous: You may end up with drilling holes into your rules to get more swiss cheese.

Optimization is a positive thing. It is simply finding the most effective way to fulfill your character's concept and role. If your character cannot fulfill their role mechanically, that gets old real fast for both you and your party. If your character does not live up to the concept you imagined when you created him, that gets old even faster. Depending on how much you complain about it, this may or may not get old for your party, but it will certainly get old for you.

Two optimized characters may still be on wildly different levels of power, because like Clustered Chaos pointed out, not all optimization is equal.

Loopholes are not optimization (though it may be optimal to use loopholes). Loopholes are sloppy game design. I'm all for fewer loopholes, but I would enjoy options to optimize my character.

Clustered Chaos

2012-04-25, 06:05 PM

CC, I'm not saying whether the optimization is practical or theoretical. I'm just saying that "optimization" of some variety increases as time goes on and a community accrues knowledge of the game system. It may be based on assumptions that do not carry through in individual games. But certainly over time, the upper limit of optimized builds increases.

Like you say, not all optimization is created equally, nor does it necessarily hold up in play.

What I am saying is that the opposite is happening. You are more likely, in terms of practical builds and advice to get something that isn't optimized or isn't optimized enough than something that is now than you were before which means that if anything skill/knowledge levels are decreasing on average.

People can certainly find more optimized builds over time, but there are very few people that truly have that ability. Ever heard of a Truenamer that could threaten optimized Tier 1s? Until a few days ago, I didn't either. I got the idea from two different catalysts.

99% of the time if someone gives you a random build one of the following is true:

The build is based on Tier 3 or higher classes. It's probably fine, though there is a not insignificant chance it isn't fine depending on who posts it and what they're posting.
The build is based on other classes. No matter how optimized they claim it is it either will not be optimized, not be optimized enough, or won't work in an actual game despite actually being optimized.

I blame the tier system itself for this problem.

Fatebreaker

2012-04-25, 06:28 PM

What I am saying is that the opposite is happening. You are more likely, in terms of practical builds and advice to get something that isn't optimized or isn't optimized enough than something that is now than you were before which means that if anything skill/knowledge levels are decreasing on average.

People can certainly find more optimized builds over time, but there are very few people that truly have that ability. Ever heard of a Truenamer that could threaten optimized Tier 1s? Until a few days ago, I didn't either. I got the idea from two different catalysts.

99% of the time if someone gives you a random build one of the following is true:

The build is based on Tier 3 or higher classes. It's probably fine, though there is a not insignificant chance it isn't fine depending on who posts it and what they're posting.
The build is based on other classes. No matter how optimized they claim it is it either will not be optimized, not be optimized enough, or won't work in an actual game despite actually being optimized.

I blame the tier system itself for this problem.

When I first started reading the OotS boards (five years ago? I dunno, something like that), Pun-Pun was do-able at 5th level. Now, you can roll him up at 1st. Over time, the potential for optimized builds increases.

You mention "practical builds and advice" a bit. If I had to guess, I'd suspect that some of your dissatisfaction with internet-optimization is that it inherently isn't practical for your circumstances, because the internet does not know what your circumstances are. Then again, you don't strike me as the kind of person who would hold that against the internet. Can you clarify what you mean?

TuggyNE

2012-04-25, 06:50 PM

A build that barely hits the mark vs the easiest of the easy fights, and is meleeing with a Str of 6. When has this qualified as a credible... anything? It certainly is not doing any damage.
I didn't bother to include Str-boosting items, or even specific weapons, primarily because I don't really care whether this is a finesse build or a close-in ranged build. *shrug* (For reference: +4 to remove the str penalty would cost 16000, which it can easily afford.) If it uses melee, throw in haste or similar. If not, it would presumably use Rapid Shot.

Also, since when is a golem the "easiest of the easy fights"? It's the lowest CR, of course, but ... so? I certainly haven't exhausted potential AC boosters yet by any means.

Now, if your baseline assumption is that all melee opponents are high-op gish builds, or have Incantatrix/DMM:Persist buffs from an allied spellcaster, or add a level of Spirit Lion Barbarian to their RHD, or something like that... then I'm sorry but I probably can't help you with that, since I don't play at that level of optimization. To each his/her own.

Finally, of course, I stopped adding AC buffs when I hit the target out of laziness, not because I couldn't keep going. :smalltongue:

The defense rests.

Glad to hear it. Seems a bit overconfident, of course, but if I have successfully gotten you to stop arguing that might almost be a win right there :smallbiggrin::smalltongue:

Edit: Oh yeah, one last optimization I forgot to put in: this build carries a fake tower shield on its back (weighing only 5lb) in order to be ignored by any and all opponents.

Snowbluff

2012-04-25, 06:59 PM

I didn't bother to include Str-boosting items, or even specific weapons, primarily because I don't really care whether this is a finesse build or a close-in ranged build. *shrug* (For reference: +4 to remove the str penalty would cost 16000, which it can easily afford.) If it uses melee, throw in haste or similar. If not, it would presumably use Rapid Shot.

Also, since when is a golem the "easiest of the easy fights"? It's the lowest CR, of course, but ... so? I certainly haven't exhausted potential AC boosters yet by any means.

Now, if your baseline assumption is that all melee opponents are high-op gish builds, or have Incantatrix/DMM:Persist buffs from an allied spellcaster, or add a level of Spirit Lion Barbarian to their RHD, or something like that... then I'm sorry but I probably can't help you with that, since I don't play at that level of optimization. To each his/her own.

Finally, of course, I stopped adding AC buffs when I hit the target out of laziness, not because I couldn't keep going. :smalltongue:

Glad to hear it. Seems a bit overconfident, of course, but if I have successfully gotten you to stop arguing that might almost be a win right there :smallbiggrin::smalltongue:

Edit: Oh yeah, one last optimization I forgot to put in: this build carries a fake tower shield on its back (weighing only 5lb) in order to be ignored by any and all opponents.

This. So very much. AC is a powerful tool that to many people ignore. Boosting it is so easy Druid got banned from one of my tables the first time I used it.

Flickerdart

2012-04-25, 07:08 PM

Snowbluff

2012-04-25, 07:21 PM

Not to say that AC is a useless defense, far from it. It's just that the example given is awful.

Agreed. Proper itemization and a good team 8uffing ethic should keep you functional and give the desired effect without costing you too much.

moritheil

2012-04-25, 07:33 PM

I would love to help, but I am not actually an expert on 3.5 rules, and am not comfortable voting on issues I don't have a firm grasp of. I usually play home brew or white wolf games, and haven't played a serious game of D&D in years. That is actually one of the reasons I made this post, I try and ask system neutral setting or adventure design advice and get bombarded with crazy suggestions that won't work unless you are exploiting some of D&Ds more ambiguous or idiosyncratic rules.

You do realize that, to some people, that is what the game is?

I'll explain, using another system to illustrate what I'm talking about. If you've ever played Erick Wujick's Diceless Amber, you know that there's a bidding system at the start of the game. Player characters get stats based on how much they're willing to bid for those stats. What separates newbies from veterans is their willingness to bid really suboptimal amounts of points on benefits - either too much, or too little, which leave them with not enough stuff relative to the people who made sane bids.

In Diceless Amber, veterans know, then, that there is a game before the game. Winning that does not win you the game itself, but it makes it easier for your plans to come to fruition and harder for others' plans to trump yours.

Is there a similar bid system in 3.x? Not really, but then again, in a sense, yes. If you spend 10 minutes on your sheet and I spend 8 hours on mine, and you are not already an expert on the rules for the character you want to make, whose character is likely to be more powerful? If we extend this principle, we find people poring over arcane minutia in the rules, all the better to construct a devastating argument and sway the others in the group. To what end? To the end of winning the game before the game.

Now, you may object that it is needlessly adversarial. But that is just how some people are. You can't ask them to change and expect results, any more than you can ask all the drivers in the world to stop being jerks and cutting each other off in traffic, or stop double parking at the post office on the day everyone tries to file tax returns.

A wise man once said, "Haters gonna hate."

Optimizers gonna optimize.

I'm not sure you understand what TO is. TO is Pun-Pun. TO is Hulking Hurler dealing quadrillions of damage. TO is being able to enslave everyone who can see you by jumping hella high. It doesn't matter of you surprise them, because their single answer is an answer to any problem - complete and utter obliteration or enslavement of anything that stands in their way. Playing the game smart isn't TO, it's competence.

I don't think there's really a clear line between the two. TO is just competence with no brakes. That's the "total" in "total optimization." TO is the result of the "nuke them first, it's the only way to be sure" mentality that ends in nuclear winter and a ruined earth, and the difficulty is that it follows from a number of quite logical individual steps. Our hope is that, just as nuclear war did not ultimately occur between the US and the USSR, cooler heads likewise prevail in actual campaign settings.

In conclusion, even if you stack the odds, Fireball is still useless.

Unless your objective is to play a mage who casts fireball a lot. I mean, fireball isn't literally useless; it does something. It's just usually suboptimal. If, however, you have a vested interest in using it, there's no reason why you can't.

Flickerdart

2012-04-25, 07:36 PM

I don't think there's really a clear line between the two. TO is just competence with no brakes. That's the "total" in "total optimization." TO is the result of the "nuke them first, it's the only way to be sure" mentality that ends in nuclear winter and a ruined earth, and the difficulty is that it follows from a number of quite logical individual steps. Our hope is that, just as nuclear war did not ultimately occur between the US and the USSR, cooler heads likewise prevail in actual campaign settings.
The T stands for "theoretical". There's a pretty clear line between theory and practice. TO isn't "nuke them first", it's "how big of a nuke can we design by exploiting the poorly written laws of physics".

Unless your objective is to play a mage who casts fireball a lot. I mean, fireball isn't literally useless; it does something. It's just usually suboptimal. If, however, you have a vested interest in using it, there's no reason why you can't.
And if you want to play a Commoner, there's also no reason why you can't.

moritheil

2012-04-25, 07:36 PM

This. So very much. AC is a powerful tool that to many people ignore. Boosting it is so easy Druid got banned from one of my tables the first time I used it.

Agree 100%. I had someone try to tell me the other day that AC is hard capped at 45 - when it's almost trivially easy to break that before level 10, if that's what you want to focus on.

"Security through obscurity" doesn't work in real life, but it seems to work surprisingly well in D&D.

Flickerdart

2012-04-25, 07:40 PM

45? That's a weird number. Maybe they figured something like 10+5 deflection +5 natural +13 full plate +7 heavy shield, which is the most obvious way to jack AC, but that's only 40.

moritheil

2012-04-25, 07:42 PM

The T stands for "theoretical". There's a pretty clear line between theory and practice. TO isn't "nuke them first", it's "how big of a nuke can we design by exploiting the poorly written laws of physics".

As I mentioned previously in this thread, with the examples of fireball not involving pressure and the Platonic elemental system, the worlds were clearly designed by people who weren't interested in writing viable laws of physics ;)

And if you want to play a Commoner, there's also no reason why you can't.

Well, I'll explain. To play a mage casting fireball all the time is good when you have someone new to the game who wants to be a barbarian or something, and wants to be able to say "I'm helping!" Because then you're at least playing the same game of hit point deduction, and he can occasionally swoop in and finish off the injured ones with a charge. Any upstaging of him you do in this context is plausible in his mind because you are, after all, more experienced, and you're playing a wizard besides. It's right that spells should be powerful, but this is a power level he can accept.

Being a commoner and upstaging him would just make it obvious that you're playing down to his level, and upset or frustrate him.

Snowbluff

2012-04-25, 07:44 PM

Agree 100%. I had someone try to tell me the other day that AC is hard capped at 45 - when it's almost trivially easy to break that before level 10, if that's what you want to focus on.

"Security through obscurity" doesn't work in real life, but it seems to work surprisingly well in D&D.

Yeah, the a8solutely large ACs on me and 8rothel8ane (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=239524) I made for a separate game were hard to hide. Then the DM tells me I can't use Greater Luminous Armor anymore. Keep in mind giving out penalties to opponents' Attack rolls is pretty sweet too.

navar100

2012-04-25, 08:29 PM

CC, I'm not saying whether the optimization is practical or theoretical. I'm just saying that "optimization" of some variety increases as time goes on and a community accrues knowledge of the game system. It may be based on assumptions that do not carry through in individual games. But certainly over time, the upper limit of optimized builds increases.

Like you say, not all optimization is created equally, nor does it necessarily hold up in play.

No, 3.x isn't dying. It's dead.

Do not confuse 3.x and Pathfinder. For all the similarities between them, they are still two separate sets of rules produced by two different companies. I cannot go out and buy 3.x material in a store, unless it is 3.x material that has been sitting on the shelves since 3.x went out of print.

People may (and do) still play it. But it is not a "live" system. Pathfinder is a live system.

A small point, but one I feel compelled to point out, is that 3.x cannot "evolve" into Pathfinder. My 3.x books will not suddenly become Pathfinder books. They will always be 3.x books. And the longer Pathfinder goes on, the more the systems will diverge. 3.x is not evolving into Pathfinder; Pathfinder is evolving out of and away from D&D3.x.

That is being ornery. The 3E system is evolving into Pathfinder. Evolving includes shedding some old ways. For those who want new materials in the 3E system, Paizo provides. Sadly, not everything of 3E can be made into Pathfinder because there are limits to the OGL (Tome of Battle :smallfrown: ) but Pathfinder is the new 3E.

sonofzeal

2012-04-25, 09:20 PM

Over half of those are casters, the rest are weak melees.
Which?

The Iron Golem has an effective offensive (Su) ability, but it's not useable every round and the Golem is clearly intended and statted for melee.

The Hound Archon Hero and Frost Giant Jarl have a couple low level spells, but clearly aren't going to be winning fights with them, and their default spell lists are clearly catered to melee.

The Marilith and Balor have a few good SLAs and could potentially rely on them, but both the flavour text and the total list of special abilities lean heavily towards melee.

All are intended (as evidenced by flavour text, default tactics where available, and total abilities) to be major melee threats. If you think they weren't, then suggest an equivalent set that are. But I didn't hand-pick these, I just used the SRD's monster filter and grabbed whichever high-CR enemies seemed most melee-oriented.

Even if we ignore that, that's AC 39 at 13, AC 41 at 16, AC 46 at 17, and AC 49 at 20 to protect against these very weak melee enemies. Some of those are possible, as nearly the maximum obtainable at that point and some of those are not.

If you fight melee enemies that are meant to melee, their to hit bonuses and by extension required AC values rise drastically.

Where are you getting those numbers from?

For AC to be "relevant", it needs to be competing with miss chance. As per RC, miss chance doesn't stack, so you're looking at either 20% or 50% baseline.

For 20% (Cloak of Displacement, the most accessible permanent miss chance), the progression is AC 28 at 13, AC 30 at 16, AC 35 at 17, and AC 38 at 20. These numbers are so easy to acquire that it's almost embarrassing; a character 5 levels lower could be acquiring these without too much trouble.

For 50% (which usually costs actions to activate and has limited duration), the progression is AC 34 at 13, AC 36 at 16, AC 41 at 17, and AC 44 at 20. These numbers take a little bit of effort, but are by no means out of reach for anything with either high Dex and a mithral chain shirt, or mithral fullplate, which covers most people that aren't casters.

For 75%... yeah, that's tough, but it should be. I've hit those ranges myself though on a fairly regular basis. The last character I remember doing so was a Tashalatora PsiWar who had good Dex, nice Wis, a few points of natural NA from Aberrant Skin, and a fully-augmented Inertial Armor up 24/7. He had decent damage per attack with a large number of attacks, almost unbeatable grapple bonus, and an AC in the high 30's... at level 11. So it's not really implausible.

Obviously the best defence is viable AC and decent miss-chance, since they stack with eachother. Nobody should feel so secure in their AC that they forgo miss-chance. But for most characters, it's pretty easy to raise your AC to the point where it's taking a respectable chunk out of incoming attacks, without breaking the bank.

Defenses don't need to be total to be worthwhile.

Snowbluff

2012-04-25, 09:24 PM

Obviously the best defence is viable AC and decent miss-chance, since they stack with eachother. Nobody should feel so secure in their AC that they forgo miss-chance. But for most characters, it's pretty easy to raise your AC to the point where it's taking a respectable chunk out of incoming attacks, without breaking the bank.

Defenses don't need to be total to be worthwhile.

Yeah. Spreading out your defenses is the same principle as getting your AC from different sources. Diversity actually improves effectiveness. Like genetics. ::::D

TuggyNE

2012-04-25, 10:53 PM

That build has expended 2/3 most of its resources (3.5 WBL is 110k, so you've got nothing at all left on utility or offensive items), and yet it still requires three spell buffs. That's what I would call "a lot of investment for little reward". Not moving in any given turn reduces that number by another handful of points.

Not to say that AC is a useless defense, far from it. It's just that the example given is awful.

Fair enough. Working from incorrect information will do that to you :smallredface:

I've reworked the given example, although I am still not entirely satisfied with it; reliance, however small, on a permanencied buff spell is a weak point that can plausibly be targeted at this level (if not by this specific enemy).

Of course, my initial choice of precision-damage-based attacker against a golem was hardly inspired either :smallyuk:.

Fatebreaker

2012-04-25, 11:49 PM

That is being ornery. The 3E system is evolving into Pathfinder. Evolving includes shedding some old ways. For those who want new materials in the 3E system, Paizo provides. Sadly, not everything of 3E can be made into Pathfinder because there are limits to the OGL (Tome of Battle :smallfrown: ) but Pathfinder is the new 3E.

That is not ornery. That is fact. The limitations you cite (such as no Tome of Battle) are perfect examples of how the two systems, though similar, are distinct. They use different books. They use different rules. They may share some principles in their design, but they also possess unique elements or interpretations. They may share some overlap in their communities, but they also possess distinct elements who play only one game or the other. A player can play one, the other, neither, or both. For all of their common ground, they are different and distinct from one another.

To bring your tangent back to the discussion at hand, this is relevant because, being out of print and having been supplanted by newer editions, the 3.x community will see a minimal influx of new players. The increasingly veteran community will naturally come to explore ever and more obscure rules, their interactions, and their applications, because that is one way they can keep an unchanging edition of the hobby new and exciting.

JadePhoenix

2012-04-26, 12:50 AM

That is not ornery. That is fact. The limitations you cite (such as no Tome of Battle) are perfect examples of how the two systems, though similar, are distinct. They use different books. They use different rules. They may share some principles in their design, but they also possess unique elements or interpretations. They may share some overlap in their communities, but they also possess distinct elements who play only one game or the other. A player can play one, the other, neither, or both. For all of their common ground, they are different and distinct from one another.

I use Pathfinder as sourcebooks for 3.5. In fact, that is somewhat intended. Backwards compatibility was one of Pathfinfer's strongest selling points when it began being advertised. That's what the '3.P' moniker stands for - Pathfinder + 3.5.

moritheil

2012-04-26, 01:59 AM

A build that barely hits the mark vs the easiest of the easy fights, and is meleeing with a Str of 6. When has this qualified as a credible... anything? It certainly is not doing any damage.

The defense rests.

Why does it have to do damage? Either the opponent is mindless enough to attack it (like the iron golem here) or else making sure that the tank is between the squishy casters and the enemy is a job for the party controllers.

Anyhow, you want 40AC at level 13? It's doable before level 10.

1: Be an outsider. This can be attained via Neraph, Otherworldly, Aasimar, or whatever floats your boat.
2: get Alter Self 4/day at caster level 5+ (whether by being a caster, or getting your DM to sell you an item, doesn't matter. Being a caster is better because you will have longer duration.)
3: Either you, or someone in your party, needs to have enough Knowledge (planes) to make a check that reveals the Dwarven Ancestor (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060704a&page=3), with 18 natural armor. You can take this form at level 5. You do lose 1 AC from being Large, but if you are the tank, being Large is a good thing. Do note that at 10 minutes/level, you can easily fight two combats off of a single Alter Self.
4: Assuming you are a gish build, you'll want to pick up Wraithstrike (2nd) to break through enemy AC and Fist of Stone (1st) to give yourself +6 to strength. Congratulations, you are now a passable melee threat, as you have 10' reach, attack touch AC when getting their attention, and easily get over 20 strength even with your MAD issues. Fights should be over by the time your Fist of Stone starts to wear off; plan on only using 1 per fight. Wraithstrikes are really the one thing you have to conserve the most.

Supposing you are level 10, you might plausibly have the following AC bonuses:
8 armor + 4 shield + 19 natural +1 deflection + 3 dex + 1 dodge + 5 combat expertise -1/size = AC 40.

You might want to get a lesser metamagic extend rod, an amulet of natural armor, and obviously you'll want the best armor you can buy that doesn't interfere with your buff casting - likely a mithral fullplate or enchanted mithral breastplate - but this is all doable well within budget. You have 49,000 gp; a +4 mithral breastplate is a little over 20k gp, amulet is 1k, ring of protection is 1k. Extend rod is 3k. I've used 25k out of 49k at level 10, that's half the budget on defenses for a character made to tank in 4+ encounters a day. Take the rest of the money and buy save gear and a nice weapon. If you're an Abjurant Champion your shield spell will be automatically extended and quickened, so all you need the extend rod for is the Alter Self.

All of this is off the top of my head. If you took this apart and spent a few hours examining resource allocation you could probably squeeze out another 5 AC, easily. 40 AC is really trivial to get if you permit optimization.

sonofzeal

2012-04-26, 03:38 AM

I think my Tashalatora PsiWar, at lvl 11, was something like....

10, +3dex, +4wis, +4NA, +1def, +2monk, +9inertial = 33

...which is entirely relevant against most level-appropriate challenges, and highly effective if we were fighting a larger group of lower level enemies (which we ended up doing regularly).

However, that was just his baseline. He also had Defensive Precognition for up to +4 AC as a standard action or +2 AC as a swift action. And he had Metamorphosis from being a Mantled Warrior. With Metamorphosis active, his AC ranged as high as 45. Even a fairly generic Dire Bat form got him up to 37 AC and didn't hurt his offence any while offering good flight. That was his standard form because any of the optimized ones were simply too far beyond the power level of the rest of the group. I had stats for him in Limbo Stalker form once, but ended up never getting to use it.

I did, however, once get a chance to headbutt someone while in Elsewhale form. That pretty much singlehandedly made the whole campaign worthwhile for me.

Anyway, that was only lvl 11. If you're paying attention to it, AC tends to go up +1 per level or thereabouts, depending on the character and campaign of course. By the time that character would fight anything given on my list, his AC would be entirely appropriate without any temporary buffs, and downright excessive if buffed. And that's without any particular effort or gold expenditure.

LordBlades

2012-04-26, 05:29 AM

My thoughts re: 'AC is worthless' (all of this assumes at least a mediumpower level in the campaign):

I consider AC pretty much worthless for the majority of characters for a variety of reasons:

-it does nothing for you vs. the most dangerous things you're about to encounter in mid and high levels: (no) save-or-die and BFC effects.

- they guys that would need it most (frontline non-casters) can't have it. Trying to keep your AC on par with the monsters with items and class features is such a big investment that it usually leaves you without the means to be a credible threat offensively.

-the guys that can have it (casters) don't really need it. It's trivial to get a good AC with spells. Thing is, most spellcasters don't get into melee all that often(and if somebody does, you're usually one Dimension Door and/or contingency away from safety; or just have Mirror Image up), and as a result, most attacks directed against them target other defenses. As a pure caster, investing your resources into high saves gives you much better chances of survival than investing it into high AC.

Of course, gishes and other frontline casters have both the means and can benefit from a high AC. They are regularly subjected to melee attacks and having a high AC is not much of an investment for them (most AC increasing spells are either low level, like shield, barkskin or shield of faith or the Ac increase comes on top of other awesome things, like Bite of WereX and Polymorph). These guys are the only ones for which I consider AC worthwhile.

EDIT: also, it's worth noting that probably the best form of melee offense (charging) includes Shock Trooper, which lowers your AC into auto-hit area anyway.

Fatebreaker

2012-04-26, 06:35 AM

I use Pathfinder as sourcebooks for 3.5. In fact, that is somewhat intended. Backwards compatibility was one of Pathfinfer's strongest selling points when it began being advertised. That's what the '3.P' moniker stands for - Pathfinder + 3.5.

While a smart business decision on their part, that still does not make them the same game.

Your 3.p may be very different from someone else's 3.p, depending on what choices they make in what to keep and what to change. Is it 3.5 with Pathfinder elements? Or Pathfinder with 3.5 elements? Which elements, specifically? What rules need to be changed to accommodate the imported material, and how? Does Fenwick Alfaradin, captain of the guard for Port Umbaer, use this fighter (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/fighter.htm) class or that fighter (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/classes/fighter.html#_fighter) class? Or is he a gunslinger (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateCombat/classes/gunslinger.html), utilizing options not found in 3.5? 3.p is not a singular game so much as a convenient shorthand for a combination of two games, and within that moniker exists a wide range of potential games.

None of this speaks against Pathfinder. In most circumstances, equating the two is perfectly valid shorthand, because they are quite compatible with one another. Again, wise move on Paizo's part, and I wish them all the best.

That said, this is a topic where it is both relevant and important to clearly define the two as separate games. When someone asks a question about 3.5, answering with a class, feat, spell, item, or rule from Pathfinder is neither helpful nor accurate (unless the goal is to convert them to Pathfinder, in which case the answer may be helpful but is still not accurate).

Clustered Chaos

2012-04-26, 07:15 AM

When I first started reading the OotS boards (five years ago? I dunno, something like that), Pun-Pun was do-able at 5th level. Now, you can roll him up at 1st. Over time, the potential for optimized builds increases.

You mention "practical builds and advice" a bit. If I had to guess, I'd suspect that some of your dissatisfaction with internet-optimization is that it inherently isn't practical for your circumstances, because the internet does not know what your circumstances are. Then again, you don't strike me as the kind of person who would hold that against the internet. Can you clarify what you mean?

Let's say you want a build to accomplish a particular goal.

If you asked this question a few years ago, you'd get several specific builds along with a description of what they do and how they help. If your goals were unreasonable, they'd tell you.

Ask the same question today, and you'll get copy pasting with no explanation or understanding (because they don't understand the build themselves) and if your goals are unreasonable, that doesn't matter. It's still an optimized build so it must help you right? There are multiple threads on the front page in which a DM or a player is complaining about skill focused Rogues being unable to accomplish anything, including skills. I'm willing to wager at least some of them got the idea from bad optimization advice.

This isn't about me though as the most I need is a small spark to get the idea train going if I can't come up with an angle on my own. Otherwise I can optimize entirely autonomously of the internet.

The Truenamer thing? All I needed was the random reading of a game to realize Truenamers had a no fly ability that unlike just about every other ability of that type is no save and a single question posed to another skilled player about a seemingly unrelated subject. That's it. The rest was all me.

I didn't bother to include Str-boosting items, or even specific weapons, primarily because I don't really care whether this is a finesse build or a close-in ranged build. *shrug* (For reference: +4 to remove the str penalty would cost 16000, which it can easily afford.) If it uses melee, throw in haste or similar. If not, it would presumably use Rapid Shot.

You spent 60% of your money on AC. It is safe to say it does not have any offensive abilities to speak of. Str 6, Str 10, doesn't matter.

Also, since when is a golem the "easiest of the easy fights"? It's the lowest CR, of course, but ... so? I certainly haven't exhausted potential AC boosters yet by any means.

Because hitting 39 at level 13 is easier than any of the other numbers, because iron golems are mindless, and because golems are encountered with the casters that created them.

Now, if your baseline assumption is that all melee opponents are high-op gish builds, or have Incantatrix/DMM:Persist buffs from an allied spellcaster, or add a level of Spirit Lion Barbarian to their RHD, or something like that... then I'm sorry but I probably can't help you with that, since I don't play at that level of optimization. To each his/her own.

My baseline assumption is that melee opponents melee, and casting opponents cast. That's it. It doesn't take Wraithstrike PA or Persisted buffs or Pouncing or any other such thing to show that AC is pointless as it falls short well before that.

Edit: Oh yeah, one last optimization I forgot to put in: this build carries a fake tower shield on its back (weighing only 5lb) in order to be ignored by any and all opponents.

Your idea is to try and get enough AC to make a difference and then... make everything not attack you?

That build has expended 2/3 most of its resources (3.5 WBL is 110k, so you've got nothing at all left on utility or offensive items), and yet it still requires three spell buffs. That's what I would call "a lot of investment for little reward". Not moving in any given turn reduces that number by another handful of points.

Not to say that AC is a useless defense, far from it. It's just that the example given is awful.

What I'm trying to figure out is why the party would cast short term buffs on this guy. He doesn't do any damage, he supposedly has a good AC but doesn't want anything to attack him... just what is he doing? Running around?

Which?

The Iron Golem has an effective offensive (Su) ability, but it's not useable every round and the Golem is clearly intended and statted for melee.

The Hound Archon Hero and Frost Giant Jarl have a couple low level spells, but clearly aren't going to be winning fights with them, and their default spell lists are clearly catered to melee.

The Marilith and Balor have a few good SLAs and could potentially rely on them, but both the flavour text and the total list of special abilities lean heavily towards melee.

Marilith and Balor are casters, the others are weak melee. I confused the Archon with the Planetar, which shifts it from caster to weak melee. The Balor has all manner of save or dies and save or loses. Mariliths have Projected Image and TK at will. Caster.

All are intended (as evidenced by flavour text, default tactics where available, and total abilities) to be major melee threats. If you think they weren't, then suggest an equivalent set that are. But I didn't hand-pick these, I just used the SRD's monster filter and grabbed whichever high-CR enemies seemed most melee-oriented.

Even the default tactics say Balors are casters. They're not melee, they only swing their weapons when the battle is already won.

Fatebreaker, you asked earlier in the thread what I meant when I said that advice quality has decreased over time. The people claiming AC is viable are a good example of what I meant. They barely hit the lowest benchmark, don't hit any of the meaningful benchmarks, and sacrifice everything else to do this. They then claim their end result is optimized when it's very clear what will happen is that they will just get ignored, and if they are attacked they'd die quickly anyways.

Why does it have to do damage? Either the opponent is mindless enough to attack it (like the iron golem here) or else making sure that the tank is between the squishy casters and the enemy is a job for the party controllers.

Because you're melee and that's how you contribute? You do not contribute by running around and doing nothing.

The "squishy" casters have better defenses than you. While this guy is running around doing nothing, they're flying around with multiple defensive spells and launching strong offensive spells. If something attacks them, they can take it.

sonofzeal

2012-04-26, 07:57 AM

-it does nothing for you vs. the most dangerous things you're about to encounter in mid and high levels: (no) save-or-die and BFC effects.
I find few DMs throw SoDs around like confetti. Actually, I've never once seen a DM who did that, even the ones who used Wizards heavily. I've seen a few characters go down to a bad save, but most instances I can remember were from hp damage. The spells that I see most from DMs are debuffs and direct damage, since these things are more likely to lead to an interesting and fun fight as opposed to sending someone home 15 minutes into the game because they rolled poorly against Finger of Death in the surprise round.

- they guys that would need it most (frontline non-casters) can't have it. Trying to keep your AC on par with the monsters with items and class features is such a big investment that it usually leaves you without the means to be a credible threat offensively.
Offence usually comes from class, while defence comes from gold. The two are generally not in all that much conflict.

Checking my (rather limited) reference files, it looks a Human Fighter in the double-digits range might expect to spend about 33% of their WBL to keep pace with the sort of numbers the average melee monster of that level might be putting out. Human Fighter is usually pretty far from the best-case scenario for these things though. I personally prefer monstrous races which usually have a headstart on AC, or something that gets to add another ability score to its AC, or a partial-caster.

But even for a Human Fighter, 33% WBL gets you up into the range where your AC is an excellent defence when fighting groups of enemies (>75% miss chance), and entirely relevant against CR-appropriate melee brutes (~50% miss chance).

-the guys that can have it (casters) don't really need it. It's trivial to get a good AC with spells. Thing is, most spellcasters don't get into melee all that often(and if somebody does, you're usually one Dimension Door and/or contingency away from safety; or just have Mirror Image up), and as a result, most attacks directed against them target other defenses. As a pure caster, investing your resources into high saves gives you much better chances of survival than investing it into high AC.
If it's "trivial" to get, as you suggest in your second sentence, then it's not a heavy drain on your resources as you seem to imply in your last sentence. These two thoughts are rather contradictory.

Of course, gishes and other frontline casters have both the means and can benefit from a high AC. They are regularly subjected to melee attacks and having a high AC is not much of an investment for them (most AC increasing spells are either low level, like shield, barkskin or shield of faith or the Ac increase comes on top of other awesome things, like Bite of WereX and Polymorph). These guys are the only ones for which I consider AC worthwhile.
Agreed that AC is easily worthwhile for these guys - a fact which the blanket statements to which I originally referred seemed ignorant of.

EDIT: also, it's worth noting that probably the best form of melee offense (charging) includes Shock Trooper, which lowers your AC into auto-hit area anyway.
Eh, I find charging is a little overrated. Or at least, I've never gotten around to playing a proper charger, despite tending to aim for melee characters.

AC is worthwhile for gishes or partial-casters who usually have ways of pumping it more effectively than Fighters.

AC is worthwhile on any non-gish that gets some sort of AC bonus that doesn't come with major drawbacks (unless those drawbacks can be surmounted). For example, a Swordsage with Wis-to-AC in mithral breasplate or a FotF Deepwarden can usually surpass Mr McHumanFighter's AC without breaking the bank at all, and get numbers that offer a nice degree of comfort against melee attacks.

AC is worthwhile for monstrous races who usually have a headstart. A Minotaur or Centaur (or Poison Dusk Lizardfolk) PC is pretty much invariably going to have +4 AC over their more generic peers, which translates to a stacking 20% miss chance since it's already trivial to get out of the "only misses on a 1" territory.

...and honestly, those three categories are broad enough that I think it's easier just to say that AC is generally worthwhile, with some exceptions. Mr McHumanFighter is probably going to do okay. And it's not hard to do better than him. It's easier just to admit that AC is viable, and then exclude things that go noticeably below the Mr McHumanFighter standard.

Clustered Chaos

2012-04-26, 09:15 AM

LordBlades

2012-04-26, 09:21 AM

I find few DMs throw SoDs around like confetti. Actually, I've never once seen a DM who did that, even the ones who used Wizards heavily. I've seen a few characters go down to a bad save, but most instances I can remember were from hp damage. The spells that I see most from DMs are debuffs and direct damage, since these things are more likely to lead to an interesting and fun fight as opposed to sending someone home 15 minutes into the game because they rolled poorly against Finger of Death in the surprise round.

In my group you don't see SoD that often, but for different reasons. Especially when we do tier 1-2 campaigns, most saves(at least fort and will) are so high that, coupled with various 'immune to x' spells a SoD has a very low chance of success. As most dangerous effects I usually face in my group, I'd rate: no save BFC (Solid Fog, Wall of X etc.), spells that do bad things even if you save (Web, Cloudkill etc.), AOE spells and spells that force repeated saves (sooner or later you'll get unlucky).

As for character deaths, trying to recall the most recen fewt: Swordsage Str drained by an Umbral creature, Barbarian killed by damage for doing something extremely stupid but extremely in character (stepping into like 8 of what we were OOG certain to be Caryatid Columns), Cleric left behind while we were forced to pull back from an Eye of the Deep due to Baleful Flash, Crusader caught into a Solid Fog, Evard's Black Tentacles, Vorex of Teeth combo.

Offence usually comes from class, while defence comes from gold. The two are generally not in all that much conflict.

For a non caster, offense usually also means ability to fly, see/attack invisible/ethereal foes, bypass DR etc. And most of that cost cold hard GP.

If it's "trivial" to get, as you suggest in your second sentence, then it's not a heavy drain on your resources as you seem to imply in your last sentence. These two thoughts are rather contradictory.

Wrote that a bit in a hurry. It's not a heavy drain, but simply something not worth doing, as you have other ways. AC as a caster requires 2-3 spells usually. As a caster you'll only occasionally be in melee(you have plenty of ways to get out). And for the occasional melee you might just as well cast Mirror Image. An average CL 9 Mirror Image gives 5 images. This puts your chance to be hit at 16.67% if you had AC 0 and regardless of the enemy's attack bonus.

Talakeal

2012-04-26, 04:59 PM

I attempted to respect the OP, by not doing what he asked. Oddly, I am forced to be more direct and do what he did not desire if I am to voice my opinion:

I disagree with your definitions of TO. They are not the least bit practi

Again, there were no definitions in my post, and I certainly didn't ask anyone to refrain from discussion of definitions.

I think you are trying to refer to my examples for the various categories of rules debates.

On that assumption I have gone ahead and clarified my initial post and removed the line asking people not to be unable to see the forest for the trees, so feel free to nitpick my examples (if that is indeed what you are asking to do). If that is all you have to say I am not sure how much you can contribute to the discussion, but go ahead, any discussion is better than silence.

moritheil

2012-04-26, 05:14 PM

If it's "trivial" to get, as you suggest in your second sentence, then it's not a heavy drain on your resources as you seem to imply in your last sentence. These two thoughts are rather contradictory.

This objection of yours is linguistic.

I mean "trivial" in the sense of "not hard for the player to do." You don't have to cobble together 11 splatbooks or anything for it. (And do note that for the stated challenge - at level 13 - 110,000 gp is provided, of which 25,000 is less than 1/4. Maybe that's not a trivial expense in the sense of pocket change, but it's an expense that is trivially easy to meet because you really ought to have over 100k gold and control over how to spend it.)

Personally I don't see how even half your wealth can be characterized "a heavy drain on your resources" if the entire point of your build is to be not hit - presumably even 80% spent towards the main point of the build would not constitute an overly heavy drain, since that's what it's there for. To me, "a heavy drain" implies that you're doing something like buying an expensive weapon that doesn't actually help you out with the main point of your build and is diverting resources away.

...and honestly, those three categories are broad enough that I think it's easier just to say that AC is generally worthwhile, with some exceptions. Mr McHumanFighter is probably going to do okay. And it's not hard to do better than him. It's easier just to admit that AC is viable, and then exclude things that go noticeably below the Mr McHumanFighter standard.

I agree.

moritheil

2012-04-26, 05:32 PM

Let's say you want a build to accomplish a particular goal.

If you asked this question a few years ago, you'd get several specific builds along with a description of what they do and how they help. If your goals were unreasonable, they'd tell you.

Ask the same question today, and you'll get copy pasting with no explanation or understanding (because they don't understand the build themselves) and if your goals are unreasonable, that doesn't matter. It's still an optimized build so it must help you right? There are multiple threads on the front page in which a DM or a player is complaining about skill focused Rogues being unable to accomplish anything, including skills. I'm willing to wager at least some of them got the idea from bad optimization advice.

I don't know what boards you've been reading, but this has always been happening. I literally have seen this happen in 2006 and earlier on ENW. It is nothing new. It's always easier to copy and paste than to understand. Beyond DnD, it is not reasonable to assume that everyone in society as a whole will know what the hell they are talking about. This isn't a DnD problem you're describing; you have an issue with human nature.

Your idea is to try and get enough AC to make a difference and then... make everything not attack you?

I don't categorically agree with the way you're treating this guy, which appears to be telling him to build AC to a certain level and then criticizing him that his build doesn't do X as well. I do agree that he hasn't optimized it, but unless you think badgering him will make him cough up a better build, I don't get why you're still ragging him about it.

Even the default tactics say Balors are casters. They're not melee, they only swing their weapons when the battle is already won.

Agreed, high level outsiders are casters.

Fatebreaker, you asked earlier in the thread what I meant when I said that advice quality has decreased over time. The people claiming AC is viable are a good example of what I meant. They barely hit the lowest benchmark, don't hit any of the meaningful benchmarks, and sacrifice everything else to do this. They then claim their end result is optimized when it's very clear what will happen is that they will just get ignored, and if they are attacked they'd die quickly anyways.

Did you miss my post? I hit AC 40 at level 10 and used only half the resources. You challenged everyone to do it at level 13. At level 13 it would be 25k/110k = less than 25% of resources. Furthermore I pointed out that you could probably get it to AC 45 even at level 10 if you wanted to optimize more; I did NOT say it was fully optimized, and I went out of my way to make that clear.

Clustered Chaos

2012-04-26, 05:54 PM

I don't know what boards you've been reading, but this has always been happening. I literally have seen this happen in 2006 and earlier on ENW. It is nothing new. It's always easier to copy and paste than to understand. Beyond DnD, it is not reasonable to assume that everyone in society as a whole will know what the hell they are talking about. This isn't a DnD problem you're describing; you have an issue with human nature.

All of them. There will always be some copy pasters, but on average you got better advice and more people that understood what they were saying.

I don't categorically agree with the way you're treating this guy, which appears to be telling him to build AC to a certain level and then criticizing him that his build doesn't do X as well. I do agree that he hasn't optimized it, but unless you think badgering him will make him cough up a better build, I don't get why you're still ragging him about it.

What I am saying is that people thinking AC is not worthwhile is correct. Then someone came in pointing out a bunch of weak melees, and that you could get good AC against them, therefore you could have good AC. And then he made a build that barely did even that much at the expense of everything else. When someone tries to attack a straw man and can't even do that right, it's a fair call to criticize him for not doing any damage.

Did you miss my post? I hit AC 40 at level 10 and used only half the resources. You challenged everyone to do it at level 13. At level 13 it would be 25k/110k = less than 25% of resources. Furthermore I pointed out that you could probably get it to AC 45 even at level 10 if you wanted to optimize more; I did NOT say it was fully optimized, and I went out of my way to make that clear.

I did not. Someone chose level 13 because getting just enough for the iron golem was the easiest of the five easy examples that I also did not present.

Here is my question to you: Does it do things besides avoid some, but not enough of attacks at level 10? Such as saves, damage, damage, damage, and did I mention damage? And saves.

moritheil

2012-04-26, 06:14 PM

A CR 13 Iron Golem has +23 to attack
A CR 16 Hound Hero Archon has +25 to attack
A CR 17 Frost Giant Jarl has +30 to attack
A CR 17 Marilith has a bunch of attacks at +25.
A CR 20 Balor has +33 to attack.

EL 10: AC 40 earlier in this thread, done with 25k wealth spent on AC (50% of resources at 10, < 25% at 13.) This build actually includes AbChamp levels and does not factor in their bonus into the Shield spell, so the AC is really a little higher than 40. Also, I mistakenly wrote the +4 mithral breastplate as 8AC when it's really 5+4=9AC. So it's actually 41 AC + whatever you get from AbChamp depending on exactly how you build it.

EL 16: 260k wealth, only needs ~5 more AC, trivially easy as all you do is progress the +1 items in my EL 10 build. (Make ring of protection +3, amulet of natural armor +3. Also note that +5 AC comes from Ab Champ levels, which you will have finished.) New result: 50 AC. Difference in GP: 18k *2 - 4k = +32k GP; total 25+32 = 57k GP. 57/260 = 22% of your resources spent on AC.

EL 17: 340k wealth, needs 50AC. We already have 50AC at EL 16. 57/340=16.7% of wealth spent on it AC.

EL 20: I don't really believe a balor's most dangerous attack is physical, as any reasonable DM will probably swap a feat for Quickened SLA:Greater Dispel, and hit you with that + Implosion or something in the same round.

Still, AC 53 needed? We can do better. Progress the ring of protection and amulet to +5. Swap in Greater Mage Armor +11AC which is 2 better than your old armor, as you probably want to use your Armor +s for bonuses like Soulfire or Heavy Fort or something. That's 6 more AC for AC 56. 2*(50k-18k)=+64k, 57+64 = 121/760 = 16% of wealth spent on AC.

This is far from optimized for 20. You'll want to go through splatbooks to actually optimize it. For example, if you want to use Greater Luminous Armor from BoED it's AC13 and a -4 to attack you. This is effectively 6 AC better than using Greater Mage Armor, so you basically have an AC of 62.

To compare, a great red wyrm has a base attack of +40, so without the DM optimizing it a bit, it could only hit you on a critical. (Unlike the balor, it wants to attack you physically. It can't compete with your group for caster levels and you're probably all immune to fire.)

I'm sure this isn't optimized at all because I recall someone hitting 108+ AC at 20 (shapechange was involved.) But you get the idea. AC is there for the taking if you want to build for it.

Clustered Chaos

2012-04-26, 06:21 PM

You still haven't actually shown this build, but since you've only shown it can stand up to the melee attacks of things that have no business making melee attacks you have proved nothing.

Preparing for easy enemies just means normal and strong ones kill you.

Instead, prepare for the strong enemies (who hit every version of that build except the level 10 version on a 2 or very close to that, and if it's a caster it does have good defenses so why does it need AC).

This is why the AC is useless crowd is correct. Both because enemy to hits quickly outstrip it and because every single attempt to refute that results in arguing against only the weak enemies.

moritheil

2012-04-26, 06:28 PM

I did not. Someone chose level 13 because getting just enough for the iron golem was the easiest of the five easy examples that I also did not present.

OK, I did the other examples while you were posting. They're not much harder.

Here is my question to you: Does it do things besides avoid some, but not enough of attacks at level 10?

41AC is "not enough" of attacks avoided? At level 10? Really? Almost nothing can hit you except on a crit if you have 40AC at level 10, unless the DM is counter-optimizing, you're fighting monsters that attack touch AC, or you're fighting above your EL. I seriously doubt you can find anything out of the box that hits 41AC consistently at CR 10. It would have to have +31 attack bonuses to hit you half the time. By comparison, CR 10 red dragons have +16 attack bonuses. It would have to attack twice as well as a red dragon. I don't think WOTC had an interest in publishing anything that outshines dragons that much.

If the DM is countering you (either via cheesy wraithstriking trolls or throwing non-EL appropriate encounters) then you've lost the cause because you angered your DM. It's not worth discussing. If you're fighting ghosts, I assume that will be a rare occurrence, or else you haven't built for the campaign (obviously you'd build differently if you knew what you were getting into.)

Such as saves, damage, damage, damage, and did I mention damage? And saves.

Well, yeah. It uses 20 or so Strength (getting a +6 from Fist of Stone) and wraithstrike to attack monsters at 10, and can dump a substantial portion of its wealth into offense and saves (50% at 10 and going up to about 84% later on.)

If you want to build it Sorcadin, it'll have good saves without even trying.

moritheil

2012-04-26, 06:40 PM

You still haven't actually shown this build, but since you've only shown it can stand up to the melee attacks of things that have no business making melee attacks you have proved nothing.

It's earlier in the thread. You acted very familiar with charop; do you really need me to tell you that a Sorcadin is usually a Pal 2/Sorc 4/SS 1/AbChamp 5/Sacred Exorcist X, but can also be the same thing with something like LegacyChamp X at the end?

Preparing for easy enemies just means normal and strong ones kill you.

Even a red dragon can't hit this build . . . and they're supposed to be strong meleers. And I freely admit it's not even really optimized, in the sense that true optimization would involve an exhaustive search through splatbooks to improve bonuses and tweak the build to the highest numbers possible.

Instead, prepare for the strong enemies (who hit every version of that build except the level 10 version on a 2 or very close to that, and if it's a caster it does have good defenses so why does it need AC).

There's a lot of gold left at each of those levels to buy better defenses with if you desire it. Obviously if you're going to encounter stronger enemies, build stronger defenses - I've been responding to what's been posted in this thread. I can't reasonably be asked to respond to things that aren't posted, can I?

This is why the AC is useless crowd is correct. Both because enemy to hits quickly outstrip it and because every single attempt to refute that results in arguing against only the weak enemies.

Well, if you're going to fight things that hit twice as well as red dragons, yeah, AC might not be a good bet in your campaign. But at that point your DM is just being a jerk to people trying to build AC tanky, despite knowing the player is trying to go that route.

moritheil

2012-04-26, 06:43 PM

Since Clustered Chaos is either deliberately being difficult or unwilling to scroll up, I am quoting the relevant earlier post here.

Why does it have to do damage? Either the opponent is mindless enough to attack it (like the iron golem here) or else making sure that the tank is between the squishy casters and the enemy is a job for the party controllers.

Anyhow, you want 40AC at level 13? It's doable before level 10.

1: Be an outsider. This can be attained via Neraph, Otherworldly, Aasimar, or whatever floats your boat.
2: get Alter Self 4/day at caster level 5+ (whether by being a caster, or getting your DM to sell you an item, doesn't matter. Being a caster is better because you will have longer duration.)
3: Either you, or someone in your party, needs to have enough Knowledge (planes) to make a check that reveals the Dwarven Ancestor (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060704a&page=3), with 18 natural armor. You can take this form at level 5. You do lose 1 AC from being Large, but if you are the tank, being Large is a good thing. Do note that at 10 minutes/level, you can easily fight two combats off of a single Alter Self.
4: Assuming you are a gish build, you'll want to pick up Wraithstrike (2nd) to break through enemy AC and Fist of Stone (1st) to give yourself +6 to strength. Congratulations, you are now a passable melee threat, as you have 10' reach, attack touch AC when getting their attention, and easily get over 20 strength even with your MAD issues. Fights should be over by the time your Fist of Stone starts to wear off; plan on only using 1 per fight. Wraithstrikes are really the one thing you have to conserve the most.

Supposing you are level 10, you might plausibly have the following AC bonuses:
8 armor + 4 shield + 19 natural +1 deflection + 3 dex + 1 dodge + 5 combat expertise -1/size = AC 40.

You might want to get a lesser metamagic extend rod, an amulet of natural armor, and obviously you'll want the best armor you can buy that doesn't interfere with your buff casting - likely a mithral fullplate or enchanted mithral breastplate - but this is all doable well within budget. You have 49,000 gp; a +4 mithral breastplate is a little over 20k gp, amulet is 1k, ring of protection is 1k. Extend rod is 3k. I've used 25k out of 49k at level 10, that's half the budget on defenses for a character made to tank in 4+ encounters a day. Take the rest of the money and buy save gear and a nice weapon. If you're an Abjurant Champion your shield spell will be automatically extended and quickened, so all you need the extend rod for is the Alter Self.

All of this is off the top of my head. If you took this apart and spent a few hours examining resource allocation you could probably squeeze out another 5 AC, easily. 40 AC is really trivial to get if you permit optimization.

Fatebreaker

2012-04-26, 08:45 PM

Let's say you want a build to accomplish a particular goal.

If you asked this question a few years ago, you'd get several specific builds along with a description of what they do and how they help. If your goals were unreasonable, they'd tell you.

Ask the same question today, and you'll get copy pasting with no explanation or understanding (because they don't understand the build themselves) and if your goals are unreasonable, that doesn't matter. It's still an optimized build so it must help you right? There are multiple threads on the front page in which a DM or a player is complaining about skill focused Rogues being unable to accomplish anything, including skills. I'm willing to wager at least some of them got the idea from bad optimization advice.

I would argue that you will always find people who simply parrot back whatever they've heard. That mentality extends well beyond any single subset of a hobby community.

Regardless, I'm not trying to prove that everyone in a community becomes better. I'm simply saying that over the lifespan of an edition, the community as a whole learns more about a system. Combinations of rules are explored. New ideas are presented. Falsehoods within the system are discovered. The upper limits of optimization are pushed ever higher and higher.

When a system goes out of print, the players who stay within that system can only learn more and more about it, because no new sourcebooks expand the limits of knowledge. Likewise, the limited influx of new players stops sandbagging the average knowledge of the community.

I'm not saying that the average skill of the playerbase improves, that human knowledge changes substantially, or that human nature itself changes. I'm simply stating that, over time, a dead edition's playerbase as a whole can only become more and more familiar with that system. That has nothing to do with how well individuals communicate that knowledge or how well a subset of that community understands that knowledge.

Fatebreaker, you asked earlier in the thread what I meant when I said that advice quality has decreased over time. The people claiming AC is viable are a good example of what I meant. They barely hit the lowest benchmark, don't hit any of the meaningful benchmarks, and sacrifice everything else to do this. They then claim their end result is optimized when it's very clear what will happen is that they will just get ignored, and if they are attacked they'd die quickly anyways.

As I understand it, that build simply attempts to reach a target goal. It does so three levels early, and the poster even admits that the build is "off the top of their head."

To me, that build may or may not be effective in individual play, but it shows an awareness of potential resources and how to combine them to achieve a specified and desired end. In that regard, it's a good example of what I mean. "How can this be done? Oh, by using this, this, and that!"

"Be an Outsider" is probably my favorite.

TuggyNE

2012-04-27, 12:30 AM

I do agree that he hasn't optimized it

Just wanted to put in a note here -- I am not, in fact, very good at optimizing, and consider my ability to meet the target AC more indicative of "how a low-op player can actually manage decent AC on his own", rather than "five easy steps to unbeatable AC at level 2" :smallwink:. Next time I'll endeavor to remember that discretion is the better part of valor before trying to prove a point. :smallredface:

Honestly, though, I still believe that almost any amount of op expertise would be able to do more with less. The fact that I hit the target, despite my clumsiness? That says a lot right there, IMO, about the nature of AC.

sonofzeal

2012-04-27, 12:50 AM

Just wanted to put in a note here -- I am not, in fact, very good at optimizing, and consider my ability to meet the target AC more indicative of "how a low-op player can actually manage decent AC on his own", rather than "five easy steps to unbeatable AC at level 2" :smallwink:. Next time I'll endeavor to remember that discretion is the better part of valor before trying to prove a point. :smallredface:

Honestly, though, I still believe that almost any amount of op expertise would be able to do more with less. The fact that I hit the target, despite my clumsiness? That says a lot right there, IMO, about the nature of AC.
Indeed. Anyone who's cared to set numbers down has demonstrated AC roughly keeping pace with monster attack rolls. All I've seen against that is vague denials. Unless someone is going to come in and provide solid examples and numbers for the "AC-is-worthless" side, I'm going to consider the matter settled.

Clustered Chaos

2012-04-27, 07:21 AM

41AC is "not enough" of attacks avoided? At level 10? Really? Almost nothing can hit you except on a crit if you have 40AC at level 10, unless the DM is counter-optimizing, you're fighting monsters that attack touch AC, or you're fighting above your EL. I seriously doubt you can find anything out of the box that hits 41AC consistently at CR 10. It would have to have +31 attack bonuses to hit you half the time. By comparison, CR 10 red dragons have +16 attack bonuses. It would have to attack twice as well as a red dragon. I don't think WOTC had an interest in publishing anything that outshines dragons that much.

Half is not enough yes. Since we've already established the build has arcane casting, Displacement is just as good (and works even better vs anything higher level) and that's before accounting for normal and Greater Mirror Images, normal or Greater Blink...

Level 10 Fighters have +16 to hit... except they don't, because they have more than BAB and Str increasing their attack accuracy. Dragons have even more things than that.

What's more... I was going to say you deliberately selected the dragon with the lowest attack bonus to make your point even less accurate than it already was. Upon checking, I see you actually did worse and lied about its stats outright.

Age Size Hit Dice (hp) Str Dex Con Int Wis Cha Base Attack/
Grapple Attack Fort
Save Ref
Save Will
Save Breath
Weapon (DC) Frightful
Presence DC
Juvenile L 16d12+64 (168) 29 10 19 14 15 14 +16/+29 +24 +14 +10 +12 8d10 (22) —

Even the BAB and Str only nerfed dragon is much better than you claim.

If the DM is countering you (either via cheesy wraithstriking trolls or throwing non-EL appropriate encounters) then you've lost the cause because you angered your DM. It's not worth discussing. If you're fighting ghosts, I assume that will be a rare occurrence, or else you haven't built for the campaign (obviously you'd build differently if you knew what you were getting into.)

It doesn't take Wraithstrike to make AC useless, and while you should expect to regularly encounter higher level creatures it doesn't take those to make AC useless either. Likewise, I assumed melee enemies, which means not ghosts as they have TK at will and are not melee.

Well, yeah. It uses 20 or so Strength (getting a +6 from Fist of Stone) and wraithstrike to attack monsters at 10, and can dump a substantial portion of its wealth into offense and saves (50% at 10 and going up to about 84% later on.)

If you want to build it Sorcadin, it'll have good saves without even trying.

How much combat buffing time are we talking here? I don't recall Fist of Stone having a very long duration.

And just how is it you shift from complaining about Wraithstrike being unfair to using it yourself?

It's earlier in the thread. You acted very familiar with charop; do you really need me to tell you that a Sorcadin is usually a Pal 2/Sorc 4/SS 1/AbChamp 5/Sacred Exorcist X, but can also be the same thing with something like LegacyChamp X at the end?

This is the first time I have seen you mention your build. Before this it was just some low Str 0 damage character who thinks running around on the ground helps him.

Even a red dragon can't hit this build . . . and they're supposed to be strong meleers. And I freely admit it's not even really optimized, in the sense that true optimization would involve an exhaustive search through splatbooks to improve bonuses and tweak the build to the highest numbers possible.

Well yes, if you assume they don't get any bonuses to hit at all aside from their BAB, not even their Str they will look rather weak. By all means, prepare to fight dragons under the assumption they don't have most of their bonuses in effect. The dragons will appreciate it.

Well, if you're going to fight things that hit twice as well as red dragons, yeah, AC might not be a good bet in your campaign. But at that point your DM is just being a jerk to people trying to build AC tanky, despite knowing the player is trying to go that route.

If by twice as well, you mean only a few points better than BAB and Str alone dragons you are correct. 31 to hit at level 10 is about normal, that's what you need to build towards to handle even ordinary campaigns.

Of course what will happen instead is you'll find or make more nerfed enemies, come short of hitting the benchmarks on those enemies, and then declare victory anyways.

Which brings us back to where I said "Fatebreaker, this is what I'm talking about".

However I now understand the problem. I saw you talking about such things as "the character would move in the way to intercept attacks" and "squishy casters", I assumed you had no idea what you were talking about as neither of those things are true at all, and I moved on.

I would argue that you will always find people who simply parrot back whatever they've heard. That mentality extends well beyond any single subset of a hobby community.

Regardless, I'm not trying to prove that everyone in a community becomes better. I'm simply saying that over the lifespan of an edition, the community as a whole learns more about a system. Combinations of rules are explored. New ideas are presented. Falsehoods within the system are discovered. The upper limits of optimization are pushed ever higher and higher.

What I am saying is that skill goes down as well as up. If the good people leave, it will go down faster than it goes up. You can see that in effect in this very thread. No good optimizer would make the BAB and Str only argument, and they especially would not follow up by picking a number a full third lower than even that. No one who has played the game, even a little would think enemy attack bonuses are that low as even casual but direct experience with the rules would be enough to say that that doesn't sound right.

I'm not saying that the average skill of the playerbase improves, that human knowledge changes substantially, or that human nature itself changes. I'm simply stating that, over time, a dead edition's playerbase as a whole can only become more and more familiar with that system. That has nothing to do with how well individuals communicate that knowledge or how well a subset of that community understands that knowledge.

Assuming that they are both willing to learn and are learning the right things.

As I understand it, that build simply attempts to reach a target goal. It does so three levels early, and the poster even admits that the build is "off the top of their head."

To me, that build may or may not be effective in individual play, but it shows an awareness of potential resources and how to combine them to achieve a specified and desired end. In that regard, it's a good example of what I mean. "How can this be done? Oh, by using this, this, and that!"

"Be an Outsider" is probably my favorite.

The target goal itself is misleading (by only preparing for the weakest of weak melee, you get killed by everything else), the execution is an obvious copy paste, and then it is backed up with claims such as CR 10 red dragons have only +16 to hit.

In a true optimization project, the creator would determine the actual benchmarks they need to hit (hint: they're much higher, even in normal games) then aim 16 over that, then assess if it's worth it for a cost benefit analysis, especially since you're already an arcane caster and therefore already have access to reliable defenses against attacks.

I didn't bother going into all of this because even a casual glance reveals either you're not getting AC 55 at level 13, or doing so costs far too much in the way of resources, and there's much better and more efficient means of protecting yourself that still work reliably against higher level enemies or in harder than standard games.

This is the part where someone makes a character with AC 55, but that has no damage output and tries to claim victory when they did not actually hit the goal. Alternately, they don't have AC 55, but attempt to justify why an insufficient number will help.

Sure there aren't very many new players about, but the ones that are about need to know how things really work. They cannot do that if false information is being presented as if it were true.

Edit: Oh, and the Sorcadin's combat strategy is illegal. The rules don't actually work that way, and that means the actual AC is 35... too low by even the too low standards.

sonofzeal

2012-04-27, 08:32 AM

{snip}
What, exactly, do you consider a viable AC? And where are you getting those numbers from?

Clustered Chaos

2012-04-27, 08:36 AM

Level * 3 + 16 is the minimum acceptable value in a normal game. Harder games raise the target numbers significantly. I get these numbers from the game itself.

Since you won't get anywhere close to that in a normal game "AC is useless" is an acceptable shortening of the message.

sonofzeal

2012-04-27, 08:53 AM

I get these numbers from the game itself.
And I'm asking, where in the game do you get those numbers from? I don't know how many CR 10 monsters you know with an attack bonus of +30 (the minimum to even remotely threaten the AC you list), but it's apparently a hell of a lot more than I've ever seen.

sonofzeal

2012-04-27, 09:13 AM

Level * 3 + 16, at level 10, gives 46.

Running down the d20 Monster Finder and disregarding all obviously non-melee entries....

Animated Object, Colossal (AB +25; needs AC 41 for a 75% miss rate)
Demon, Bebilith (AB +19; needs AC 35 for a 75% miss rate)
Formian Myrmarch (AB +15; needs AC 31 for a 75% miss rate)
Giant, Fire (AB +20; needs AC 36 for a 75% miss rate)
Golem, Clay (AB +14; needs AC 30 for a 75% miss rate)
Hydra, Eleven-Headed (AB +16; needs AC 32 for a 75% miss rate)
Monstrous Scorpion, Gargantuan (AB +21; needs AC 37 for a 75% miss rate)
Salamander, Noble (AB +23; needs AC 39 for a 75% miss rate)

Average: 35 AC for a 75% miss rate.

Eyeballing, 35 looks about right. It's wasteful against a few, but provides great defence against most. And remember, these are usually the worst case scenarios for attacks against AC short of boss fights. It's been my experience that most fights usually include two or more opponents, of correspondingly lower individual CR, meaning 35 might actually be excessive and a waste of resources on the high side most of the time. Unless you plan on fighting a heck of a lot of Colossal Animated Objects or Salamander Nobles, you can probably get away with anything in the high 20's to low 30's.

Clustered Chaos

2012-04-27, 09:28 AM

And I'm asking, where in the game do you get those numbers from? I don't know how many CR 10 monsters you know with an attack bonus of +30 (the minimum to even remotely threaten the AC you list), but it's apparently a hell of a lot more than I've ever seen.

+30 to hit is rather normal. You can reach those numbers by just having enemies use their resources (items/feats/spells), or you can reach those numbers via creature enhancement rules (which consistently give +3 to hit per level for nearly every creature type in the game).

Whatever the method, it's safe to assume melee enemies will have those numbers, as they can easily get those numbers. Balancing around weak melee or caster enemies that melee just means the actual melee enemies kill you.

When your entire goal is to have a high AC, being killed by the very things you are supposed to be good against is counterproductive.

This is also just normal games. Optimized enemies will have much higher.

sonofzeal

2012-04-27, 09:34 AM

+30 to hit is rather normal. You can reach those numbers by just having enemies use their resources (items/feats/spells), or you can reach those numbers via creature enhancement rules (which consistently give +3 to hit per level for nearly every creature type in the game).

Whatever the method, it's safe to assume melee enemies will have those numbers, as they can easily get those numbers. Balancing around weak melee or caster enemies that melee just means the actual melee enemies kill you.

When your entire goal is to have a high AC, being killed by the very things you are supposed to be good against is counterproductive.

This is also just normal games. Optimized enemies will have much higher.
Again you keep repeating claims without providing any justification. Show me these monsters with +30 to hit at lvl 10.

"Normal games" are generally in the habit of using monster statblocks from the various Monster Manuals. That's kind of what they're there for. And I just went through a pile of monster statblocks at lvl10, and found that the average attack bonus is +19.

Justify your claim.

Amphetryon

2012-04-27, 09:42 AM

+30 to hit is rather normal. You can reach those numbers by just having enemies use their resources (items/feats/spells), or you can reach those numbers via creature enhancement rules (which consistently give +3 to hit per level for nearly every creature type in the game).

Whatever the method, it's safe to assume melee enemies will have those numbers, as they can easily get those numbers. Balancing around weak melee or caster enemies that melee just means the actual melee enemies kill you.

When your entire goal is to have a high AC, being killed by the very things you are supposed to be good against is counterproductive.

This is also just normal games. Optimized enemies will have much higher.
What's normal in your games - or even among those posters whom you respect - is not necessarily a good indicator of what's normal for the community as a whole, let alone those who play but don't post on the forums you personally read. A statistical baseline from the actual, unmodified, monsters and listed NPCs in various published sourcebooks to justify claims of "normal" would seem to be in order.

Clustered Chaos

2012-04-27, 09:54 AM

What's normal in your games - or even among those posters whom you respect - is not necessarily a good indicator of what's normal for the community as a whole, let alone those who play but don't post on the forums you personally read. A statistical baseline from the actual, unmodified, monsters and listed NPCs in various published sourcebooks to justify claims of "normal" would seem to be in order.

In my games level 10 melee enemies have about... let me think... +40? +45 in some cases. There's also various 7-9 enemies that hover within a few points of 30, typically over 30. That's why I said optimized enemies have higher. They do. In normal games though, meaning enemies are not optimized +30 is about normal.

Reading statblocks without context gets you BAB and Str only dragons. No one takes those seriously. It also gets you things such as using "averages" that are dragged down by things that will never actually use those attack forms and that are far lower than the numbers those creatures will actually have as they are not using their resources.

It also gets you builds that are "optimized" for AC that straight up die to the very attack forms they are meant to handle. This helps no one, and indeed does the opposite of help.

This is an extremely common thing. The AC is useful crowd picks the weakest enemies they can find, claims the benchmark is even lower, hits the straw man and calls it a victory.

All experienced players know AC is useless from both theoretical and practical experience but a new player will not have that and will be misled.

Edit: Let's see... there's a 9 with 33-40 depending on what its fighting, a 7 with 26, another 7 with 23, and an 8 with 32. Those are optimized enemies but normal ones aren't as far below those numbers as you might think.

LordBlades

2012-04-27, 10:09 AM

In my games level 10 melee enemies have about... let me think... +40? +45 in some cases. There's also various 7-9 enemies that hover within a few points of 30, typically over 30. That's why I said optimized enemies have higher. They do. In normal games though, meaning enemies are not optimized +30 is about normal.

Reading statblocks without context gets you BAB and Str only dragons. No one takes those seriously. It also gets you things such as using "averages" that are dragged down by things that will never actually use those attack forms and that are far lower than the numbers those creatures will actually have as they are not using their resources.

It also gets you builds that are "optimized" for AC that straight up die to the very attack forms they are meant to handle. This helps no one, and indeed does the opposite of help.

This is an extremely common thing. The AC is useful crowd picks the weakest enemies they can find, claims the benchmark is even lower, hits the straw man and calls it a victory.

All experienced players know AC is useless from both theoretical and practical experience but a new player will not have that and will be misled.

Edit: Let's see... there's a 9 with 33-40 depending on what its fighting, a 7 with 26, another 7 with 23, and an 8 with 32. Those are optimized enemies but normal ones aren't as far below those numbers as you might think.

I've often played in games like the ones you describe, where stock monsters would simply be a pushover (even at EL+6-8) and the DM had to optimize monsters to match the players, but that's not an average game

Most DMs use monsters as written in the book without ever bothering to optimize feat selection and/or think up clever tactics for them. You'd be surprised how many DMs I've seen using purely melee dragons with stuff like Weapon Focus, and completely neglecting spells (because what can 1st or 2nd level spells do at level 10-12) or breath weapons.

sonofzeal

2012-04-27, 10:31 AM

In my games level 10 melee enemies have about... let me think... +40? +45 in some cases. There's also various 7-9 enemies that hover within a few points of 30, typically over 30. That's why I said optimized enemies have higher. They do. In normal games though, meaning enemies are not optimized +30 is about normal.
No. "Normal" games use MM stats, or their rough equivalent. Your personal experience does not invalidate that. It just so happens that your group assumes a far higher level of optimization, and the DM seems to have gone out of their way to make AC completely worthless.

Reading statblocks without context gets you BAB and Str only dragons. No one takes those seriously. It also gets you things such as using "averages" that are dragged down by things that will never actually use those attack forms and that are far lower than the numbers those creatures will actually have as they are not using their resources.
The lowest thing on that list is a Stone Golem. Please tell me what attack form you expect a Stone Golem to be using.

This is an extremely common thing. The AC is useful crowd picks the weakest enemies they can find, claims the benchmark is even lower, hits the straw man and calls it a victory.
You, sir, are calling me a liar and a cheat, and I do not appreciate it. If you object to my analysis and think I chose biased examples, then check for yourself. Here's the list (http://www.d20srd.org/extras/d20monsterfilter/index.php). I omitted Couatl, Rakshasa, Cryo/Pyrohydras, and Guardian Nagas. And dragons, because {a} they don't have proper statblocks, and {b} they're widely known to be unrepresentative of their CR anyway.

All experienced players know AC is useless from both theoretical and practical experience but a new player will not have that and will be misled.
Again, you're calling me a liar. I've been playing for over a decade, I've DMed six different campaigns that I can think of, and I've had at least 20 different DMs myself. And absolutely none of those games has borne out your claim.

My practical experience tells me AC is worthwhile.

I've crunched the numbers above, which is as close to pure theory as we're likely to see, and it tells me AC is worthwhile.

All you've done is handwave. You say "+45 in some cases" - from what monster? "There's a 9 with 33-40 depending on what its fighting" - how did it get that? These numbers are meaningless by themselves. I've cited my sources from the beginning. You haven't, and consistently refuse to do so despite repeated requests.

To be frank, I've lost faith that you're arguing in good conscience. Until you back up your claims with more than handwaves, I see no reason to continue this conversation.

Clustered Chaos

2012-04-27, 10:52 AM

I've often played in games like the ones you describe, where stock monsters would simply be a pushover (even at EL+6-8) and the DM had to optimize monsters to match the players, but that's not an average game

Most DMs use monsters as written in the book without ever bothering to optimize feat selection and/or think up clever tactics for them. You'd be surprised how many DMs I've seen using purely melee dragons with stuff like Weapon Focus, and completely neglecting spells (because what can 1st or 2nd level spells do at level 10-12) or breath weapons.

Not the point. The point is that I mention optimized games only to differentiate them from the standard.

While I can understand not spending a long time planning out every single encounter I have to seriously question the same lack of planning on a dragon encounter, or any significant encounter with any creature type.

{{Scrubbed}}

No. "Normal" games use MM stats, or their rough equivalent. Your personal experience does not invalidate that. It just so happens that your group assumes a far higher level of optimization, and the DM seems to have gone out of their way to make AC completely worthless.

Which includes items, feats, and in many cases spells. Account for those and you get the numbers I describe. In my games creatures get optimized beyond that point, but that is immaterial other than a point of differentiation. Incidentally, in normal games AC ends up being useless vs MORE things than it does in my games. Yes, significant opponents hit on a 2. What else is new? In my games, other enemies miss frequently. In typical games, they still hit frequently. This is also pointless other than as a point of differentiation.

The lowest thing on that list is a Stone Golem. Please tell me what attack form you expect a Stone Golem to be using.

You've proven golems are weak. I thought we established that when I classified the Iron Golem in the weak melee pile.

You, sir, are calling me a liar and a cheat, and I do not appreciate it. If you object to my analysis and think I chose biased examples, then check for yourself. Here's the list (http://www.d20srd.org/extras/d20monsterfilter/index.php). I omitted Couatl, Rakshasa, Cryo/Pyrohydras, and Guardian Nagas. And dragons, because {a} they don't have proper statblocks, and {b} they're widely known to be unrepresentative of their CR anyway.

I was being comprehensive and hitting the standard problems and predictable responses. That was also a general remark and wasn't aimed at any specific individual among you.

Again, you're calling me a liar. I've been playing for over a decade, I've DMed six different campaigns that I can think of, and I've had at least 20 different DMs myself. And absolutely none of those games has borne out your claim.

That was also a general remark, not aimed at a specific person. That said, if you've played that long and haven't noticed this I can only conclude you haven't been very attentive. I've seen people 'get it' in a week or two. I've also sadly seen people go years and not 'get it'.

All you've done is handwave. You say "+45 in some cases" - from what monster? "There's a 9 with 33-40 depending on what its fighting" - how did it get that? These numbers are meaningless by themselves. I've cited my sources from the beginning. You haven't, and consistently refuse to do so despite repeated requests.

To be frank, I've lost faith that you're arguing in good conscience. Until you back up your claims with more than handwaves, I see no reason to continue this conversation.

I don't remember the exact breakdown on the 45. I know it involved much the same as the other things: stacked buffs, synergy, etc. Standard encounter design practices, taken to 11 as it is an optimized game. You'll forgive me if I am unwilling to post statblocks on a forum my players might frequent.

If you'd rather stop talking about it that is quite fine with me. I don't have any interest in hearing about "optimized" builds that are anything other than optimized.

GoodbyeSoberDay

2012-04-27, 01:13 PM

I agree that Golems generally don't have the strongest attacks, but a Fire Giant shouldn't be too bad at hitting things, right? That, and throw rocks poorly, is all it can do, and he has a +20 and +10 to hit, respectively. That +20 was the highest raw to-hit in sonofzeal's list. 46 AC seems like overkill. I knew Giants were easy to beat if you did anything but walk up to them and attack, but you're saying they're easy to beat even when you use the Giant's preferred strategy?

Now, I think I 'get it,' even if that's a condescending way to put it. You're basically saying that if you swap out some of the Fire Giant's crappy feats for better feats, and if his treasure is gear that he can use, then his attack bonus goes up. I'll give you that. Even lowly Weapon Focus would see more use in a fight than some of his feats. But you're expecting DMs to essentially equip and re-stat every monster they want to use, by default? Really? I thought the point of buying the book was so that you didn't need to stat out your own monsters.

I understand using this method for bosses. FWIW, the designers somewhat understood this as well when they only gave us the means to build our own dragons. Since boss fights are the most important fights, perhaps the boss fight should be the benchmark for AC, but that's another point to argue. While I applaud you for re-statting every monster you send at your party, I doubt most DMs want to put in that work when they could just send a bigger unoptimized baddie. Against a "standard" encounter, sonofzeal's 35 seems fine.

Clustered Chaos

2012-04-27, 02:14 PM

Ceaon

2012-04-27, 02:23 PM

You are saying that 1) AC is useless, 2) you optimize the attack bonus of your monsters in your campaign and 3) some people don't 'get' that AC is useless.

I think you don't 'get' that AC is only useless if the DM lets it be useless. A DM can and should make sure that if a player invests resources in a valid aspect of the game, that he feels a benefit for doing so, instead of punishing them because they don't 'get' it.

Your games are not the be all end all way to play the game.

That being said, can we please get back on topic?
In my opinion, it is only to be expected that TO becomes more common the older a system is, and that as TO becomes more known, more people will talk about it and mention it. This is true for most things in life. And it is also true for Practical Optimization: the practical advice we give players these days is better, more specific and clearer than when 3.x was new and fresh.

Clustered Chaos

2012-04-27, 03:25 PM

You are saying that 1) AC is useless, 2) you optimize the attack bonus of your monsters in your campaign and 3) some people don't 'get' that AC is useless.

Nope.

I'm saying:

1: AC is useless in all games.
2: Some people don't 'get' that AC is useless.
3: (in response to people claiming this is just my games or just in optimized games or some other such nonsense) No, here's an optimized game. See how different it is? Compare and contrast the two. My stance of "In normal games you need these very high numbers, in optimized games you need these even higher numbers." is entirely consistent.

I think you don't 'get' that AC is only useless if the DM lets it be useless. A DM can and should make sure that if a player invests resources in a valid aspect of the game, that he feels a benefit for doing so, instead of punishing them because they don't 'get' it.

I don't think you get that if the DM has to massively nerf all enemies to make something useful, that something is not useful. If he just plays the game, AC will be useless. If, as the AC is useful crowd claim the typical DM is so lazy that they aren't willing to spend a minute or two mixing things up to make things more interesting what makes you think they're going to go out of their way to beat enemies with a nerfbat (as even the default nerfed enemies make AC pointless) so that some guy who thinks AC is useful won't have a rude awakening?

Also, if AC were a valid aspect of the game it wouldn't be casually outstripped by attack bonuses.

Your way lies confused and frustrated DMs posting about their problems with a particular player who keeps claiming it's the DM's fault that his AC build or Rogue or whatever the ineffective thing is is ineffective. My way lies happy DMs and players who understand the game they are playing.

Your games are not the be all end all way to play the game.

Your dismissal is noted and dismissed.

That being said, can we please get back on topic?
In my opinion, it is only to be expected that TO becomes more common the older a system is, and that as TO becomes more known, more people will talk about it and mention it. This is true for most things in life. And it is also true for Practical Optimization: the practical advice we give players these days is better, more specific and clearer than when 3.x was new and fresh.

You mean like telling people a low number of AC is good enough, so if they try it they get killed by the very attack forms they are supposed to be strong against and end up confused and frustrated? Because the quality of advice has, on average gotten much worse over time.

GoodbyeSoberDay

2012-04-27, 03:55 PM

They shouldn't be. If you assume that it isn't using its items and such it is. If you do assume its using its items and such... It's still on the weak side (it will only get about +25 to hit) but it's a humanoid creature using manufactured weapons. Of course the monsters with natural weapons do better and are the only good melees. That's just a fact of life in D&D.I chose the fire giant because it had the highest raw attack bonus on zeal's list. That is to say, the natural attackers' raw numbers were worse.
Fire Giants will smack weak characters down six feet under but they have no business killing any good ones. In terms of items and feats... item selection doesn't take long because it doesn't have that much wealth. It can however follow the standard NPC procedure of using short term buffs to effectively replicate long term effectiveness as they won't survive long term.So you're saying that the standard intelligent monster should spend a good chunk of its wealth on consumable pre-buff items? That seems to me like it would adjust the CR.
As for changing feats, that's even faster. Most do it anyways, for specific purposes rather than for general numerical considerations.You have to know what you're doing for it to be at all fast, and no matter what it's going to be much slower than spending 1 second bringing up the d20SRD entry.
Show me a PC that has stats half as bad as the stock enemies and I'll show you a PC that loses automatically to those same enemies.If the enemies are truly stock enemies, unchanged from the MM's text for the encounter, and an individual PC has stats that approximate said enemy, he'll have about a 50% chance of winning one on one, forgetting the existence of a party.
Boss fights are among other things higher level than the party. If we assume them as the benchmark, AC only becomes more useless as the target numbers all increase by 9-12 on the spot. Which is the same, or in some cases larger than the differential between normal and optimized enemies (which people complained about and missed the point about).Let me restate what I said: If you were to actually argue, with reason and evidence instead of fiat, that the benchmark should be boss fights, then yes, you'll need a much higher AC to be competitive, because the boss is higher level and more carefully statted out. You still have to, y'know, support that point for it to work.
Conversely, the other defenses become more useful, because they still work.Or they don't, because the boss divined the parties' capabilities IC, or just knows that illusions are common defenses, and either way has True Seeing up.
Feat and item reshuffling takes the same, or less time than randomly generating vendor bait,IME item reshuffling takes more time than random vendor bait generation, and then you add on feat reshuffling.
and is more likely to give the party things they want and need,Unless it's a Fire Giant with a large-sized +1 Collision Greatsword, and no one's large...
and even if you assume all enemies are heavily nerfed AC still comes out terrible, protecting you from less than half of attacks by melee enemies (assuming AC 35 at 10) as opposed to providing the same or less protection as a Blur spell (which also costs less, in continual item form).By heavily nerfed, I suppose you mean "not modified from the original stat block." If so, 35 AC will protect you over half the time most of the time. Also, while AC and miss chance both take up funds, they're not mutually exclusive. You can have Blur and +AC on at the same time, and considering multiple miss chance sources don't stack it's not very feasible to break the bank on just miss chance anyway.
That reshuffling takes less time regardless of whether we are discussing a normal game or my own, admittedly much more difficult games. I devote more time to the significant fights, and you should as well, but my games are only important for contrast.I do spend more time on major fights. As in, I don't spend a bunch of time re-writing monster entries to be more optimal unless it's a major fight.
Against a standard encounter, taking the advice of the AC is useful crowd is a great way to get yourself killed by attacks that target AC.Only if the DM is within your narrow definition of standard. I will fully admit that there exist games where monsters are tweaked and optimized to compete with the party. I've played in them, and they were fun. But said games tend to have enemies with True Seeing and Pierce Magical Concealment anyway, and more importantly there also exist many games where monster optimization doesn't occur.

Emperor Tippy

2012-04-27, 04:07 PM

So long as you can get AC to within 20 points of the average attack bonus that you will face, it's relevant. If you can't do that with the percentage of your resources that you are willing to devote to it then you are better off just ignoring it entirely, if you can reach that point with a smaller percentage of your resources than you allocated then everything over that point is a waste and should be devoted to other things.

Whatever you do, you should pick up miss chance in one way or another; the higher the better. Any miss chance is another roll that can go in your favor, 20% miss chance is one in five attacks that would otherwise hit being misses; and 20% miss chance can be had for a mere 24,000 GP. It will also always be a better choice than 25,000 GP worth of AC increases; at best a point more of AC is an addition 5% chance of a miss, so unless you are pulling at least +1 AC for 6K (which you aren't doing) the better investment is obvious.

Clustered Chaos

2012-04-27, 04:28 PM

I chose the fire giant because it had the highest raw attack bonus on zeal's list. That is to say, the natural attackers' raw numbers were worse.

If that rates as the highest his list is even less accurate than I assumed.

So you're saying that the standard intelligent monster should spend a good chunk of its wealth on consumable pre-buff items? That seems to me like it would adjust the CR.

Not really. It clearly has the money. It clearly cannot afford permanent items. If you did give them all permanent items the party would get too much wealth. It still needs time to use those items, time that it will likely only get if the party does something stupid.

You have to know what you're doing for it to be at all fast, and no matter what it's going to be much slower than spending 1 second bringing up the d20SRD entry.

If you don't know what you're doing it will take even more time to read over the statblock you are currently viewing so you can understand it.

If the enemies are truly stock enemies, unchanged from the MM's text for the encounter, and an individual PC has stats that approximate said enemy, he'll have about a 50% chance of winning one on one, forgetting the existence of a party.

Problem: Weak characters are outclassed by at level enemies. Such as those who think AC is useful.

Let me restate what I said: If you were to actually argue, with reason and evidence instead of fiat, that the benchmark should be boss fights, then yes, you'll need a much higher AC to be competitive, because the boss is higher level and more carefully statted out. You still have to, y'know, support that point for it to work.

There is no need, as even the normal at level stuff tells you "Don't bother", so when you hit the bosses that sac half or more of their BAB and still hit on a 2 at most they're just rubbing it in. Those are the fights that truly matter, but AC stopped helping long before that.

Or they don't, because the boss divined the parties' capabilities IC, or just knows that illusions are common defenses, and either way has True Seeing up.

True Seeing actually isn't that common due to its short duration and mainly being limited to gishes, not normal melee enemies. Most of the monsters that have it are casters and won't be making melee attacks at all.

But if that does happen, you just accept you have no defenses whatsoever, cannot get any defenses whatsoever, and play rocket tag. First to act wins.

IME item reshuffling takes more time than random vendor bait generation, and then you add on feat reshuffling.

Random items require cross referencing several tables and going back and forth... Selected items are "It has this much money, let's start with basic numbers stuff then specialty items then if there's anything left (there usually isn't) think about it). And generally you write down a few potions and a basic item or two and then run out of money.

By heavily nerfed, I suppose you mean "not modified from the original stat block." If so, 35 AC will protect you over half the time most of the time.

Yes, because those creatures get more than the things that are preselected for them. Even without that, 35 is weak protection (you'll actually get in the 20s, which is hit on a 2 level).

Also, while AC and miss chance both take up funds, they're not mutually exclusive. You can have Blur and +AC on at the same time, and considering multiple miss chance sources don't stack it's not very feasible to break the bank on just miss chance anyway.

AC suffers from diminishing returns. Each point costs more than the one before it. Miss chances give you a solid defense that few things stop. If you split resources you just end up bad at both.

I do spend more time on major fights. As in, I don't spend a bunch of time re-writing monster entries to be more optimal unless it's a major fight.

Neither do I. Random enemies never take over 5 minutes. Random monster enemies don't take over half that amount.

Only if the DM is within your narrow definition of standard. I will fully admit that there exist games where monsters are tweaked and optimized to compete with the party. I've played in them, and they were fun. But said games tend to have enemies with True Seeing and Pierce Magical Concealment anyway, and more importantly there also exist many games where monster optimization doesn't occur.

My definition of standard is fairly broad. All it assumes is enemies using their natural resources.

As for optimized games, those are irrelevant except for contrast. And as for Pierce Magical Concealment (and similar)... that's one of the things you can do, but shouldn't. When you introduce that feat you are saying "No one will ever have any defenses, everyone will be forced to play rocket tag and win init or die in every fight." That isn't very desirable. Unlike True Seeing it is fairly easy to access, but since it makes all defenses irrelevant and makes everyone die in one round you shouldn't allow it.

HeadlessMermaid

2012-04-27, 05:19 PM

So long as you can get AC to within 20 points of the average attack bonus that you will face, it's relevant.
1) As far as the rationale goes, this is the single most useful thing I've heard ever since the AC debate came up. Why? Because it includes a clause. (At last!)

AC is neither worthless nor awesome by default: it depends on the average attack roll of your foes, which depends on the encounter, which depends on the DM. Some people follow CR as written, some people use higher or lower ECLs than CR would suggest for a traditional 4-member party, some people tweak monsters a lot (feats, equipment etc), some tweak them a bit, some not at all, some boost critters and some nerf them, some use their own homebrew and get done with it. And many DMs might do any of the above, depending on the party and the situation.

2) As far as the number 20 is concerned, though, I'm not sure where that comes from. Do you mean that a useful goal is having such an AC that, with an average attack bonus, only a nat 20 will hit you? Is [attack roll+20] the minimum AC then, otherwise let's not bother?

If so, I believe that's too high. It equals a 95% chance to avoid getting hit on average. One might as well go for a humbler 70% via AC, and then add a nice miss chance for a similar end result.

Or did you simply mean that an AC range between 0 and 20 from the average AC roll is relevant, with less making AC completely worthless while more makes it an overkill and wasted resources? That's, well... I'd say obvious, but actually no one has pointed it out yet. :smalltongue: (I think. I may have missed it.)

Clustered Chaos

2012-04-27, 05:33 PM

What Tippy isn't saying is that doing that is easier said than done, especially getting far in the range. Sure, making enemies hit on a 3 makes a difference, but enough of a difference to justify the massive resource expenditure vs being hit on a 2? Not really.

The target number ends up being make enemies miss 75% of the time. Less and you're better off with miss chances. More is better, but even harder to manage due to diminishing returns and more importantly... if you're not a threat you don't get attacked. Most of the high AC builds have no offensive output. There's no reason to ever hit them until everyone else is dead. (the few that don't are gishes, and have better options)

The 75% miss only works against at level enemies though. Bosses will be hitting it 70-85% of the time (miss chances are much more reliable) so only doing it vs at level enemies is the absolute minimum benchmark, which still proves near unattainable to everyone and can fairly be considered unattainable for the most part.

This is also assuming no buffs of any kind beyond the norm and no sort of debuffs.

Hit the benchmark, then get tripped and you're being hit 80% more often. Just to name one example.

Emperor Tippy

2012-04-27, 05:38 PM

2) As far as the number 20 is concerned, though, I'm not sure where that comes from. Do you mean that a useful goal is having such an AC that, with an average attack bonus, only a nat 20 will hit you? Is [attack roll+20] the minimum AC then, otherwise let's not bother?

If so, I believe that's too high. It equals a 95% chance to avoid getting hit on average. One might as well go for a humbler 70% via AC, and then add a nice miss chance for a similar end result.

Or did you simply mean that an AC range between 0 and 20 from the average AC roll is relevant, with less making AC completely worthless while more makes it an overkill and wasted resources? That's, well... I'd say obvious, but actually no one has pointed it out yet. :smalltongue: (I think. I may have missed it.)

There is no functional difference between your AC being 20 points higher than your enemies attack bonus and it being 20 million points higher, they will still hit 1 time in 20 (when they roll a natural 20). Similarly, there is no function difference between your enemies attack bonus being 20 or 20 million points higher than your AC, they will still only hit on a natural 1.

So if the amount of resources you are willing to devote to AC is not enough to ensure that even on a natural 2 your enemy misses (average AB being 19 or more points higher than your AC) then you should not devote any resources to improving your AC.

By the same token, if you have devoted enough resources to your AC to ensure that the only time you are hit is when your enemies roll a natural 20, then anything beyond that point is wasted.

There is no benefit in having an AC more than 20 points higher than your opponents AB.

---
Let's go with three examples, in all 3 cases the enemies attack bonus is +20.

Character 1 devotes 20% of his resources to AC and get's an AC of 30. His enemy will hit him on an attack roll of 10 or better (50% of the time), every point of additional AC he gets up until his AC is 40 is an additional 5% of the enemies attacks missing.

Character 2 devotes 50% of his resources to AC and gets an AC of 70. His enemy will hit him only on a natural 20 (5% of the time). He could loose 30 points of AC and this would still be the case, the resources devoted to getting those 30 points were entirely wasted.

Character 3 devotes 10% of his resources to AC and get's an AC of 20. His enemy will hit him on an attack roll of 2 or better (95% of the time). He could loose all 20 points of AC and this would still be the case, the resources devoted to getting those 20 points of AC were entirely wasted.

Flickerdart

2012-04-27, 06:00 PM

Having AC20 vs 20 AB opponents is marginally useful still - their first attack might be at 20, but the next might be 15. A token offering to AC will save you from some iterative/secondary attacks, and the basic AC-boosting stuff is pretty easy to get your hands on.

Voyager_I

2012-04-27, 06:21 PM

AC suffers from diminishing returns. Each point costs more than the one before it. Miss chances give you a solid defense that few things stop. If you split resources you just end up bad at both.

Actually, it's perfectly reasonable to have both. You basically can't invest heavily in miss chance. It doesn't stack. You buy one item and then you're done, and any other defenses are going to come from things that aren't miss chance, like AC.

My definition of standard is fairly broad. All it assumes is enemies using their natural resources.

Perhaps, but you're assuming they use them in a way that requires metagame knowledge that they might not actually have. The Random Encounter Fire Giant might not be destined for more than two rounds of existence, but he doesn't know that, and he certainly hasn't spent his whole life up to that point optimizing himself with expensive one-shot consumables for his 12 seconds of glory.

As for optimized games, those are irrelevant except for contrast. And as for Pierce Magical Concealment (and similar)... that's one of the things you can do, but shouldn't. When you introduce that feat you are saying "No one will ever have any defenses, everyone will be forced to play rocket tag and win init or die in every fight." That isn't very desirable. Unlike True Seeing it is fairly easy to access, but since it makes all defenses irrelevant and makes everyone die in one round you shouldn't allow it.

So...AC is useless despite the fact that every stock monster we've seen has a to-hit bonus that is entirely possible to mitigate with reasonable investments in AC, because your monsters have a bunch of additional bonuses which you haven't provided any sort of example for.

Conversely, monsters doing anything that might negate magical defensive measures is breaking the game, and Pierce Magical Concealment is the subject of a Disjunction-style gentleman's agreement.

Please, give us an actual example of one of your CR10 monsters that swings for +30, and explain how it is typical.

sonofzeal

2012-04-27, 07:05 PM

1: AC is useless in all games.
2: Some people don't 'get' that AC is useless.
3: (in response to people claiming this is just my games or just in optimized games or some other such nonsense) No, here's an optimized game. See how different it is? Compare and contrast the two. My stance of "In normal games you need these very high numbers, in optimized games you need these even higher numbers." is entirely consistent.
The last IRL campaign I was in, I played a Cleric/PrCPally who had high 20's AC at lvl 10... and it was a big help. A lot of things missed me. The only things that could hit me reliably (>50%) were the boss, and one "puzzle" encounter. The DM was modifying monsters on occasion, but usually leaving them around the same power level as the book. The book's printed attack bonuses were usually pretty close to the reality we were seeing.

In the previous campaign, I was the Tashalatora PsiWar I mentioned, who had low 30's AC at lvl 10... and he was darn near unstoppable. The DM was using all monsters as-printed, and loved having large groups of giants who could only hit me on a nat20. My character sailed through pretty much the entire game because of his AC.

In the campaign before that, I was running it and modified monsters to make fights more unexpected and interesting, but rarely did much to optimize attack rolls. Characters who had high 20's AC at lvl 10 weren't golden per se, but did have an easier time against most threats.

So.... excuse me if I think "AC is useless in all games" isn't worth the pixels it's written with. In the 25-ish campaigns I've been in, pretty much all of them had monster Attack Bonuses roughly on par with the monster manual. You tell me your group generally modifies monsters extensively to make them more dangerous and bring the bonus up to the point where AC is impracticle, but that's not typical. Here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13073434&postcount=332) is a lvl 9 game that I happen to be in; attack bonuses are +10 - +16. Is AC useless in that game? Or has it just been my imagination that my AC 30 character is routinely targetted by enough attacks to kill him outright, and waltzes through unscathed?

Water_Bear

2012-04-27, 07:11 PM

Well, AC isn't useless per say. It's just fairly easy to get around.

True Strike, which can be accessed by anyone with the Sor/Wiz spell list a decent UMD check or a few thousand gold, gives a flat +20 to attack.

That is literally an example off the top of my head where an 8 Strength level one Magewright can reliably hit monsters many CR above him. Even more if he is using one of the many attacks which hit Touch AC.

Still, AC is not completely useless. It is a good 'last-line-of-defense' for negating hits which get through miss chance and other barriers. It's expensive but still a lot less expensive than being blind-sided and killed by an enemy with True Seeing and Darkvision.

A lot of builds don't need AC but they are almost all Tier 1 Casters and they don't really need hit-points either. For a Tier 3 or lower front-line fighter, maintaining a respectable minimum AC is crucial to not dying.

GoodbyeSoberDay

2012-04-27, 10:19 PM

If that rates as the highest his list is even less accurate than I assumed.Except it's the standard monster list. It's only inaccurate if you make a baseline assumption that DMs modify the monsters in the block, which I've only seen happen a couple of times.
Not really. It clearly has the money. It clearly cannot afford permanent items. If you did give them all permanent items the party would get too much wealth. It still needs time to use those items, time that it will likely only get if the party does something stupid.If you're really only giving the monster treasure that approximates the random roller (except it's better for the dollar), then the party won't get too much loot pretty much by design. If you're giving your monster more than that, it's a special monster, and you should raise the CR.
If you don't know what you're doing it will take even more time to read over the statblock you are currently viewing so you can understand it.For melees, the stat block is very simple. You see its HP, AC, saves and attack routine, and you use them. There is very little to understand. Understanding which feat is optimal for said beast, however, might require some splatbook diving. Again, it's fine if an experienced DM does this, but it's not standard.
Problem: Weak characters are outclassed by at level enemies. Such as those who think AC is useful.This is basically a re-assertion of your main point, so I'll just move on...
There is no need, as even the normal at level stuff tells you "Don't bother", so when you hit the bosses that sac half or more of their BAB and still hit on a 2 at most they're just rubbing it in. Those are the fights that truly matter, but AC stopped helping long before that.Sometimes it's good to imagine a world beyond one's premise, if only for the sake of argument. I get that if every monster is re-adjusted to optimize its attacks then AC became useless a while ago. But if, like I was talking about, only boss monsters get readjusted, then AC will be great against everyone except the boss. And perhaps he can power attack and still hit on a 2, perhaps not. That depends on the relative level of optimization, and what exactly this boss is.
True Seeing actually isn't that common due to its short duration and mainly being limited to gishes, not normal melee enemies. Most of the monsters that have it are casters and won't be making melee attacks at all.

But if that does happen, you just accept you have no defenses whatsoever, cannot get any defenses whatsoever, and play rocket tag. First to act wins.All demons have true seeing. It's also a touch spell, meaning an enemy caster can put it on a beatstick. And I'd say that if it's rocket tag after true seeing, it's rocket tag afterwards. The rockets are just more accurate. Not that every game is rocket tag.
Random items require cross referencing several tables and going back and forth... Selected items are "It has this much money, let's start with basic numbers stuff then specialty items then if there's anything left (there usually isn't) think about it). And generally you write down a few potions and a basic item or two and then run out of money.If it really is just a couple of items (which table are you using to generate this wealth btw?) then I'll give it to you that selecting the items isn't so bad, but if the enemy has several actions pre-combat available to buff himself that still seems like an increase in CR. Also, the act of re-statting the enemy due to his equipment is still going to take more time than the third way, non-randomly selecting liquid loot like platinum pieces, art, gems, and the like so the players can buy what they actually want later.
Yes, because those creatures get more than the things that are preselected for them. Even without that, 35 is weak protection (you'll actually get in the 20s, which is hit on a 2 level).You're going to have to restate this for the sake of clarity, but I will point out that when I said "not modified from the original stat block," I meant that word for word. I'm talking about using the preselected abilities, and that's it.
AC suffers from diminishing returns. Each point costs more than the one before it. Miss chances give you a solid defense that few things stop. If you split resources you just end up bad at both.What I was saying is that you have to split resources at a certain point. If you already have a 75% miss chance, you're not going to get any better because they don't stack. So if your offense is sussed out already, and you expect enemies to hit you on a 3, it's worth your while to put a little bit more into AC. I agree that AC suffers from diminishing returns, and it's quite possible "optimized" AC builds overinvest in static items that don't add a lot of value. All I'm saying is the value is nonzero, and those first points of AC are so cheap you might as well take them on a lark.
Neither do I. Random enemies never take over 5 minutes. Random monster enemies don't take over half that amount.Taking your estimate at face value, that's still five extra minutes of GM prep per enemy. That can add up really quickly for a lot of enemies.
My definition of standard is fairly broad. All it assumes is enemies using their natural resources.I think this is the crux of the disagreement. It assumes the DM uses his resources to make the monsters more powerful than they would otherwise be. It's been made quite clear that not all DMs do this, and at least some DMs do. Perhaps instead of saying "AC is useless," qualify it by saying "AC is useless when the DM equips the monsters and gives them feats which boost attack bonus."

Which reminds me, if AC is useless, no one is going to invest in it. If no one has high AC, why are you giving your monsters feats and abilities that boost their attack bonus?
As for optimized games, those are irrelevant except for contrast. And as for Pierce Magical Concealment (and similar)... that's one of the things you can do, but shouldn't. When you introduce that feat you are saying "No one will ever have any defenses, everyone will be forced to play rocket tag and win init or die in every fight." That isn't very desirable. Unlike True Seeing it is fairly easy to access, but since it makes all defenses irrelevant and makes everyone die in one round you shouldn't allow it.Do note that each feat in the Mage Slayer line (which includes Pierce Magical Concealment and Pierce Magical Protection, so Miss Chances and AC are both booped) reduce caster level by 4. With magic/psionics transparency, that eliminates most gishes, which means these particular rocket launchers are going to be quite specialized and have gaping holes in their capabilities. With proper contingencies and/or battlefield control the mage slayer might not even be able to affect his preferred target.

Clustered Chaos

2012-04-28, 07:23 AM

Actually, it's perfectly reasonable to have both. You basically can't invest heavily in miss chance. It doesn't stack. You buy one item and then you're done, and any other defenses are going to come from things that aren't miss chance, like AC.

No it isn't. AC is incredibly expensive. Unless you are very high level or a caster, so is miss chance.

Perhaps, but you're assuming they use them in a way that requires metagame knowledge that they might not actually have. The Random Encounter Fire Giant might not be destined for more than two rounds of existence, but he doesn't know that, and he certainly hasn't spent his whole life up to that point optimizing himself with expensive one-shot consumables for his 12 seconds of glory.

Most of the time, he doesn't need to use his consumables. When it gets serious, he does.

So...AC is useless despite the fact that every stock monster we've seen has a to-hit bonus that is entirely possible to mitigate with reasonable investments in AC, because your monsters have a bunch of additional bonuses which you haven't provided any sort of example for.

Conversely, monsters doing anything that might negate magical defensive measures is breaking the game, and Pierce Magical Concealment is the subject of a Disjunction-style gentleman's agreement.

AC is useless by default. The other defensive measures are useful by default. Having AC not do anything is standard operating procedure (I houseruled it to actually work, but that is also immaterial). Having miss chances not do anything forces everyone to play rocket tag as no one will ever have any defenses of any kind. And you can do that, but you shouldn't. Not to mention letting that in means letting in Pierce Magical Protection which means those gishes that are the only ones that can even come close to approaching the AC benchmarks now can't either.

The last IRL campaign I was in, I played a Cleric/PrCPally who had high 20's AC at lvl 10... and it was a big help. A lot of things missed me. The only things that could hit me reliably (>50%) were the boss, and one "puzzle" encounter. The DM was modifying monsters on occasion, but usually leaving them around the same power level as the book. The book's printed attack bonuses were usually pretty close to the reality we were seeing.

In the previous campaign, I was the Tashalatora PsiWar I mentioned, who had low 30's AC at lvl 10... and he was darn near unstoppable. The DM was using all monsters as-printed, and loved having large groups of giants who could only hit me on a nat20. My character sailed through pretty much the entire game because of his AC.

There are a number of ways any experienced player can determine this didn't actually happen. The bolded parts are the most prominent. Congratulations, you can beat Ogres in giant suits. That's not impressing anyone. You see in order for a low 30s AC to be natural 20 only they'd have to have to hits only barely over 10. Even nerfed giants have much more than that. Especially if they are appearing in large numbers at which point they start doing things to give themselves even better numbers.

So.... excuse me if I think "AC is useless in all games" isn't worth the pixels it's written with. In the 25-ish campaigns I've been in, pretty much all of them had monster Attack Bonuses roughly on par with the monster manual. You tell me your group generally modifies monsters extensively to make them more dangerous and bring the bonus up to the point where AC is impracticle, but that's not typical. Here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13073434&postcount=332) is a lvl 9 game that I happen to be in; attack bonuses are +10 - +16. Is AC useless in that game? Or has it just been my imagination that my AC 30 character is routinely targetted by enough attacks to kill him outright, and waltzes through unscathed?

I think it goes without saying that games in which you fight CR 3 stuff only at levels 9 and 10 are excluded and I was talking about level appropriate enemies. Apparently it does not go without saying, as you're claiming that 10-16 to hit (the higher end of which is more a CR 4 or 5, but still grossly underleveled) is somehow normal. That clearly is not true even if you assume nerfed enemies as the baseline.

And once again, my games have only been mentioned for contrast and to illustrate the numbers are even higher in optimized games.

Except it's the standard monster list. It's only inaccurate if you make a baseline assumption that DMs modify the monsters in the block, which I've only seen happen a couple of times.

I've seen games with heavily modified statblocks where the party was Tier 5. And I mean heavily modified to be harder. Not to create Ogres in Giant suits.

If you're really only giving the monster treasure that approximates the random roller (except it's better for the dollar), then the party won't get too much loot pretty much by design. If you're giving your monster more than that, it's a special monster, and you should raise the CR.

Most creatures give greater than standard treasure. That means if some of it isn't used, you've giving out too much wealth.

For melees, the stat block is very simple. You see its HP, AC, saves and attack routine, and you use them. There is very little to understand. Understanding which feat is optimal for said beast, however, might require some splatbook diving. Again, it's fine if an experienced DM does this, but it's not standard.

And then there's the many things that do more than put numbers on the board.

This is basically a re-assertion of your main point, so I'll just move on...Sometimes it's good to imagine a world beyond one's premise, if only for the sake of argument. I get that if every monster is re-adjusted to optimize its attacks then AC became useless a while ago. But if, like I was talking about, only boss monsters get readjusted, then AC will be great against everyone except the boss. And perhaps he can power attack and still hit on a 2, perhaps not. That depends on the relative level of optimization, and what exactly this boss is.

AC became useless well before discussing optimized games, or boss battles, as stated before. You'll still be easily hit by normal enemies, and the boss will PA for half or more and still hit 95% of the time.

All demons have true seeing. It's also a touch spell, meaning an enemy caster can put it on a beatstick. And I'd say that if it's rocket tag after true seeing, it's rocket tag afterwards. The rockets are just more accurate. Not that every game is rocket tag.

It's a good thing demons are all casters then. And that True Seeing has such a short duration the chance of both encountering it and having it matter is directly proportional to your chance of fighting a gish.

What makes a game not rocket tag is having defenses. True Seeing means you don't. If that ability were common, you'd be forced to play rocket tag at all times, instead of potentially being able to play a different game.

If it really is just a couple of items (which table are you using to generate this wealth btw?) then I'll give it to you that selecting the items isn't so bad, but if the enemy has several actions pre-combat available to buff himself that still seems like an increase in CR. Also, the act of re-statting the enemy due to his equipment is still going to take more time than the third way, non-randomly selecting liquid loot like platinum pieces, art, gems, and the like so the players can buy what they actually want later.

If he has several actions pre combat to buff, the party did something wrong. The party does not get more XP for screwing up. They get a harder fight for screwing up.

Incrementing a few numbers takes much less time than cross referencing tables to figure out what brand of vendor bait the monsters are inexplicably carrying.

You're going to have to restate this for the sake of clarity, but I will point out that when I said "not modified from the original stat block," I meant that word for word.

Yes, that is a nerfed enemy. What is your point?

I'm talking about using the preselected abilities, and that's it.What I was saying is that you have to split resources at a certain point. If you already have a 75% miss chance, you're not going to get any better because they don't stack. So if your offense is sussed out already, and you expect enemies to hit you on a 3, it's worth your while to put a little bit more into AC.

No, it isn't. If you have a 75% miss chance, you forget about AC entirely, especially if the most it's doing is making standard enemies hit 90% instead of 95% because after accounting for miss chances it's the difference between 23.75% and 22.5%, and you'll encounter severe diminishing returns from there. Instead, you spend money on things that actually help you.

I agree that AC suffers from diminishing returns, and it's quite possible "optimized" AC builds overinvest in static items that don't add a lot of value. All I'm saying is the value is nonzero, and those first points of AC are so cheap you might as well take them on a lark.

Those first points offer no protection.

Taking your estimate at face value, that's still five extra minutes of GM prep per enemy. That can add up really quickly for a lot of enemies.

Throwaway fights are either single enemy or group of single enemy. Either way, that's one statblock. 5 minutes. It probably takes you close to that long to write it out in your notes.

I think this is the crux of the disagreement. It assumes the DM uses his resources to make the monsters more powerful than they would otherwise be. It's been made quite clear that not all DMs do this, and at least some DMs do. Perhaps instead of saying "AC is useless," qualify it by saying "AC is useless when the DM equips the monsters and gives them feats which boost attack bonus."

That would be a lie. I will not lie, especially when the goal of this tangent is to illustrate how advice quality has decreased over time via lying to new players about what is required of them.

Which reminds me, if AC is useless, no one is going to invest in it. If no one has high AC, why are you giving your monsters feats and abilities that boost their attack bonus?

Power Attack = damage.
Monsters have high AC, even though PCs don't. Monsters don't just fight PCs.
If not enhancing their existing abilities, just what is worth taking for them?

Do note that each feat in the Mage Slayer line (which includes Pierce Magical Concealment and Pierce Magical Protection, so Miss Chances and AC are both booped) reduce caster level by 4. With magic/psionics transparency, that eliminates most gishes, which means these particular rocket launchers are going to be quite specialized and have gaping holes in their capabilities. With proper contingencies and/or battlefield control the mage slayer might not even be able to affect his preferred target.

Still doesn't change the fact if those feats are in, every non caster, including the monsters will have them. And since those are the main things miss chances protect you from anyways...

LordBlades

2012-04-28, 07:26 AM

I think you don't 'get' that AC is only useless if the DM lets it be useless. A DM can and should make sure that if a player invests resources in a valid aspect of the game, that he feels a benefit for doing so, instead of punishing them because they don't 'get' it.

Re: AC being a valid aspect of the game: all builds posted around here have been either gishes (for which I genuinely believe AC matters until you reach the level where things get easier ways to hurt you than rolling vs. your AC) or things with 0 offensive potential.

I've yet to see somebody discuss a build that's not a caster, has good AC and actually does something beyond being hard to hit and easy to ignore.

Clustered Chaos

2012-04-28, 07:31 AM

Re: AC being a valid aspect of the game: all builds posted around here have been either gishes (for which I genuinely believe AC matters until you reach the level where things get easier ways to hurt you than rolling vs. your AC) or things with 0 offensive potential.

I've yet to see somebody discuss a build that's not a caster, has good AC and actually does something beyond being hard to hit and easy to ignore.

That's because they can't. Non casters will always be either very easily killed or very easily ignored (and often still easily killed). High offense + high defense is not possible without houserules.

That leaves gishes (who have miss chances, and no reason to care) and that's about it. They're not even doing a good job with them. I mean, how can you mention Abjurant Champion and not mention Divine Companion? Granted, the goal of such a build is more being a one man wrecking crew but even so it's clear that the AC is useless side has a better understanding of AC and AC builds and has still came to that same conclusion.

sonofzeal

2012-04-28, 08:32 AM

ECL 10

Mineral Warrior Poison Dusk Lizarfolk Swordsage 8

For ability scores, just start with 16 in Dex and Wis before racial mods. For gear... +3 mithral breastplate (13k), +1 Amulet of NA / +2 Periapt of Wisdom (6k), +1 Ring of Protection (2k), +2 Gloves of Dex (4k)

AC: 35 (10, +7NA, +8armor, +1def, +1size, +3wis, +5dex)

That's with half the money spent, but only 34% was on straight AC boosts, and easily reaches the target based on actual published monsters, without being a Gish, or using any consumables, buffs, etc. Defensively you've got +6 Con, a nice bonus to saves from Defensive Stance, great stealth capability, and access to some forms of miss chance via stances. Offensively we're also sitting dandy with a racial bonus to Str, a full suite of natural attacks, and a good set of maneuvers to back it up. Pick up Shadow Blade for both Str and Dex to damage, and possibly Assassin's Stance to get nice sneak attack off each of those natural weapons, and you should be off to the races.

This wasn't hard to do in the slightest. AC 35 is fairly high for lvl 10, but hardly excessive; I threw this together in 5 minutes and no splatdiving.

The only question is whether AC 35 is sufficient at lvl 10. I've demonstrated that against MM enemies, AC 35 gives you on average a 75% miss chance even against equal level melee brutes - which as repeatedly stated is usually a worst-case scenario, since you're just as likely to see pairs or clusters of mid-level enemies with correspondingly lower attack bonuses.

All we have against that are your repeated claim that somehow in your games lvl 10 enemies routinely swing for +45, and your assertions that this is somehow "normal" despite nobody else in this thread having the same experience.

AC 35 is quite sufficient at lvl 10. And AC 35 is easily attainable.

Clustered Chaos

2012-04-28, 08:46 AM

sonofzeal

2012-04-28, 08:55 AM

So let's see... a low AC character that spent half its money on AC, low HP, low saves, and while the damage isn't 0, it's nowhere near good either.

Thanks for making my point?

There's also more of the typical "your game" dismissals that are not even accurate in their intended contexts. Namely being that I said optimized level 10 enemies could hit 45, not that they always do (the typical number is 40).

As it is though even in a normal game 35 gets you killed by the very attack forms you're meant to take on and with you doing it that way you also get easily killed by spells. Which means everything in the game easily kills you. On a so called defensive character. At least if you made a charger you could take things with you. And possibly pass a save.
Low HP? We're looking at a +6 racial bonus to Con, on top of whatever else.

Low saves? We've got good scores in Con/Dex/Wis, two good saves, and an additional +2 stacking bonus to all saves from a class feature.

Low damage? We have a racial bonus to Str and Dex, are likely going to be applying both to damage with multiple natural attacks, and have maneuvers for additional offence.

Half money on AC? I said 34%. The Dex and Wis bonuses were useful all on their own, the AC boost was just a lucky side effect.

Did you even look at the build?

And you're still making utterly unjustified claims about "normal games" based on your own anecdotal experience, while I've done statistical analysis of MM entries - which you then tried to claim was biased from me selectively choosing opponents, and then tried to claim you weren't talking to me (even though you were quoting my post) when I called you on it.

Justify your claims.

Sir.

Clustered Chaos

2012-04-28, 10:06 AM

And 2 lost HD, which more than makes up for that and imposes all sorts of other problems.

Because small sized creatures do lots of damage with natural attacks? Because maneuvers are there for damage? Hint: No and no.

It's half on AC. The Dex and Wis items are otherwise useless.

I looked at it. It was another weak build that tries to be good at defense and ends up bad at everything, including defense. Not nearly as bad as the others, but still insufficient to survive actual play.

The only thing you've been right about is the saves. I thought Swordsages had bad Will saves, upon checking they have average. So they still easily die to spells, just not quite as easily as I was thinking.

What you've done is assume Ogres in Giant suits as the norm. When you do that it doesn't matter what you do as you will automatically defeat level 3 enemies at level 10 however you like.

When you fight actual level appropriate enemies - those things you might actually want and need to optimize for they will hit you easily and repeatedly.

Which do you need to prepare for and which can be safely ignored?

Snowbluff

2012-04-28, 10:16 AM

Low HP? We're looking at a +6 racial bonus to Con, on top of whatever else.

Low saves? We've got good scores in Con/Dex/Wis, two good saves, and an additional +2 stacking bonus to all saves from a class feature.

Sir.

Not to mention yo have enough $$$ for a Cloak o' Resistance.

Sir.

sonofzeal

2012-04-28, 11:01 AM

And 2 lost HD, which more than makes up for that and imposes all sorts of other problems.
LA buyoff. It's a wonderful thing. By lvl 10, this character could have bought off all its LA.

Because small sized creatures do lots of damage with natural attacks? Because maneuvers are there for damage? Hint: No and no.
Many attacks, with sorces of extra damage (Shadow Blade, Assassin's Stance) do add up fairly fast.

It's half on AC. The Dex and Wis items are otherwise useless.
Dex is Ref save, initiative, damage via Shadow Blade, and skill checks. Wis is Will Save, DC of maneuvers, bonus damage while using maneuvers, and Spot/Listen.

If you think either of those is "useless", then I don't know what game you're playing.

I looked at it. It was another weak build that tries to be good at defense and ends up bad at everything, including defense. Not nearly as bad as the others, but still insufficient to survive actual play.
The reason I like Poison Dusk is because they aren't just defence. They're a source for extra natural attacks, and have good stealth ability. And they're Small without taking a Strength hit.

The only thing you've been right about is the saves. I thought Swordsages had bad Will saves, upon checking they have average. So they still easily die to spells, just not quite as easily as I was thinking.
If two good saves, high save stats, and a +2 stacking bonus to saves is "easily die to", especially in combination with an enviable touch AC, I'm not quite sure what your standards are. Some spells hose everyone. But for everything else, there's mastercard this character should be fine.

What you've done is assume Ogres in Giant suits as the norm. When you do that it doesn't matter what you do as you will automatically defeat level 3 enemies at level 10 however you like.

When you fight actual level appropriate enemies - those things you might actually want and need to optimize for they will hit you easily and repeatedly.

Which do you need to prepare for and which can be safely ignored?
I have no idea what you're talking about any more. I got the AC 35 figure from looking at level-appropriate enemies. This character has sufficient AC (and saves, and HP) to be durable against most things that any character could hope to be durable against. And they do it without making any real sacrifices beyond an affordable quantity of gold.

I've gone through the MM, I've checked out what monsters are actually like, and I've shown that real characters can reach relevant numbers without undue effort. After all, this was for the relatively high standard of 75% defence against equal-CR melee brute; in most games, I'd be perfectly satisfied with 50% as a base standard if we're fighting more varied encounters. And even Mr McHumanFighter can reach that standard.

You still haven't shown how any enemy is getting 40-45 attack by lvl 10. Seriously, I don't even know how you'd go about getting numbers that high, it's certainly more op-fu than I've ever used. And you haven't demonstrated that such ridiculous buffing is in any way "normal".

Master Thrower

2012-04-28, 11:30 AM

Why do you guys keep arguing with Clustered Chaos, all hes done is refute your claims (which you guys have backed up with builds and evidence), and then randomly create numbers with no backing, until he posts a monster from the MM unmodified that has the attack bonuses he claims, he has no grounds to stand on

Clustered Chaos

2012-04-28, 12:20 PM

LA buyoff. It's a wonderful thing. By lvl 10, this character could have bought off all its LA.

Except that it hasn't, because even if those rules are in effect you're not going to have 45k XP + 17k XP (10k of which comes at level 10) before or while everyone else has 45k XP. And you didn't mention that before, you only brought it up when I made clear it was a bad argument.

Many attacks, with sorces of extra damage (Shadow Blade, Assassin's Stance) do add up fairly fast.

So 3 low damage attacks, and most of that damage is highly conditional, meaning you almost never get it. Got it.

Dex is Ref save, initiative, damage via Shadow Blade, and skill checks. Wis is Will Save, DC of maneuvers, bonus damage while using maneuvers, and Spot/Listen.

If you think either of those is "useless", then I don't know what game you're playing.

Dex is not the primary source of Init, Dex still gives you a no damage build by RAW, and Wis isn't the primary source of Will saves. The rest are quite pointless and certainly not worth the cost. So yes, it is clearly just there so you can barely hit a low AC number.

The reason I like Poison Dusk is because they aren't just defence. They're a source for extra natural attacks, and have good stealth ability. And they're Small without taking a Strength hit.

Because something that almost everything in the game defeats by accident is good? Congratulations, you can do extra low damage attacks. The serious melees also have extra attacks, and can actually hurt things. With the extra attacks they hurt things more.

If two good saves, high save stats, and a +2 stacking bonus to saves is "easily die to", especially in combination with an enviable touch AC, I'm not quite sure what your standards are. Some spells hose everyone. But for everything else, there's mastercard this character should be fine.

Low Fort, average Will = easily killed by spells. Unless you are now claiming your 2/6 + stats + item + unexplained +2 is hitting Fort and Will saves of at least 20? Because it's not. Not even close. So called defensive character easily killed by attack forms it's supposedly good against.

I have no idea what you're talking about any more. I got the AC 35 figure from looking at level-appropriate enemies. This character has sufficient AC (and saves, and HP) to be durable against most things that any character could hope to be durable against. And they do it without making any real sacrifices beyond an affordable quantity of gold.

And then you describe them and it's clear you're talking about Ogres in Giant suits. Who you have to spend half your gold to negate and still die to the actual level appropriate enemies. Who you are supposedly prepared for but are actually anything but, as you're well short of even the lowest benchmarks to be considered viable defensively at level 10. Get about oh... 1 more AC, 11 more Fort saves, and at least half that much more Will saves and you might hit the lowest benchmarks for defense. And then you fight a boss and they come close to hitting on a 2 anyways. But at least then you would have accomplished something, however small and insignificant in actual play it might be. Oh and a quick calc puts you at 79 HP. Wasn't there a Wizard around here with more than that, also at level 10? He's fine, he has defenses that actually work. You're a squishy non caster running into melee.

I've gone through the MM, I've checked out what monsters are actually like, and I've shown that real characters can reach relevant numbers without undue effort. After all, this was for the relatively high standard of 75% defence against equal-CR melee brute; in most games, I'd be perfectly satisfied with 50% as a base standard if we're fighting more varied encounters. And even Mr McHumanFighter can reach that standard.

Clearly you haven't or you would have gotten more accurate results, and clearly you don't get it as you think 75% is a high, as opposed to a low standard, especially given that's only vs normal enemies and bosses still hit you 70-85% of the time under the same conditions.

You still haven't shown how any enemy is getting 40-45 attack by lvl 10. Seriously, I don't even know how you'd go about getting numbers that high, it's certainly more op-fu than I've ever used. And you haven't demonstrated that such ridiculous buffing is in any way "normal".

In optimized games? Not so difficult. Again, it only matters for the sake of contrast, but all you have to do is stack some buffs and use some basic tricks that any worthwhile melee does anyways. I mean, you can easily hit +30 at level 6 on an optimized character, so it's simply a matter of extrapolation... and that +30 is on a humanoid character. Monsters are better than you, therefore will have better stats.

It should go without saying you don't want to give enemies lots of advance warning. If they go full red alert, you all die. Kill them before they have the chance to notice you, buff up to max and come at you. Or at least bring lots of Dispels.

But any worthwhile encounter is about synergy, and synergy means buffs.

georgie_leech

2012-04-28, 01:04 PM

Clustered Chaos

2012-04-28, 01:13 PM

Reverent-One

2012-04-28, 01:22 PM

Or I have no interest in posting statblocks from my games on a forum my players might read, and they'd just ignore solid logical points anyways.They always do.

Then make up a new stat block not from one of your games, since by your own claim it only takes minutes.

Besides, any good optimizer can easily reverse engineer it or at least get reasonably close via deductive reasoning. I've all but given it away already.

In which case the excuse to not to post statblocks on a forum your players might read makes even less sense, since they could probably do it anyway.

Or, you know, just keep on providing no evidence for your claims. Whatever.

Clustered Chaos

2012-04-28, 01:41 PM

Then make up a new stat block not from one of your games, since by your own claim it only takes minutes.

I said that it takes minutes to reshape a throwaway encounter for a normal game. Given that we're discussing 1: An optimized game. 2: Something that is clearly not intended as a throwaway encounter. What makes you think that is any way relevant?

In which case the excuse to not to post statblocks on a forum your players might read makes even less sense, since they could probably do it anyway.

Or, you know, just keep on providing no evidence for your claims. Whatever.

If they had the information to start reverse engineering, which they don't. They're coming close though, as they've already caught on to the stages of alertness thing and how it works simply by observation.

In any case, this is about being able to deal with even normal, at level enemies. Bringing in optimized bosses is completely irrelevant except for contrast. Sure they can do it, and you need AC 61, at minimum to counter it at level 10 (likely lower, since it's a boss and thus higher level than you).

People can't even hit the minimum meaningful benchmark of 46. They have to pretend 35 is viable instead, and all of their attempts to hit even that meaningless, misleading number either involve underutilized gishes or characters with insufficient damage output to justify their positions on the battlefield.

61 has yet to be relevant when they can't even manage 46. Incidentally, the difference between optimized bosses and normal bosses is rather small, because bosses are supposed to be crazy strong anyways.

Reverent-One

2012-04-28, 01:59 PM

I said that it takes minutes to reshape a throwaway encounter for a normal game. Given that we're discussing 1: An optimized game. 2: Something that is clearly not intended as a throwaway encounter. What makes you think that is any way relevant?

No, they're asking for a "standard" or "normal" monster that hits the numbers you've claimed it does. You've claimed an optimized monster goes even higher, so that's not what they're asking for. Like you acknowledge in the exact same post.

In any case, this is about being able to deal with even normal, at level enemies. Bringing in optimized bosses is completely irrelevant except for contrast. Sure they can do it, and you need AC 61, at minimum to counter it at level 10 (likely lower, since it's a boss and thus higher level than you).

Normal, at-level enemies seem appropriate for a throwaway encounter.

If they had the information to start reverse engineering, which they don't. They're coming close though, as they've already caught on to the stages of alertness thing and how it works simply by observation.

If they read this forum, like you've said you're worried about, then they should have the information to start reverse-engineering. You've said that you have "all but given it away already". What did you mean by that if not that anyone reading your posts has the information to begin reverse-engineering?

Clustered Chaos

2012-04-28, 02:02 PM

Nope, he was clearly responding to the remarks about optimized numbers.

Reverent-One

2012-04-28, 02:09 PM

Nope, he was clearly responding to the remarks about optimized numbers.

Even if georgie specifically was asking about optimized numbers, you've still used the same "I don't want my players to see it" excuse about requests to see a statblock for standard monsters that hit your standard numbers. Which you still haven't provided. I'd be interested in seeing what you consider to be a "normal" statblock.

georgie_leech

2012-04-28, 02:12 PM

Nope, he was clearly responding to the remarks about optimized numbers.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I'm looking for a "normal" monster that completely invalidates AC. Not heavily optimized or anything; a creature that, in your words, takes a few minutes to create.

Clustered Chaos

2012-04-28, 02:22 PM

+30 to hit, obviously. Which makes 35 AC pointless (Blur is cheaper, and more reliable vs anything harder) and 46 required (which no one's came anywhere close to, even at the expense of all damage or something that would similarly invalidate it as a character).

And if he meant normal enemies he sure didn't do a good job conveying that what with him posting right after a post about optimized enemies when the discussion was currently about those. Whatever the case, I found some 7s that hit 23 and 26 without much effort, just two effects on each. I don't feel like disclosing what is apparently high grade optimization (given that people can't easily figure this out on their own here) trade secrets though.

All I will say is a few people on these boards have seen samples of my work.

Sutremaine

2012-04-28, 02:27 PM

Or I have no interest in posting statblocks from my games on a forum my players might read
Put it in a spoiler box and ask your players not to read it. Use a really old statblock that they won't remember too well. If your player's memories are good, swap a couple of feats and items around to make it less obvious whose statblock it is.

You've already done most of the work in creating the statblock and you say modification of an existing statblock is quick, so those five minutes will take you quite far.

We don't even need a whole statblock -- just the base monster and anything that alters the attack bonus will do.

Reverent-One

2012-04-28, 02:32 PM

+30 to hit, obviously. Which makes 35 AC pointless (Blur is cheaper, and more reliable vs anything harder) and 46 required (which no one's came anywhere close to, even at the expense of all damage or something that would similarly invalidate it as a character).

Which is merely a number, not a statblock.

And if he meant normal enemies he sure didn't do a good job conveying that what with him posting right after a post about optimized enemies when the discussion was currently about those. Whatever the case, I found some 7s that hit 23 and 26 without much effort, just two effects on each. I don't feel like disclosing what is apparently high grade optimization (given that people can't easily figure this out on their own here) trade secrets though.

And which two 7s would you be referring to? If you don't want to participate in this discussion, why have you been posting for the past 4-5 pages on this topic?

Clustered Chaos

2012-04-28, 02:33 PM

Put it in a spoiler box and ask your players not to read it. Use a really old statblock that they won't remember too well. If your player's memories are good, swap a couple of feats and items around to make it less obvious whose statblock it is.

You've already done most of the work in creating the statblock and you say modification of an existing statblock is quick, so those five minutes will take you quite far.

We don't even need a whole statblock -- just the base monster and anything that alters the attack bonus will do.

Problem: The request is for reasonably high level throwaway enemies.

Anything at or near 10 they've fought that can be considered a throwaway enemy is a future encounter, not past or present. The non throwaway encounters are sufficiently unique to be obvious even at a glance.

But if you insist...

HeadlessMermaid

2012-04-28, 02:44 PM

Hey, did you know that this SRD page includes a nice monster filter (http://www.d20srd.org/extras/d20monsterfilter/index.php)?
For example, here are all the CR 10 monsters in the SRD, and their respective attacks:

{table=head]Monster|Attack
Rakshasha | +8
Couatl | +12
Guardian Naga | +12
9-headed Pyrohydra |+13
9-headed Cryohydra | +13
Clay Golem | +14
Myrmarch Formian | +15
11-headed Hydra | +16
Juvenile Silver Dragon | +19
Young Adult Brass Dragon| +19
Bebelith Demon | +19
Fire Giant | +20
Gargantuan Monstrous Scorpion| +21
Noble Salamander | +23
Adult White Dragon | +23
Juvenile Red Dragon | +24
Colossal Animated Object| +25
[/table]

Total Average: +17.41
Melee average (not including dragons, casters, offensive SLAs) : +17.625
Dragon average: +21.25

If someone wants to expand on this table, with monsters from splatbooks perhaps, please, go ahead.

Meanwhile, what does that table show us? It shows us that, if the DM uses CR-appropriate encounters from the SRD as written, then an AC of 35 will give your melee warrior:

50% chance to avoid getting hit by the baddest (in terms of attack roll) melee monster
86% average chance to avoid getting hit by a melee monster
70% average chance to avoid getting hit by a dragon

And these are solo monsters. With non-bosses (combinations of lower CR monsters instead of a solo CR10), the chances obviously improve.

Of course, if the DM uses non CR-appropriate encounters (which isn't a bad thing, it's a matter of preference), and somehow ends up with a +30 to hit even for the mooks, then AC indeed offers little protection.

However, if Clustered Chaos is such a DM, that doesn't mean that all other DMs under the sun do the same. Presuming that everyone designs encounters like you do, and that conclusions from your games apply to "all games", why, that's not only arrogant. It's incredibly daft, too.

Clustered Chaos

2012-04-28, 02:53 PM

Hey look, it's more misleading averages and more BAB and Str only enemies. We haven't had any of those yet!

And it's more claims that my optimized games = normal games, even though I've clearly distinguished the two! Haven't had too much of that either!

And you know, if you're going to bring my games into it, you could be intellectually honest enough to point out I've specifically said I houserule AC to be useful in my games. Now you can ask what I meant, how I do that, etc but if you want to play the my game dismissal card you have to acknowledge the entire game, including the part where I made AC mean something and by extension non casters have some defenses.

HeadlessMermaid

2012-04-28, 03:08 PM

Hey look, it's more misleading averages and more BAB and Str only enemies. We haven't had any of those yet!
These are ALL the CR 10 monsters in the SRD. I didn't pick and choose.

And you know, if you're going to bring my games into it, you could be intellectually honest enough to point out I've specifically said I houserule AC to be useful in my games. Now you can ask what I meant, how I do that, etc but if you want to play the my game dismissal card you have to acknowledge the entire game, including the part where I made AC mean something and by extension non casters have some defenses.
I don't care about your houserules. I care that you keep saying "AC is useless in all games" and, according to you, everyone who disagrees with that overgeneralized statement "doesn't get it". You ignore everybody else's examples (which disprove your claim, and positively prove that in SOME games AC matters) and acknowledge only your own (which you won't even share with us). Dismissal is all you deserve.

Voyager_I

2012-04-28, 03:53 PM

Hey look, it's more misleading averages and more BAB and Str only enemies. We haven't had any of those yet!

Are we expecting Animated Objects to be chugging potions of heroism at the start of encounters now?

And it's more claims that my optimized games = normal games, even though I've clearly distinguished the two! Haven't had too much of that either!

Except you haven't. You talk about AC being useless in all games, then use examples from your games where CR 10 enemies are averaging to-hit bonuses higher than anything in the SRD.

All the while, you adamantly refuse to give even a single example of how this comes about.

Clustered Chaos

2012-04-28, 04:08 PM

No. Animated Objects are weak melee for the same reason as golems, except to a lesser extent as their resourceless numbers are higher.

One more time.

Normal CR 10: +30.
CR 10 in my game: +40 to +45 to hit.

If you still don't get it, you never will.

The person I showed the throwaway encounters to has not bothered to respond. I can only conclude he doesn't really care.

Sutremaine

2012-04-28, 04:46 PM

Me? I only just noticed the PM notification (didn't get a popup). I'll have to take a look at the stuff in the first part of each entry, I don't recognise it at a glance. It's also only been two hours.

Clustered Chaos

2012-04-28, 05:06 PM

Generally I assume if the other person is online and active but hasn't responded it's because they don't care. It's fine either way, I was mainly responding to the claim I haven't showed anyone I know what I'm doing.

PersonMan

2012-04-28, 05:15 PM

I'm saying:

1: AC is useless in all games.

I haven't read every post in the thread since this was posted, so if you've changed the wording of this since then, this will be obsolete.

This statement has the problem that almost every absolute statement I've encountered has. The problem being that any example immediately disproves it. I used to play with a very low-op, low-level group that met sporadically and was generally unusual. In these games, AC was not useless. Therefore the statement is false. The DM(s) weren't deliberately using weak enemies or nerfing existing ones, but rather simply using out-of-the-book stat blocks. When enemies had attack roll bonuses ranging from +0 to +5 or so, an AC of 18 was great.

Anyways, since this is fairly nit-picky, I'm going to ask this: Assuming AC is useless and therefore shouldn't be invested in (unless necessary for, say, armor enhancements that are worth it), what defenses does one get? At higher levels, this is easier, but at level 1? What do you do here, once you realize you're wasting your money on AC and decide to spend it on useful things?

Clustered Chaos

2012-04-28, 05:29 PM

georgie_leech

2012-04-28, 06:03 PM

Several points:

Third, getting AC 18 at level 1 requires holding a shield. This makes you worse both offensively and defensively for reasons that should be obvious to even a casual examination.

A character is holding a longsword. He equips a shield, getting additional AC. This makes him worse defensively, obviously.

Now, perhaps I'm not looking at this casually enough, but this seems... politeness is leading me to suggest counter-intuitive, but, screw it. This is blatantly false, as it contradicts the basic fundamentals of the arithmatic that this system was built upon, which state that adding a positive number to another positive number results in a number of greater absolute value than either number was originally.

PersonMan

2012-04-28, 06:18 PM

Several points:

First, weak groups mean even less AC. Offense scales faster than defense. I'm sure you can imagine the effect this has.
Second, shifting the goal posts to level 1? Bad idea.
Third, getting AC 18 at level 1 requires holding a shield. This makes you worse both offensively and defensively for reasons that should be obvious to even a casual examination.
Fourth, regardless of defenses everyone randomly dies at level 1. It's pure rocket tag. Win init or die.

Scaling doesn't matter at level 1 in this case. This isn't a 'real game' scenario, this is just level 1. At least, this is what I'm assuming for my considerations.

As for rocket tag, well...it's partially true, but in the games I've played it isn't as extreme as it seems to be for other people.

An example: A lizardfolk (CR 1, using the exact stat block) guard is going toe-to-toe with the fighter. Even though I normally went for a Zweihänder-swinging defense-by-killing-enemies type, I'll use a sword-and-boarder for this one.
Fighter notes: 13 HP (10 + 3; could be higher due to Toughness or similar) AC 17 (4 armor [scale] + 2 shield [light wooden] + 1 Dex), Attack: Longsword +4 (1 BAB, 2 Strength, 1 Weapon Focus) 1d8+2.

Round one, init is rolled - Lizardfolk has +0, fighter +1. On average, the fighter goes first.

First action is to move in, followed by an attack. Charging seems obvious, but it was often overlooked by my group. I'll include it anyways.

Attack is +6, vs an AC of 15 (55% chance to hit) or 17 (45% chance to hit).

On a hit, max damage is 10. The lizardfolk has 11 HP. As such, one-shotting (in this case, it includes dropping to negatives, as that's essentially game over here) isn't possible apart from a crit. The same applies for the fighter, as the lizardfolk's maximum non-crit damage is 7 (club) if it needs to close in.

The lizardfolk has only a 25% chance to hit with it's highest bonus (+2). With a +2/+2/+0 routine, it might not even hit a single time. Here, it seems like AC is quite valuable. If the lizardfolk goes first, it can be the difference between taking severe damage or getting through without a scratch.

I chose the lizardfolk essentially at random. If you want to provide your own example, as long as it's taken straight from a book or the SRD without modification and is CR 1, go ahead. Remember, in this case one cannot assume that the fight will start from close or long rage, although I chose a shorter one as it was more common with that group.

Fifth, meaningful defenses have already been mentioned but I'll do it again. Miss chances (including Mirror Image and Blink style effects) work. There are others, but are generally not applicable. For example, most mundanes have no choice but to trade full attacks. Simply walking away so you can't be full attacked won't work. There's also Abrupt Jaunt, Wings of Cover... yes, if you want meaningful defenses you must be a caster in a RAW game, and if you are not a caster you will be squishy and easily killed in a RAW game. No way around that without some serious houseruling. Incidentally, as much as people complain about the enemies in my games, they'd actually be much stronger in a RAW game as they'd have 95-100% of their offensive output intact, but PCs would have average/rolled HP instead of max and much less AC. End result: They kill characters a whole lot faster.

How do you get miss chance at level 1? How do you do so more than once a day (it's preferable to be able to do so more often than once, I assume)?

If a significant investment (~57% of starting wealth in my example) can give you a significant advantage in the 'trade full attacks' game of melee*, why is it worthless?

*This, of course, assumes out-of-the-box enemies and no outside influence in the fight, or a typical 4v1 party-vs-monster battle.

---

Also, I'm not sure if you're still arguing from an absolute (AC is always worthless) or non-absolute (AC is usually worthless) standpoint. It's fairly important, as it essentially makes the difference between 'but AC seems useful in this situation' and 'if you don't use AC, what are your level 1 defenses?'

Clustered Chaos

2012-04-28, 06:30 PM

{Scrubbed}

PersonMan

2012-04-28, 06:48 PM

Even in your deliberately cherry picked and nerfed example, by your own admission the one handed weapon never kills in one hit. A two handed weapon easily would. Fewer chances to attack = better defense.

Nice try, but it backfired.

PS: No one cares about level 1. Pick real examples. That means a level that is not 1. Not 2 either. While you're at it stay away from low levels entirely. I'm bored of the Ogre dance.

I think you're misunderstanding my intent. I don't mean to argue against your position, but rather understand it. My thought process was:

-If AC is useless, what do you use instead?
-Miss chance, caster defenses, etc.
-What about low levels? Really low levels?
-Good question. I'll find out.

Also, your wording is quite accusatory - 'cherry picked and nerfed'? I can understand why you would use those terms*, but they give your post a tone I'd prefer to do without. I've specifically attempted - perhaps unsuccessfully? - to keep my own 'tone' neutral.

*'Nerfed' due to the low range of the starting encounter, I think. Do you mean something else?

What follows is a response to specific points - I can't really restrain myself from replying to your counterpoints, even if they don't really matter to the discussion as a whole.

@Damage: I, for the most part, agree. However, in this example, switching from sword-and-board to, say, a greatsword results in an average damage increase of 3 (6.5 to 9.5) without changing other stats. At higher Strength scores, the difference increases, though, so this is just related to the specific example.

@Orcs: Orcs have far less HP than Lizardfolk. A single average hit from the sword-and-boarder, who has a chance to hit ranging from 65% (charging) to 55% (later) drops one. If the sword-and-boarder goes first (on average, more likely due to +1 init bonus) they might provoke AOOs by moving past them. They're glass cannons. Dangerous, yes, but a good example of why AC is important if you have no other defenses (low HP, no miss chance, etc.) in a low-level environment.

If the SnBer kills an orc in round 1 (about 55% likely, if I'm calculating this correctly), the other can either ignore them and move to attack the other members of the party or engage them. The first is actually preferable in some cases, as if allows the SnBer to charge again.

This is using the SRD Orc here (http://dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Orc) and ignoring the possibility of other party members (such as the typically high-dex rogue or wizard) killing or injuring either orc before the SnBer acts. Now, for a hopefully friendly-toned ending: nice try, but it backfired.

EDIT: Oh, and this is technically an EL 3 encounter, which is a point against the CR system.

EDIT 2: With orcs, the extra damage a two-handed sword has over a one-handed normally won't matter, as either one's average damage takes the orc out of the fight.

sonofzeal

2012-04-28, 07:13 PM

Clustered Chaos

Instead of repeatedly accusing everyone of "cherry-picking" when it's obvious they're doing nothing of the sort, why don't you do the following....

1) Show how 50% miss chance is practical given that all accessible forms I can think of (Blur, Displacement, Cloak of Displacement) cost standard actions and last for a matter of rounds, meaning you won't have them up at the beginning of a fight, and getting them means you aren't doing something more productive like Glitterdusting, Stinking Clouding, etc. Persisted Blur might be nice, but that's a 9th level spell.....

2) Show how a Fire Giant (or Stone Golem, or 11-headed Hydra, or Gargantuan Monstrous Spider) can hit +30 attack bonus without "heavy optimization". Potions of True Strike don't count; they cost a standard action and are only good for one attack. Keep in mind that the Treasure Table for a them is most likely to generate "1d4 minor items".

3) Explain how, if so many people on here are disputing your assertations, your own experience could somehow still qualify as "normal".

Flickerdart

2012-04-28, 10:00 PM

To be fair, there is exactly one monster that fits the figures Clustered Chaos is throwing around. A 9th level Astral Construct is a CR10 with +28 to attack by default, increasing to +30 with the menu B option "Muscle". In fact, the construct could spend all of its options on "Muscle" and then reach an attack bonus of +36. However, in such a case it would have two of these +36 attacks, both dealing 2d6+24 damage (62 average, together). This is not terribly impressive, considering that the average frontliner is swinging at least 100HP at this point, and should have no trouble with the construct's AC and HP.

So yes, if all the enemies in your campaign are Astral Constructs, then you might as well dump AC, but that's only because they don't hit terribly hard anyway.

Emperor Tippy

2012-04-28, 10:40 PM

Miss Chance is better than AC, most of the time. And 20% miss chance is dirt cheap (24k).

A Cloak of Minor Displacement should almost always be purchased before AC boosters simple because it forces another roll and is always worth at least 4 points of AC (and very often much more).

After that you are almost always better off loading your armor down with as many enchantments as possible. They are almost always worth more than the additional points of AC.

If you can't/won't wear armor that provides at least a +6 AC bonus then buy an eternal wand of Greater Mage Armor with a CL of at least 12 (the higher the better) and use that. It's 2 points less than Full Plate with no maximum Dex penalty, applies to incorporeal attacks, has no ASF, and is invisible.

My advice is to buy Bracers of Armor +1 and then load them down with every armor enhancement you want (up to a total of 12 points of enhancements) and then get the eternal wand. Use a buckler if you need an additional 9 points of special abilities. And you can still get actual armor if you need yet another 9 points, although god only knows what you could come up with that actually needs 30 points worth of special abilities).

Incidentally, you should probably put a Wilding Clasp on your bracers (in point of fact I recommend putting those on all your gear if you change shape all that often).

---
The real way to get a credible AC is to pick up abilities that give you an extra ability score to AC or to shapechange into a form with significant natural armor. In which case getting Scintillating Scales cast on you is great.

---
All that said, the best way to defend yourself in higher level play is with Craft Contingent spells. It might get expensive but getting a Craft Contingent Mastery of Shaping Wall of Force (so that it only covers a single 5 foot square directly between you and the attack) set to place a wall between you and an attack is probably the best regular defense in the game. The real kicker is that if you word it right ("On an attack that would hit") your AC and Miss Chance still come into play.

Pick up half a dozen of those and you are good for a fight or two. Just make sure you have a stable of Simulacrum Solar's in your bag of holding to Wish them back up after every fight.

sonofzeal

2012-04-28, 11:15 PM

Miss Chance is better than AC, most of the time. And 20% miss chance is dirt cheap (24k).
My lvl 10 build on the last page could spend 17k on AC for substantially better effect. I dispute your definition of "dirt cheap".

A Cloak of Minor Displacement should almost always be purchased before AC boosters simple because it forces another roll and is always worth at least 4 points of AC (and very often much more).
The Cloak is not a practical purchase before lvl 10, and not equal to the protective value of similar quantities of gold until much later.

Also, it's worth less than 4 AC. If your AC is giving enemies a 50% miss chance, then a Cloak of Minor Displacement is actually the equivalent of +2 AC. A 50% chance of being hit on the attack roll, times the 80% chance of being hit on the miss chance, gives a 40% chance of being hit, exactly as if you'd boosted your AC by 2.

This is not to say that miss chance isn't valuable. It's excellent for people who would have serious trouble getting their AC up, it gives an additional layer of defence over AC for those that can get both, and it applies against a few more things.

Still, most things foiled by miss chance are foiled by AC, and AC stacks far better than miss chance does.

After that you are almost always better off loading your armor down with as many enchantments as possible. They are almost always worth more than the additional points of AC.
There's not actually that many armor enchants that I usually consider important for most characters. Which are you grabbing?

Emperor Tippy

2012-04-28, 11:49 PM

My lvl 10 build on the last page could spend 17k on AC for substantially better effect. I dispute your definition of "dirt cheap".
Before level 15, devoting wealth to defense isn't that great an idea. You simply don't have enough of it. At level 10 you have 49K to spend. 16K of that ends up eaten up with stat boosters, another 10K ends up spent on necessary but ancillary gear (things like bags of holding). That leaves 23K to spend on other things. Your weapon is going to eat at least 8K of that (a +2 weapon), and more likely 18K. Figure another 2-5K on consumables. That leaves you around 10K (being generous) for armor and other defensive items.

So yes, by the time you have anywhere near enough gold to actually devote enough to defense to be of any real use; 24K is pretty much dirt cheap.

The Cloak is not a practical purchase before lvl 10, and not equal to the protective value of similar quantities of gold until much later.

Also, it's worth less than 4 AC. If your AC is giving enemies a 50% miss chance, then a Cloak of Minor Displacement is actually the equivalent of +2 AC. A 50% chance of being hit on the attack roll, times the 80% chance of being hit on the miss chance, gives a 40% chance of being hit, exactly as if you'd boosted your AC by 2.
Except for the fact that natural 20's don't guarantee a hit, you need to roll twice, one in five attacks automatically miss, arguably you can't be sneak attacked, and that the miss chance always provides it's benefit.

This is not to say that miss chance isn't valuable. It's excellent for people who would have serious trouble getting their AC up, it gives an additional layer of defence over AC for those that can get both, and it applies against a few more things.

Still, most things foiled by miss chance are foiled by AC, and AC stacks far better than miss chance does.
Getting AC high enough to be particularly relevant isn't exactly cheap or easy. Getting an AC around 30 or so is relatively cheap, getting an AC around 50 or so in incredibly expensive.

There's not actually that many armor enchants that I usually consider important for most characters. Which are you grabbing?
Soulfire and Greater Blurring (or Gleaming) are +7 between them. Proof Against Transmutation is a +5, as is Heavy Fortification.

Getting 12 or 21 points of good armor abilities isn't hard at all. At level 20 devoting 200K or so to armor isn't a real problem either.

The only way to survive at high levels is to rack up immunities. The more you can pick up, the better off you are.

Clustered Chaos

2012-04-29, 06:52 AM

I think you're misunderstanding my intent. I don't mean to argue against your position, but rather understand it. My thought process was:

-If AC is useless, what do you use instead?
-Miss chance, caster defenses, etc.
-What about low levels? Really low levels?
-Good question. I'll find out.

Also, your wording is quite accusatory - 'cherry picked and nerfed'? I can understand why you would use those terms*, but they give your post a tone I'd prefer to do without. I've specifically attempted - perhaps unsuccessfully? - to keep my own 'tone' neutral.

This thread has been full of people repeating trite, overused arguments. You started doing the same and I came to the natural conclusion. As it is, going from something I pointed out to illustrate how advice quality has decreased over time on average to a long tangent containing many examples of exactly that has left my patience a bit short. That said...

*'Nerfed' due to the low range of the starting encounter, I think. Do you mean something else?

I immediately saw you picked a low damage creature and assumed it was just the usual misleading tactics at work.

@Damage: I, for the most part, agree. However, in this example, switching from sword-and-board to, say, a greatsword results in an average damage increase of 3 (6.5 to 9.5) without changing other stats. At higher Strength scores, the difference increases, though, so this is just related to the specific example.

Having a Str of a mere 14 on a melee character is its own problem.

@Orcs: Orcs have far less HP than Lizardfolk. A single average hit from the sword-and-boarder, who has a chance to hit ranging from 65% (charging) to 55% (later) drops one. If the sword-and-boarder goes first (on average, more likely due to +1 init bonus) they might provoke AOOs by moving past them. They're glass cannons. Dangerous, yes, but a good example of why AC is important if you have no other defenses (low HP, no miss chance, etc.) in a low-level environment.

This part doesn't matter for one simple reason. Everything randomly dies in 1-2 hits at level 1. Sooner rather than later, the Orc pair will get their attacks off. That and because everyone dies in 1-2 hits, pointing at a specific enemy and saying it's easily killed (as if others aren't) is misleading.

EDIT: Oh, and this is technically an EL 3 encounter, which is a point against the CR system.

No it isn't. 2 CR 0.5s is a level 1 encounter.

That and the two hander will always one shot an orc, the one hander often won't.

To be fair, there is exactly one monster that fits the figures Clustered Chaos is throwing around. A 9th level Astral Construct is a CR10 with +28 to attack by default, increasing to +30 with the menu B option "Muscle". In fact, the construct could spend all of its options on "Muscle" and then reach an attack bonus of +36. However, in such a case it would have two of these +36 attacks, both dealing 2d6+24 damage (62 average, together). This is not terribly impressive, considering that the average frontliner is swinging at least 100HP at this point, and should have no trouble with the construct's AC and HP.

So yes, if all the enemies in your campaign are Astral Constructs, then you might as well dump AC, but that's only because they don't hit terribly hard anyway.

I wasn't talking about Astral Constructs. Though if you assume I was, first you'd have to ignore the various tricks to get high level constructs early, then you'd have to ignore the accompanying Psion, then you'd have to assume a Con of 20 at level 10. All in all, not likely at all. Even if it does happen, they kill you in two rounds.

If you really want defense, listen to Tippy. He has the right of it.

Amphetryon

2012-04-29, 07:05 AM

. . .arguably you can't be sneak attacked. . .
It might be helpful to both sides of the discussion if you expanded on the argument for this.

Clustered Chaos

2012-04-29, 07:10 AM

Concealment = no SA. That was easy.

sonofzeal

2012-04-29, 07:38 AM

Before level 15, devoting wealth to defense isn't that great an idea. You simply don't have enough of it. At level 10 you have 49K to spend. 16K of that ends up eaten up with stat boosters, another 10K ends up spent on necessary but ancillary gear (things like bags of holding). That leaves 23K to spend on other things. Your weapon is going to eat at least 8K of that (a +2 weapon), and more likely 18K. Figure another 2-5K on consumables. That leaves you around 10K (being generous) for armor and other defensive items.

So yes, by the time you have anywhere near enough gold to actually devote enough to defense to be of any real use; 24K is pretty much dirt cheap.
Eh, I usually play in the lvl 7-12 range, and I'm rarely dropping the quantities of money you suggest. At these levels, there usually aren't four stats you need boosts, and the change from +2 to +4 is usually not worth it unless you're a primary caster, so 16k on stat boosters is usually excessive. Also, I generally consider +2 weapons to be a luxury rather than a necessity; I can usually find better things to do with 6k up to lvl 10 or so, depending on the character. Boosting offence is what feats and class features are for.

My general layout, independent of level, is this:

50% of gold on defences of various kinds, including statboosters to Con, Dex, etc.
25% of gold on offence, primarily weapon and Strength staboosters.
25% of gold on utility.

I find this rule of thumb works well for most characters. Mages and certain other classes obviously demand a different layout, and I don't really hold myself to it with any rigor, but it usually gets me in the right ballpark. I can't remember the last time I lost a character in anything other than a cutscene, but I'm usually one of the more efficacious members of my team. Then again, I usually play substantially lower-op games than you're famous for, so that might be part of it. :smalltongue:

Except for the fact that natural 20's don't guarantee a hit, you need to roll twice, one in five attacks automatically miss, arguably you can't be sneak attacked, and that the miss chance always provides it's benefit.
Oh, granted. Miss chance will reduce crit threats more often than AC will. And it's a little more reliable. None of that changes the fact that it doesn't stack as well, and is (as you say) not really something you can pick up easily before lvl 15 or so.

It's mostly just the math I was disagreeing with; 20% miss chance does not equate to a +4 AC unless enemies were (barely) hitting on a 2 to start with. I do agree that miss chance is very valuable and should be picked up as soon as you can afford it, and that the best defence is always a defence of depth.

Soulfire and Greater Blurring (or Gleaming) are +7 between them. Proof Against Transmutation is a +5, as is Heavy Fortification.

Getting 12 or 21 points of good armor abilities isn't hard at all. At level 20 devoting 200K or so to armor isn't a real problem either.

The only way to survive at high levels is to rack up immunities. The more you can pick up, the better off you are.
I usually don't play at levels where those are affordable, but I'll keep it in mind.

PersonMan

2012-04-29, 07:57 AM

This part doesn't matter for one simple reason. Everything randomly dies in 1-2 hits at level 1. Sooner rather than later, the Orc pair will get their attacks off. That and because everyone dies in 1-2 hits, pointing at a specific enemy and saying it's easily killed (as if others aren't) is misleading.

The thing is, some are more easily killed than others - monsters with a higher AC or more hit points are more likely to survive a crossbow shot or similar from a high-Dex party member and get to take their turn, whereas AC 13 5 HP orcs are at risk of being taken out of the fight before they can even act. A level 1 rogue is likely to go first with their high Dex and has a good enough bonus to hit the orc 50% of the time or more. A crossbow bolt dealing 1d8 + 1d6 damage will down the orc even with below-average rolls. If it doesn't, other ranged attackers (like a wizard) can finish them off, while the SnBer can charge the remaining orc.

Of course, other party members were left out of my first lizardfolk example, too, so the point is fairly moot.

In this case, a higher Strength doesn't even favor the two-hander much. If the SnBer has a Strength of 18, they only need to roll a 2 on damage to one-shot the orc. The two-hander always will, but that isn't much of an advantage.

No it isn't. 2 CR 0.5s is a level 1 encounter.

That and the two hander will always one shot an orc, the one hander often won't.

The first is my mistake, I thought an orc was CR 1.

A two-hander with 14 Strength does 2d6+3 damage, an average of 10. A one-hander with 14 Strength does 1d8+2 damage, an average of 6.5. Both are enough to one-shot an orc. Higher Strength actually favors the one-hander, here, as the two-hander stops really gaining much after the increase to 16.

At level 1, HP is low enough that the difference between 6 and 10 damage might not always matter. Later, the two-hander pulls ahead, but for now neither has a great advantage.

Clustered Chaos

2012-04-29, 08:34 AM

It's easy to survive when nothing deems it worth the effort to attack you.

The thing is, some are more easily killed than others - monsters with a higher AC or more hit points are more likely to survive a crossbow shot or similar from a high-Dex party member and get to take their turn, whereas AC 13 5 HP orcs are at risk of being taken out of the fight before they can even act. A level 1 rogue is likely to go first with their high Dex and has a good enough bonus to hit the orc 50% of the time or more. A crossbow bolt dealing 1d8 + 1d6 damage will down the orc even with below-average rolls. If it doesn't, other ranged attackers (like a wizard) can finish them off, while the SnBer can charge the remaining orc.

The problem with that is that you have a high Dex party member. If the enemies are starting within 30 feet, the first time they get to move first someone dies.

In this case, a higher Strength doesn't even favor the two-hander much. If the SnBer has a Strength of 18, they only need to roll a 2 on damage to one-shot the orc. The two-hander always will, but that isn't much of an advantage.

Average HP at this level is 13. There are of course plenty of ways of getting Orc damage and 13 HP... just about any two handed weapon using melee easily manages at least that much. I was being lazy because no one cares about level 1.

Especially when below average damage hurts you more than above average damage helps you.

Can we talk about a meaningful example now? I mean, if we're going to repeat the same trite old news it should at least be about levels that matter.

Voyager_I

2012-04-29, 08:49 AM

If you really want defense, listen to Tippy. He has the right of it.

Tippy might be our God-Emperor of System Mastery, but I would venture that almost nobody plays the game the way he and his group does, and trying to use most of his tricks would get you thrown out of a typical gaming table.

Saying "do it like Tippy does" is not an argument that supports your game experience being typical.

No disrespect to the Emperor, of course, but I don't think the typical player is ready for divine ascension via Ice Assassin.

The problem with that is that you have a high Dex party member. If the enemies are starting within 30 feet, the first time they get to move first someone dies.

It sounds like you're playing a game of high-OP Rocket Tag. While that's certainly what happens when you take any solid amount of system mastery to its logical conclusion, that doesn't make it a typical game.

I mean, we've gone from "AC is always useless" to "High Dexterity is always useless"

Average HP at this level is 13. There are of course plenty of ways of getting Orc damage and 13 HP... just about any two handed weapon using melee easily manages at least that much. I was being lazy because no one cares about level 1.

Most of those ways are also PC classes, which have a higher CR than NPC Orcs.

Can we talk about a meaningful example now? I mean, if we're going to repeat the same trite old news it should at least be about levels that matter.

I believe the entire thread is still waiting for one of your non-optimized level 10 mooks with +30 to-hit. So, if you want examples to talk about, post away.

hamishspence

2012-04-29, 08:55 AM

Tippy might be our God-Emperor of System Mastery, but I would venture that almost nobody plays the game the way he and his group does, and trying to use most of his tricks would get you thrown out of a typical gaming table.

Saying "do it like Tippy does" is not an argument that supports your game experience being typical.

No disrespect to the Emperor, of course, but I don't think the typical player is ready for divine ascension via Ice Assassin.

It sounds like you're playing a game of high-OP Rocket Tag. While that's certainly what happens when you take any solid amount of system mastery to its logical conclusion, that doesn't make it a typical game.

Tippy himself doesn't always play high-op- and discusses low op houserules here: My Common Houserules (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=241019)

Clustered Chaos

2012-04-29, 08:56 AM

Oscredwin

2012-04-29, 09:06 AM

Lastly, I've already shown some mook numbers to someone, and he's commented on them privately. Knowing that someone else knows the answer to the question doesn't do much to reduce people's curiosity. You're making claims that you back up by PMing one member of the forum and tel everyone else that they have to accept those claims without seeing the evidence because you showed someone else. This isn't even argument from authority, this is argument from someone somewhere knows.

sonofzeal

2012-04-29, 09:12 AM

Tippy himself doesn't always play high-op- and discusses low op houserules here: My Common Houserules (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=241019)
He does, however, seem to play at very high level as a standard. As evidence:

Miss Chance is better than AC, most of the time. And 20% miss chance is dirt cheap (24k).

Conventional board wisdom (and my own experience) is that most games are played in the lvl 5-10 range, and 24,000 gp is extremely expensive even at the top of that range. Calling it "dirt cheap", combined with some of his other comments, leads me to assume that most of his gaming happens in the higher teen levels.

It's also conventional board wisdom that the game starts changing significantly at higher levels, and things that are true at lower levels may no longer be true. That's why I mostly talk about lvl 10 here, since that's a level I've worked with in a number of campaigns, but is still reasonably high. It's been my very definite experience that AC is worthwhile through lvl 10. Whether it's still worthwhile at lvl 15, I can't say; I've only played there once or twice, and not extensively.

Point is that Tippy's comments are assuming that a normal character will have 24k to dump on a marginal defence, which I doubt will be true much below 15th level. While his analysis is fine, the practicality of the matter is that its AC or the highway for most low or mid level characters.

Voyager_I

2012-04-29, 09:20 AM

He's not talking about TO stuff, he's talking about how to get practical, meaningful defenses.

D&D is always rocket tag unless you specifically houserule with the goal of making more meaningful defenses and specifically optimize with the goal of getting those more meaningful defenses without losing offense. And at level 1, D&D is always rocket tag even if you are specifically doing the things I mentioned.

At level 1, yes, D&D is basically rocket-tag with dice-powered rockets. I generally wouldn't play there.

However, it's quite possible for D&D to not be rocket tag. Not everyone plays the game in the most effective manner possible. In fact, the archetypal characters (Sword-n-Board Weapon Specialization Fighter, Blaster Wizard, Heal-Bot Cleric, etc) are among the absolute least effective ways to play the game, and away from these boards, they actually exist.

Not all characters are designed to incapacitate at least one opponent per standard action, nor will be the monsters they fight. It's far from optimal, but the point of the game isn't to design the most effective characters possible.

High Dexterity being useless isn't a shift at all, as it was already covered when the first person tried a 0 damage Dex build. It's a separate but heavily overlapping problem as Dex builds don't do any damage and are therefore pointless. Even his example is only averaging 8 in a best case scenario, which is low.

Dexterity-based characters are not useless. They must be competently designed to do anything in combat and are still sup-optimal compared to something like a strength-based charger (or just any character that does something other than hit thing with weapons to kill them), but they certainly have a place in the game outside of high-op campaigns.

You also said that a high-Dex character in the party guarantees that someone dies if the monsters ever win initiative, which implies your game is already rocket tag.

Lastly, I've already shown some mook numbers to someone, and he's commented on them privately. Of course they carried with them the obvious implication that if a level 7 can hit 23 or 26 hitting 30 at 10 is beyond trivial. All without trying that hard. It was contrasted to some enemies that did try that hard and ended up > 30 at < 10.

So an example you've shown to one person who respected your desire for privacy by responding only to you is expected to be sufficient to support your arguments for this general discussion?

You don't appear to be insane, so it's very difficult to convince myself that you aren't just trolling.

Clustered Chaos

2012-04-29, 09:31 AM

Conventional board wisdom (and my own experience) is that most games are played in the lvl 5-10 range, and 24,000 gp is extremely expensive even at the top of that range. Calling it "dirt cheap", combined with some of his other comments, leads me to assume that most of his gaming happens in the higher teen levels.

He also said defense isn't worth it until level 15, because you don't have enough money before that. So if you stop before 15, you don't have defense. Simple. There are other problems with his train of logic but you haven't found them yet. Not even close.

Also, "conventional board wisdom" would mean a lot more if the average person were more consistently right.

PS: Spending 24k on a "marginal defense" more accurately describes AC than miss chances.

At level 1, yes, D&D is basically rocket-tag with dice-powered rockets. I generally wouldn't play there.

However, it's quite possible for D&D to not be rocket tag. Not everyone plays the game in the most effective manner possible. In fact, the archetypal characters (Sword-n-Board Weapon Specialization Fighter, Blaster Wizard, Heal-Bot Cleric, etc) are among the absolute least effective ways to play the game, and away from these boards, they actually exist.

So you have a party that doesn't have rockets. The enemies still do, so you just die.

The houserules in question ensure people can get meaningful defenses.

Not all characters are designed to incapacitate at least one opponent per standard action, nor will be the monsters they fight. It's far from optimal, but the point of the game isn't to design the most effective characters possible.

Perhaps not. But if they're there for damage (all non casters are there for damage) and they can't do that, they aren't contributing.

As for the monsters, they very consistently 1-2 round anyone without effective defenses. Which by RAW means non casters. And some casters, but mostly non casters.

Dexterity-based characters are not useless. They must be competently designed to do anything in combat and are still sup-optimal compared to something like a strength-based charger (or just any character that does something other than hit thing with weapons to kill them), but they certainly have a place in the game outside of high-op campaigns.

They're a damage dealing character that doesn't do damage. Useless. Very simple and straightforward.

Barring snarky responses such as monster food, they have no place in the campaign.

You also said that a high-Dex character in the party guarantees that someone dies if the monsters ever win initiative, which implies your game is already rocket tag.

Well yeah, if your damage dealer can't do damage, and has to be within 30 feet, and has no defenses they're going to run over and kill someone.

So an example you've shown to one person who respected your desire for privacy by responding only to you is expected to be sufficient to support your arguments for this general discussion?

I showed him the specifics, told him not to post the specifics, and gave him permission to post that yes, the numbers are possible.

sonofzeal

2012-04-29, 10:24 AM

Also, "conventional board wisdom" would mean a lot more if the average person were more consistently right..
...which was the entire claim I made in the first place.

PS: Spending 24k on a "marginal defense" more accurately describes AC than miss chances.
Remember, 24k was about the budget for my lvl 10 character to get 75% wiff rate from equal level melee brutes. I'll take 75% wiff rate over 20% miss chance, any day, if I could only have one or the other. At no point in the game is 20% miss chance adequate by itself. It's primary function is simply adding another layer to whatever other "defence in depth" you can get going.

I showed him the specifics, told him not to post the specifics, and gave him permission to post that yes, the numbers are possible.
Look, if the method is so sensitive that you don't want your players to see how you do it, then it's not obvious and "normal".

Your entire argument hinges around the numbers you cite, not just existing, but existing ubiquitously. This is so obviously falsifiable (and falsified, both by my experiences and those of others in this thread) as to be laughable, but you're not helping your own case by treating it like state secrets.

PersonMan

2012-04-29, 11:35 AM

The problem with that is that you have a high Dex party member. If the enemies are starting within 30 feet, the first time they get to move first someone dies.

...

Can we talk about a meaningful example now? I mean, if we're going to repeat the same trite old news it should at least be about levels that matter.

If level 1 play is rocket tag, and Dexterity gives a bonus to initiative, why is high Dexterity bad?

I'm going to keep responding to your responses until you stop posting them or say something like 'I see. Well, if that works for you games, cool. I guess AC isn't useless in your games.' - I don't know about you, but I'm enjoying the back-and-forth.

Clustered Chaos

2012-04-29, 11:44 AM

...which was the entire claim I made in the first place.

Remember, 24k was about the budget for my lvl 10 character to get 75% wiff rate from equal level melee brutes. I'll take 75% wiff rate over 20% miss chance, any day, if I could only have one or the other. At no point in the game is 20% miss chance adequate by itself. It's primary function is simply adding another layer to whatever other "defence in depth" you can get going.

By 75%, you mean 20%. And unlike the 20% from the cloak, you get less vs anything harder. You also get less vs touch attacks, rays, you don't get sneak attack immunity... all things the cloak and its accompanying concealment grant.

In any case I think we've already established non casters cannot get defenses, so you telling me non casters cannot get defenses proves nothing.

If level 1 play is rocket tag, and Dexterity gives a bonus to initiative, why is high Dexterity bad?

1: Dexterity is not the primary source of initiative.
2: Going first means nothing if you cannot do anything with your action. Clearly, a DPS class that can't DPS cannot do anything with its action.
3: You'll still not go first before getting out of those levels.
4: When/if you do get past those levels, you still have a useless character.
5: Dexterity comes at the expense of useful stats (Str for the DPS characters, possibly Con if you're really dumb about it). Which part of the reason why it makes you a useless character.
6: No useful combat forms are based on Dex (this deserves a separate entry just to remind everyone archers and Rogues suck).

I'm going to keep responding to your responses until you stop posting them or say something like 'I see. Well, if that works for you games, cool. I guess AC isn't useless in your games.' - I don't know about you, but I'm enjoying the back-and-forth.

So in other words you intend to repeat the same wrong and clearly wrong points until I get annoyed with you? Weren't you just trying to convince me to give you the benefit of the doubt? Because I clearly see now that I was in the wrong and should doubt giving you that benefit.

Well, since we've established you have nothing worthwhile to add, I'll just ignore you. Simple.