Psychic Warrior, Broken? (Y/N)

[betelgeuce]

I am being told as of now, the psychic warrior with a powerful build adaptation can pump out 8d8 damage at ECL 3. WTF? I thought I knew a bunch about psionics. I can only think of a few ways this could happen and dammit if they don't only happen a few times a day. Can one of you D&D gods please explain this to me because I'm lost as a sheep...?

[Answerer]

Not even a little bit.

[ThiagoMartell]

I have no idea how you can get to 8d8 at level 3 with Psychic Warrior. I'm guessing incorrect size stacking and/or incorrect augmenting of Claws of the Beast

[Tvtyrant]

To the titles question: Define "broken," because it is not a precision term and shouldn't be treated as such.

To the text question: Probably.

[betelgeuce]

I hear it's this:
Okay, powerful build you stack up your size 1
2 hand a 1 handed weapon for a size up
That makes a medium weapon what??? gargantuan?
Then I hear that this spell grants you extra d8s of damage. I can only think of what is it called? Bite of the wolf? Something like that. I thought it was bull but I didn't know.

Broken:
When something causes natural events to stop happening outside their natural occurrence. Wish, Miracle, Wildshape into creatures that are BADDD for the game. Ie a balance problem. 8d8 damage at level 3 makes the DM CR the crap out of everything just to make it a challenge.

[Zale]

Powerful Build + Expansion?

[betelgeuce]

I thought about that.

[lsfreak]

No.

Even if 8d8 is correct, broken is not just a function of damage. It's versatility and ability to break multiple encounters. Even bad melee, like a monk or CW samurai, can potentially be optimized to the point of dropping a thousand damage a round. They're still among two of the most underpowered classes.

There are some arguably cheesy tricks, but that's the case with pretty much every single class that has access to spells.

[Zale]

Let's see if I've got this correctly.

Powerful Build would enable you to wield a large weapon. 3d6 Damage for a Greatsword.

Then, Expansion would make you Large, but you count as Huge?

Which would be 4d6 for a Huge Greatsword.

[Eldariel]

Yeah, stacking size increases is viable. Powerful Build + Augmented Expansion (doable fairly early via. Overchannel though it'll drain your power supply; and you'd need to be level 4 in any case) gives you 3 size category increases to your weapon.

You could e.g. wield Fullblade [Arms & Equipment Guide], which is 2d8 for Medium creatures (two-handed weapon), 3d8 for Large, 4d8 for Huge and 6d8 for Gargantuan. Though where to get that one more size increase, I can't think of off the top of my head (Greater Mighty Wallop is a spell that only applies to bludgeoning weapons and comes later).


Either way, it costs a lot of resources and the Power doesn't last long unless augmented in another way too (even more Power Points). Besides, damage is fairly easy to do in the end; this is just one way, and not even the best at that.

[Khosan]

Well, Psychic Warrior was the driving force behind the King of Smack. Though I don't think 8d8 at ECL 3 is possible unless someone's handling augmentation incorrectly.

[Tvtyrant]

Minionmancy is the general solution for high damage dealers, especially if you make some tripper minions. That or flight.

[Zale]

Doesn't work by RAW. Powerful Build doesn't make you count as a higher size category, it makes you count as Large. Basically, it does not stack with Expansion or Enlarge Person.

Ah. I wasn't sure how Powerful Build functioned.

The SRD says:


Powerful Build: The physical stature of half-giants lets them function in many ways as if they were one size category larger.

Whenever a half-giant is subject to a size modifier or special size modifier for an opposed check (such as during grapple checks, bull rush attempts, and trip attempts), the half-giant is treated as one size larger if doing so is advantageous to him.

A half-giant is also considered to be one size larger when determining whether a creature’s special attacks based on size (such as improved grab or swallow whole) can affect him. A half-giant can use weapons designed for a creature one size larger without penalty. However, his space and reach remain those of a creature of his actual size. The benefits of this racial trait stack with the effects of powers, abilities, and spells that change the subject’s size category.

So I went with that.

[ThiagoMartell]

Ah. I wasn't sure how Powerful Build functioned.


Nevermind, I was thinking about Jotunbrud.

[Rubik]

There are ways to deal 8d8 damage at or about level 3. Does it all have to be on the same attack?

A half-giant psychic warrior/whirling frenzy lion totem barbarian using Expansion and lance-charge attacks with Spirited Charge could easily deal 8d8 damage or more.

However, a single-classed barbarian would be doing very nearly as much.

Still not particularly broken, though.

[StreamOfTheSky]

N


The only way Psychic Warrior is "broken" is if you're comparing it to Soulknife, Monk, CW Samurai, I think you get the idea...

[Rubik]

N


The only way Psychic Warrior is "broken" is if you're comparing it to Soulknife, Monk, CW Samurai, I think you get the idea...Amen.

Note that the psychic warrior is tier 3, which is widely considered the sweet spot between power and versatility. Generally you only hit "broken" with specific tricks, or when you start hitting more optimized tier 2 and 1 characters. Not that you can't break a psywar -- it just doesn't have a tenth of the breakability of a druid or a wizard.

It IS considered the highest of the T3s, however. But unless you're setting extremely low-powered and low-option classes, such as the monk, as the high watermark, psywar is definitely NOT broken by default.

[Grendus]

I seem to remember an old trick involving size stacking with a PsiWar and shield bashing, something like start with half giant, Expansion, a +1 Bashing Shield, but even then I can only get to 3d6 unless we have Greater Might Wallop. I vaguely remember there was a trick to get even more damage out of it, but I forget the details and it's well beyond something available at ECL 3.

[Flickerdart]

There are ways to deal 8d8 damage at or about level 3. Does it all have to be on the same attack?

A half-giant psychic warrior/whirling frenzy lion totem barbarian using Expansion and lance-charge attacks with Spirited Charge could easily deal 8d8 damage or more.

However, a single-classed barbarian would be doing very nearly as much.

Still not particularly broken, though.
8d8 is only 36 damage. Spread across a full attack, it isn't terribly hard for a single-classed Barbarian to match that at level 3.

[eggs]

It's breakable (what isn't?), but generally less so than about half the player's handbook.

[manyslayer]

Off the top of my head,
large fullblade 3d8
expansion +1d8
psionic weapon +2d6 (expends psionic focus)
weapon made of deep crystal +2d6 (2 power points)

4d8 + 4d6. And that's not every round.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Just one trick to get moderately high damage at a low level does not make an entire class inherently broken. There's a similarly powerful trick for pretty much every class in the game.

Example: Falling object damage. Hidden Talent feat for Expansion or any class that can cast Enlarge Person, plus Up The Walls or a high enough Jump check or just permitting terrain. Make your character plus his gear weigh at least 500 pounds, your x8 weight for the size increase is over two tons. You can spend a move action to jump/run/etc. and drop down onto four opponents, dealing 20d6 damage to each of them. There's nothing stating that you need to make an attack roll, and there's nothing stating that they're given a saving throw.

[Snowbluff]

N


The only way Psychic Warrior is "broken" is if you're comparing it to Soulknife, Monk, CW Samurai, I think you get the idea...

I agree. The PSIwarrior is solid T3. It has some healing, buffs, and some good ACFs (One that lets it learn Mantle Powers like Metamorphosis).

Also, I only replied to your response since I LOVE your profile pic. :smallcool:

[Cor1]

Psychic Warrior is the good pre-packaged gish. My favourite build to get out of that one is the King Of Smack; I like to think that that one has combat pretty much solved.

An Elan Psychic Warrior is a very self-sufficient character, with awesome mobility, reliable damage, a ludicrous amount of attacks, and somewhat decent utility. It's just... done right.

[Psyren]

What is "broken" depends entirely on the power level of your campaign. For instance, a setting that considers Warlocks to be powerful would be hard-pressed to challenge an optimized Psywar.

Having said that, most gaming tables consider T3 to be the "sweet spot" of balance; such classes are potent enough to handle CR-appropriate encounters without additional work by the DM, but not so powerful that the campaign needs to be warped around them.

[ThiagoMartell]

Tier 3 is also a tad above the power level on which D&D was (supposed to be) balanced towards. I wouldn't call it broken, but it is more powerful than the baseline.

[Tvtyrant]

Having said that, most gaming tables consider T3 to be the "sweet spot" of balance; such classes are potent enough to handle CR-appropriate encounters without additional work by the DM, but not so powerful that the campaign needs to be warped around them.

Is this actually true, or have we just kept saying this until we believe it? I mean how exactly has the the community kept track of what "most" gaming tables do? I think it can more honestly be stated that starting with JaronK the optimization folks have adopted tier 3 as their poster child, and since that particular subset write most or all of the handbooks and build guides they are overwhelmingly represented.

[Snowbluff]

Is this actually true, or have we just kept saying this until we believe it? I mean how exactly has the the community kept track of what "most" gaming tables do? I think it can more honestly be stated that starting with JaronK the optimization folks have adopted tier 3 as their poster child, and since that particular subset write most or all of the handbooks and build guides they are overwhelmingly represented.

Well, I'll +1 that T3 is the most useful/best/balanced tier. I am sure if you ask around, many will agree. He isn't the first person to say this.

[ScionoftheVoid]

Well, I'll +1 that T3 is the most useful/best/balanced tier. I am sure if you ask around, many will agree. He isn't the first person to say this.

Nevertheless, "most gaming tables" is a big jump from "many gaming tables", let alone "many gaming tables which look up, and comment on, D&D stuff on-line".

If one doesn't have (enough) evidence to back up a claim of "most", I advise using "many" instead as a good rule-of-thumb - it gets the point across without being potentially misleading. That said, it's not a serious thing, and people will say what they wish, so whatever.

On-topic, Psychic Warrior is on about the same power level as Tome of Battle classes (a little less at the lowest levels were ToB characters are above the curve, a little more at the highest where spells and spell-equivalents start to outpace everything else through sheer utility). If that's too much for your game, then it's broken, if not then it'll probably be fine. But as you've seen, the combo that made you suspect is most likely either the kind of trick that's not really class specific and can be sorted by gentleman's agreement/subtle houserules or it's based on RAW-illegal size-stacking/heavily limited in uses/otherwise situational or not based in the rules.

[Psyren]

Tier 3 is also a tad above the power level on which D&D was (supposed to be) balanced towards. I wouldn't call it broken, but it is more powerful than the baseline.

I agree with this, but would argue that it's also intentional. Since PCs wane in power over the adventuring day, balancing them a little above par keeps them from falling too far below it once they've burned through some of their limited resources. A Psywar with full PP and one with no PP left are very different in terms of the challenges they can address.

In the case of T4/T5 classes though, even that little bump isn't enough without additional DM assistance.


Is this actually true, or have we just kept saying this until we believe it? I mean how exactly has the the community kept track of what "most" gaming tables do? I think it can more honestly be stated that starting with JaronK the optimization folks have adopted tier 3 as their poster child, and since that particular subset write most or all of the handbooks and build guides they are overwhelmingly represented.

It's logic, mostly. T3 is highly regarded because its classes can function well without needing specific gear, because their class features can compensate. Looking at the T4 classes, you can see multiple instances where they struggle without access to Magic-mart - rogues, barbarians, even warlocks either have specific common situations where they fall flat, and others where they can get by but in mediocre fashion. T5 and lower are even worse, as they actively need DM assistance to succeed. T1/T2 are the opposite, needing either the DM or their own players (preferably a combination of both) to actively work against their potential and keep the other classes relevant to a given challenge.

But it goes beyond merely what we expect to happen. There are numerous examples, provided both by JaronK and by others, of situations in which a T3 shone while a T4 did poorly. JaronK's own initial example (the Factotum vs. the Rogue) was both plausible and relevant.

Finally, "most gaming tables" is a necessary abstraction. DMs vary far too much in practice to really know what most tables would do. It might not be a rigorous use of the term, it's merely shorthand for "I think that if there were to be a poll, the majority would agree with this view."

[The_Ditto]

You could e.g. wield Fullblade [Arms & Equipment Guide], which is 2d8 for Medium creatures (two-handed weapon), 3d8 for Large, 4d8 for Huge and 6d8 for Gargantuan. Though where to get that one more size increase, I can't think of off the top of my head (Greater Mighty Wallop is a spell that only applies to bludgeoning weapons and comes later).


Doesn't Monkey Grip feat allow a 1 more "size bump" for your weapon?
If so, that should push it 8d8.

But wow, hardly broken, please, please, please, let me DM this guy, I won't even have to try, and his character will die too quickly :smallbiggrin:
a) no defenses
b) hard to tag, (Monkey Grip gives penalties, Expansion gives penalty to hit).
c) 1-trick ponyMonkey, that can only do this, what, 1/day?

Great, so he owns the first encounter, the 2nd encounter owns him. *shrug*
What's broken again?

[tyckspoon]

Doesn't Monkey Grip feat allow a 1 more "size bump" for your weapon?
If so, that should push it 8d8.


No; Monkey Grip and Powerful Build both let you wield a weapon one sized larger than what would be normal for your size. They do the same thing in a way that doesn't stack, and Powerful Build does it better.

[Eldariel]

No; Monkey Grip and Powerful Build both let you wield a weapon one sized larger than what would be normal for your size. They do the same thing in a way that doesn't stack, and Powerful Build does it better.

Strongarm Bracers being the best, of course. On the other hand, Goliath Barbarian 1/Psy War 3 with Mountain Rage & Practiced Manifester could pull off Strongarm Bracers + Mountain Rage + 2x Expansion. Except Mountain Rage is weird and size increases don't generally stack so not really.

[sonofzeal]

Perhaps the person in the OP was under the mistaken impression that you could augment Expansion up to huge as soon as you had the power points to do so?

[Answerer]

{{scrubbed}}

[Khosan]

Perhaps the person in the OP was under the mistaken impression that you could augment Expansion up to huge as soon as you had the power points to do so?

Not an uncommon misconception.

Assuming you weren't limited and could blow all your PP at once, your average 3rd level Psychic Warrior (with about 16 Wis, so 7 PP at ECL 3) could just barely augment Expansion for the second size increase at the cost of all of his PP.

[TuggyNE]

Not an uncommon misconception.

Assuming you weren't limited and could blow all your PP at once, your average 3rd level Psychic Warrior (with about 16 Wis, so 7 PP at ECL 3) could just barely augment Expansion for the second size increase at the cost of all of his PP.

Yeah. Anything is broken if you don't follow the rules. :smallwink:

[Khosan]

Yeah. Anything is broken if you don't follow the rules. :smallwink:

Kinda. It's not that broken though. At least in comparison to the shenanigans a Psion could pull assuming the same rule-breaking.

[Lonely Tylenol]

Let's see, Monk 2/Psychic Warrior 4/Fist of the Forest 1 with Tashalatora, Improved Natural Attack and Superior Unarmed Strike thrown in would get the unarmed strike of a 10th-level Large monk, plus one damage progression (via Fist of the Forest), so a 14th-level equivalent. Expansion makes this the equivalent of a Huge 14th-level monk, which is a 4d6 base. If you took the Decisive Strike variant of Monk, this doubles to 8d6, with twice your STR added to it. If you had a Monk's Belt or Monk's Tattoo on top of this, you would deal 8d8 base damage.

Problem is, the only thing Psychic Warrior is contributing to this is Expansion, which anybody who can cast Enlarge Person can do all the same. Also, ECL 7 is a little different from ECL 3, since a lot of things open up (like, say, Improved Natural Attack and Fist of the Forest).

[ThiagoMartell]

I agree with this, but would argue that it's also intentional. Since PCs wane in power over the adventuring day, balancing them a little above par keeps them from falling too far below it once they've burned through some of their limited resources. A Psywar with full PP and one with no PP left are very different in terms of the challenges they can address.

I see your point and I agree with it on principle. However, from my experience, the kind of group that wants everyone to be tier 3 is also the kind of group that employs "15 minute adventuring days". The DM can work around this, of course.
I tend to play tier 4 characters in the mostly t3 group I'm currently into and I do fine, since I usually optimize a bit more than them. My Mountebank was officially nicknamed Magnificent Bastard by our Warblade :smallcool:

[Psyren]

I tend to play tier 4 characters in the mostly t3 group I'm currently into and I do fine, since I usually optimize a bit more than them. My Mountebank was officially nicknamed Magnificent Bastard by our Warblade :smallcool:

A common misconception is that the tiers represent power levels in a play situation; in reality, they merely represent potential. Whether or not class X will reach that potential depends primarily on the player - so yes, it's more than possible for a T4/T5 to play well with T3s, or for a T1 to end up the least effective person at the table etc.

[lsfreak]

A common misconception is that the tiers represent power levels in a play situation; in reality, they merely represent potential. Whether or not class X will reach that potential depends primarily on the player - so yes, it's more than possible for a T4/T5 to play well with T3s, or for a T1 to end up the least effective person at the table etc.

That said, there is also a level of inherent optimization. Warblades are really difficult to screw up and will almost always be better than a fighter, but on the other hand it's very easy to build a cleric that contributes almost nothing. We could say that warblades have a high start and a tight spread, maybe 3-5. Fighters have a much lowers start but an equal high (1-5). The T1's are all pretty easy to screw up but go gamebreaking if you know what you're doing, so cleric starts at 1 and hits 10 with high optimization.

[morkendi]

My common fight with my half giant psy war is augmented enlarge, strength of my enemy, and vamperic blade. With his spiked chain and combat reflexes plus the knockdown feat, he can do some major damage while constantly debuffing, but can burn pp very fast. Desolving weapon gives me another 4d6 or more if augmented, but thats 1 shot per 3 or more pp.

[Rejakor]

All that stuff means you're likely more than level 3, which is the level the dude is asking about.


I have this pet theory, that all the idiots who would storm into any psionics: is it balanced thread screaming BROKEN OMG BROKEN OMG OMG to the point where it was actually hard to find any posts of people arguing with them, are now playing 4e/PF.

But it's more likely that it's just sunk into the general consciousness that psionics isn't broken, and the same people who shouted about how OMG BORKED it is are now referring to the tiers and talking about those silly people who don't realize you can't augment things above ML.

[Psyren]

I have this pet theory, that all the idiots who would storm into any psionics: is it balanced thread screaming BROKEN OMG BROKEN OMG OMG to the point where it was actually hard to find any posts of people arguing with them, are now playing 4e/PF.

Well, PF has psionics - not 1st-party, but definitely still fun. And since pretty much every class got upgraded, most folks who think psionics is broken now will be unlikely to change their minds. (Though DSP did a good job at nerfing most of the actual rules abuses.)

[ThiagoMartell]

Psionics in Pathfinder is amazing. Well, Psionics Unleashed is amazing. I don't really like Expanded.

[Featherman]

You'll never provide even the slightest evidence of that assertion, I am sure. In fact, I'll be shocked if you even try...

Well... Most of the old classes are full casters and tier 4 or lower for the rest with Wildshape Rangers being tier 3 for mimicking the class feature of a tier 1 and the bard being, imho, a "legit" tier 3. The older classes used to have core class abilities usable a few times per day and the class features weren't very "tight" or useful in general (monk, CW samurai and paladin exemplify this). The newer classes mostly populate tier 3 and many have a different design in that they are able to use their core class abilities much more often and have much tighter class features. There was not just general power creep but design changes as well. The original idea of very limited class abilities (even the original full casters are limited, the abilities just are varied and powerful) was changed to more spammable and useful class abilities. It was originally intended that you save your abilities and rest when they run out but this got changed and many of the newer classes can keep fighting and use their abilities making them tier 3.

[ThiagoMartell]

You'll never provide even the slightest evidence of that assertion, I am sure. In fact, I'll be shocked if you even try...
That's pretty well known, so I didn't think I needed any evidence. Just count how many classes in the tier system are in tiers 4 and 5 (the answer is: most of them). Tier 5 is just a tier 4 done wrong.
You're free to disagree, of course, but please don't be so blunt and offensive if you want to discuss this.



A common misconception is that the tiers represent power levels in a play situation; in reality, they merely represent potential. Whether or not class X will reach that potential depends primarily on the player - so yes, it's more than possible for a T4/T5 to play well with T3s, or for a T1 to end up the least effective person at the table etc.
That's... exactly what I said.

[sonofzeal]

Well... Most of the old classes are full casters and tier 4 or lower for the rest with Wildshape Rangers being tier 3 for mimicking the class feature of a tier 1 and the bard being, imho, a "legit" tier 3.

That's pretty well known, so I didn't think I needed any evidence. Just count how many classes in the tier system are in tiers 4 and 5 (the answer is: most of them). Tier 5 is just a tier 4 done wrong.
You're free to disagree, of course, but please don't be so blunt and offensive if you want to discuss this.
OTOH, that just tells us the result, not the intent. I strongly suspect they didn't intend such a gulf between the fullcasters and everyone else, meaning that T1 (and possibly even T2) shouldn't have existed at all. T5 and T6 certainly shouldn't have either, as both result from a failure of mechanics to live up to expectations.

All of which brings us back to the T3/T4 range. It's not that the classes here were intended to be here and everything else was intended to be somewhere else, it's that all the others were intended to be in that range and missed one way or the other.

Whether T3 or T4 was the prefered balance point, we'll never know. But we have some strong hints that it's T3, and that things falling T4 and below simply failed to live up to the designer's expectations. As evidence, I'll site the unofficial Hexblade fix, the one by the designer himself, who talks about what they intended to do with the class. He says they overestimated the value of casting arcane spells in armor, and that the final class is a bit disappointing... and that's for a T4 class. If a T4 class needs to be buffed slightly to reach the intended balance point, then that's a pretty good argument that T3 is the intention.

[Psyren]

To piggyback on sonofzeal's post, the Shadowcaster creator (Ari) was also disappointed that it came out T4. His fix (http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/184955-shadowcaster-fixes-mouseferatu.html) moves it pretty squarely to T3, possibly even upper-T3.

I especially like the second version of his fix because it keys both bonus mysteries and save DCs off the same stat (Cha.) So Cha becomes the stat you want to pump above all others, whereas Int 19 is all you need to cast every mystery in the game (and you can safely leave it lower for games that won't get that far.) Thus they are still MAD, but not damagingly so.

[Novawurmson]

I feel that most people I've played with like playing characters at about tier 4 - just "fantasy" enough to feel like a badass in a world full of tier 5s.

I personally like tier 3 better as a DM, so I help my players optimize to my comfort zone.

To answer the OP: No. Not in 3.5, not in DSP PF.

[ThiagoMartell]

Some classes considered to be t3 today (Dread Necromancer and Swordsage are the only ones I'm sure about, but I'm sure there are others) were considered t4 initially.
I really don't see how t3 could be an intended balance point, since there are no t3 classes in a core-only environment (Bard only gets to t3 with splatbook support).
You could say the designers later decided t3 (or the notion behind t3, actually) would be a better idea (for many reasons, maybe because the audience like it better) and I'd agree completely with you. All that says is that D&D 3.5 suffered a kind of power creep (or 'versatility creep', if you will). The premises still seem very clear to me. Monsters didn't get more powerful with later books (in fact, the 'middle ground' Monster Manuals have the most challenging monsters in the game), so it really looks like a matter of 'more power to the players'.
To wrap it up - t1/t2 are obivously not intended, but blaster wizards and healer clerics fit fine in t4.

[sonofzeal]

Some classes considered to be t3 today (Dread Necromancer and Swordsage are the only ones I'm sure about, but I'm sure there are others) were considered t4 initially.
I really don't see how t3 could be an intended balance point, since there are no t3 classes in a core-only environment (Bard only gets to t3 with splatbook support).
You could say the designers later decided t3 (or the notion behind t3, actually) would be a better idea (for many reasons, maybe because the audience like it better) and I'd agree completely with you. All that says is that D&D 3.5 suffered a kind of power creep (or 'versatility creep', if you will). The premises still seem very clear to me. Monsters didn't get more powerful with later books (in fact, the 'middle ground' Monster Manuals have the most challenging monsters in the game), so it really looks like a matter of 'more power to the players'.
To wrap it up - t1/t2 are obivously not intended, but blaster wizards and healer clerics fit fine in t4.
This... doesn't deal at all with the evidence Psyren and I just raised (mine from fairly early in 3.5's development cycle), and indeed merely repeats an argument I addressed immediately prior, without even any attempt at rebuttal. At which point I have to ask, did you actually read my post or are you responding to something considerably earlier?

[morkendi]

At 3rd the high damage can be done, but it's not really broken. If you can buff before combat, you can expand a few times, but augmenting to do it all at once is expensive. If you have to do it in combat, by the time you get the needed buffs off, the fighter and such will have done about the same damage over the rounds you spent buffing. If its a long fight, you might pull ahead, but with power attack and cleave, the fighter will still stay pretty close. Plus you burn a good amount of your pp for the day, so i dont think its broken at all. Playing mine at higher levels, once the mobs see what i am doing, I am always the target for disspells and holds, a good dispell and you have to start all over if you have the points left.

[ThiagoMartell]

This... doesn't deal at all with the evidence Psyren and I just raised (mine from fairly early in 3.5's development cycle), and indeed merely repeats an argument I addressed immediately prior, without even any attempt at rebuttal. At which point I have to ask, did you actually read my post or are you responding to something considerably earlier?

Wow, you're already getting down to insults? This early?
I don't intend to rebute anything. Also, your points are not from early in 3.5 (both creator's comments were around 2006). If you disagree with me, fine. I live in a free country and I'm guessing you do too. I'm just explaining how I got to my position and why I don't see a reason to change it.

@morkenti - Expansion does not stack with itself.

[sonofzeal]

Wow, you're already getting down to insults? This early?
I don't intend to rebute anything. Also, your points are not from early in 3.5 (both creator's comments were around 2006). If you disagree with me, fine. I live in a free country and I'm guessing you do too. I'm just explaining how I got to my position and why I don't see a reason to change it.

@morkenti - Expansion does not stack with itself.
You may notice that absolutely nothing in my post was an insult, or assumed anything negative about you. I merely asked if you were responding to something earlier in the thread. I may have been a bit abrupt about it, but as you obviously weren't responding to the OP, and didn't acknowledge my post even though it addressed things you were saying, I think it's a fair question.

While the comment is from later, the class itself was from one of the first 3.5 books published. We have two comments from two different developers about how T4 classes weren't as strong as they should have been, and recommending buffs that move them up to T3 territory.

And, given that self-same evidence, I can't see how you can argue in good conscience that the Core classes were intended to be so widely spread as they were. Either those classes were intended to be of radically diverse power levels, or there was an intended power level that was missed more often than not. I submit that all available evidence points to the latter being true, and the intended power level being approximately T3.

[Lonely Tylenol]

This... doesn't deal at all with the evidence Psyren and I just raised (mine from fairly early in 3.5's development cycle), and indeed merely repeats an argument I addressed immediately prior, without even any attempt at rebuttal. At which point I have to ask, did you actually read my post or are you responding to something considerably earlier?

It addresses both of your points (re: Hexblade and Shadowcaster) quite adequately from where I'm sitting. The Hexblade's fix came three years after it was originally released, and the first sentence of that fix (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19547530/Contacting_Wizards_of_the_Coast_about_Hex_Blades&post_num=11) is "The hexblade suffers a little because he came on the scene relatively early in 3.5's life." There's nothing to suggest that it was initially a failure, so much as that it didn't hold up to the changing expectations of what makes a "good" base class as the production cycle developed. Ari's Shadowcaster was initially disappointing, but was also released late in 3.5's production cycle.

All of this is to say that core was probably designed with what we now consider "tier 4" firmly in mind--which is why, out of the 11 core classes (Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, Wizard), five of them--Barbarian, Bard, Paladin, Ranger, and Rogue--can be reasonably considered "tier 4" in a core-only setting, and the tier 5 classes, the Fighter and Monk, are considered to not meet expectations. The classes that well exceed tier 4 in core (the full casters) could be easily argued to have never meant to be used in the context that they often are in higher-op games; Cleric was meant to healbot, Sor/Wiz were meant to blast, and Druid was never meant to remain in wild shape. These changes in expectations within the core content drastically change their position on the tier.

Miniatures Handbook and Complete Warrior followed with the Favored Soul, Marshal, Healer, Warmage, Samurai, Swashbuckler and Hexblade, all of which were relatively low-powered (with the exception of the Favored Soul, of course); in fact, only one class breaks the T4 barrier among all of them.

That isn't to say that end-production expectations and ideals aren't different now; indeed, Ari's Shadowcaster was disappointing when it was released, because it was in one of the last books to be printed, and three full years of development had changed expectations drastically by that point. Tier 4 was no longer the ideal balance point in the eyes of the game developers, and so even classes who are initially balanced well around this point received incremental power increases over the course of the production cycle (but mostly late in the production cycle), with the Ranger, Barbarian and Bard receiving tier-changing support in all cases but the Barbarian (who was shifted to the borderline, but never quite made it across), and the Rogue, Fighter, Monk and Paladin being replaced entirely by the Factotum, Warblade, Swordsage and Crusader, respectively, late in the production cycle. (This shifts all of the low-tier classes which might have initially been balanced around T4 into a T3-safe environment.) This is the power creep Thiago described.

TL;DR the game was initially balanced around what we now call T4/T5 (whether this is because of a poor initial understanding of the workings of the game or whether it was intentional, we may never know), and only later in the production cycle became more about what we now call T3, as changing player and developer expectations evolved the game (as they tend to do).

[sonofzeal]

It addresses both of your points (re: Hexblade and Shadowcaster) quite adequately from where I'm sitting. The Hexblade's fix came three years after it was originally released, and the first sentence of that fix (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19547530/Contacting_Wizards_of_the_Coast_about_Hex_Blades&post_num=11) is "The hexblade suffers a little because he came on the scene relatively early in 3.5's life." There's nothing to suggest that it was initially a failure, so much as that it didn't hold up to the changing expectations of what makes a "good" base class as the production cycle developed. Ari's Shadowcaster was initially disappointing, but was also released late in 3.5's production cycle.
On the contrary, I think the rest of the analysis explains quite clearly what happened. The problem identified throughout that article is not that the goalposts shifted, just that certain things that were considered potentially significant balance-wise (specifically, casting arcane spells in armor) turned out to be nothing of the sort. That does suggest it was initially a failure, just one that wasn't recognized until later.

[ThiagoMartell]

TL;DR the game was initially balanced around what we now call T4/T5 (whether this is because of a poor initial understanding of the workings of the game or whether it was intentional, we may never know), and only later in the production cycle became more about what we now call T3, as changing player and developer expectations evolved the game (as they tend to do).
Thanks, dude. You explained it a lot better than I did.


On the contrary, I think the rest of the analysis explains quite clearly what happened. The problem identified throughout that article is not that the goalposts shifted, just that certain things that were considered potentially significant balance-wise (specifically, casting arcane spells in armor) turned out to be nothing of the sort. That does suggest it was initially a failure, just one that wasn't recognized until later.
Now this is I disagree completely with. You think they were aiming for what we call t3 today all the time and just kept missing, year after year after year, until 2005? Is that really what you're saying or am I misunderstanding something?
What I see is a shift of goalposts and I can't see it as anything else, specially considering how heavily 3.0 was playtest under this specific goalpoast and how well it performs under it.



While the comment is from later, the class itself was from one of the first 3.5 books published. We have two comments from two different developers about how T4 classes weren't as strong as they should have been, and recommending buffs that move them up to T3 territory.

Because goalposts shifted, of course.

[Lonely Tylenol]

On the contrary, I think the rest of the analysis explains quite clearly what happened. The problem identified throughout that article is not that the goalposts shifted, just that certain things that were considered potentially significant balance-wise (specifically, casting arcane spells in armor) turned out to be nothing of the sort. That does suggest it was initially a failure, just one that wasn't recognized until later.

I certainly think that this played a part in why it turned out so tame (and don't intend to dispute the designer's own words, which I myself quoted), but must repeat that it also has to be looked at with respect to what was around it at the time of creation. At that time, the full class list would have been something to the effect of:

Barbarian
Bard
Cleric
Druid
Favored Soul
Fighter
Healer
Hexblade
Monk
Paladin
Ranger
Rogue
Samurai (CW)
Sorcerer
Swashbuckler
Warmage
Wizard

Knowing what we know today (not nine years ago), the bolded make sense for a game balanced around T4/5. The rest don't, but common workaday answers prove effective solutions to that puzzle.

If the game was balanced around what we today call T4/5, then the Hexblade's balance problems (relative to T3) wouldn't have been caught until much later, after the martial adepts have subsumed almost every other martial character (note that, by the time of the developer's response, Tome of Battle had been out for more than two months), because at the time of release, they wouldn't have been balance problems. In essence, the Hexblade working (or not, by current standards) as it did, when it was released in 2003, would have been a feature, not a bug, and only became a bug when it was subsumed by the Duskblade in 2006 (again, an instance of rebalancing).

Your explanation makes the most sense only if you consider the idea that all of early 3.5 was accidentally balanced almost uniformly around this sub-par power level to be true, which I think is even more unlikely than the game being (correctly or incorrectly) balanced around what we now call T4 or even T5, with arcane and divine magic being the mistake that accounts for all anomalies until the developers give up on fixing magic and rebalance everything else to compensate for the impossibly wide power gap (leading to T3 replacements for early releases, such as the Duskblade, Factotum, martial adepts, specialized casters, and so on).

[CTrees]

Just one trick to get moderately high damage at a low level does not make an entire class inherently broken. There's a similarly powerful trick for pretty much every class in the game.

Example: Falling object damage. Hidden Talent feat for Expansion or any class that can cast Enlarge Person, plus Up The Walls or a high enough Jump check or just permitting terrain. Make your character plus his gear weigh at least 500 pounds, your x8 weight for the size increase is over two tons. You can spend a move action to jump/run/etc. and drop down onto four opponents, dealing 20d6 damage to each of them. There's nothing stating that you need to make an attack roll, and there's nothing stating that they're given a saving throw.

Heroes of Battle. It's probably a DC 15 Reflex save.

[Answerer]

You have still posted nothing but assertion and evidence of results – which may or may not have anything to do with intent, which was the initial claim I asked for proof of.

You haven't provided any, of course, because there is none to provide. Which is why I was sure you wouldn't. But you should not make claims you cannot back up.

You cannot base conclusions about intent from their results, because their results were so obviously poor. They did not achieve what they were intending – whatever that was. The Cleric, Druid, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Sorcerer, and Wizard prove that. If more than half the classes are so wildly imbalanced as to be obviously not what they intended, there is no way their results can be accurately descriptive of their initial intent. So their results do not demonstrate their intent, and you still have no evidence of intent.


I'm not arguing that they intended T3, or any other tier. I am arguing that you have absolutely no evidence for the claim you are making. I'm further commenting that, this being the case, you should not make the claim in the first place.

[Lans]

8d8 is only 36 damage. Spread across a full attack, it isn't terribly hard for a single-classed Barbarian to match that at level 3.


Odds are that he needs to still add strength to that, but a barbarian should still be close to that.

Whirling frenzy orc 2d6+10x2 is 34, add in pa for 46, vs 36+10 strength+2PA

[Featherman]

Not to go too off-topic but it is possible that they didn't think full casters would be perceived as special at all. In a core environment all classes have their own problems and in the way they were probably intended to be played (from level 1) they all have their strengths and weaknesses. Full spellcasting could be called the most powerful class feature but it is also one of the most replaceable. Spells are very powerful and game changing but just in core only there are traps, wands, scrolls, a significant number of wondrous items, potions and staffs just to give almost everyone access to them. I don't want to dispute the existing tier lists but it is possible WoTC thought this way and didn't think that full casters would be perceived as powerful and in a way just as redundant as the others. I don't think they doubted that spells would be game-changing but they didn't think that spellcasters would get all the attention. The actual class features of clerics and wizards were really the exact same stuff as the others with some exceptions like the Luck domain. If the first level Samurai ability was thought as the only way to get a sword that class would look pretty powerful.

[Answerer]

There's no question that that they did not realize how powerful spellcasters would be. Even I am willing to stipulate that they were not intended to be that powerful.

But knowing that doesn't help us. They're not supposed to be Tier 1. Probably not supposed to be Tier 2 or Tier 6, either. But then where, between Tier 3 and Tier 5, were they intended to land?

We cannot judge this based on where the classes they made ended up landing, because Wizards was hideous at design and failed in almost every case to actually hit a consistent power level. Even within that list of bolded "T5/T4 classes," there is enormous variation. Moreover, looking at the definition of T5 – "capable of doing one thing, and not necessarily that well" – it seems very unlikely that it was intended anyway. There is evidence that full BAB and armor proficiencies, for example, were grossly overrated by early designers.

Does this mean they intended T4/5 classes to be T3? Or should they have just been uniformly T4, without any slipping into T5? I don't know. No one does. But then, I am not the one making a claim.

[Psyren]

I think we're talking past each other. Both Thiago and Zeal are right.

T3 I feel is where most designers want to end up nowadays, but Thiago's point is that this wasn't always the case, which is true. The goalposts were indeed shifted, as Mearls' post on the Hexblade (and R&D's mindset at the time) makes clear. But then, even after the new balance point was established, designers were still making mistakes as evidenced by Marmell. It's just that in the latter case, it was due to lack of playtesting, not due to a perception about what we now call T3 as being too powerful. Towards the middle - end of 3.5 I feel they were trying to hit T3 and missing due to deadlines, misconceptions and other errors.

[ThiagoMartell]

You have still posted nothing but assertion and evidence of results – which may or may not have anything to do with intent, which was the initial claim I asked for proof of.

It's officially stated that D&D is balanced around a aprty of blaster wizard, healer cleric, trapmonkey rogue and beatstick fighter. That is a t4 party. I've said that repeatedly. The only possible evidence for intent is a statement. This statement is evidence. Now, please, stop being so confrontational.


I think we're talking past each other. Both Thiago and Zeal are right.

T3 I feel is where most designers want to end up nowadays, but Thiago's point is that this wasn't always the case, which is true. The goalposts were indeed shifted, as Mearls' post on the Hexblade (and R&D's mindset at the time) makes clear. But then, even after the new balance point was established, designers were still making mistakes as evidenced by Marmell. It's just that in the latter case, it was due to lack of playtesting, not due to a perception about what we now call T3 as being too powerful. Towards the middle - end of 3.5 I feel they were trying to hit T3 and missing due to deadlines, misconceptions and other errors.
Agree completely. I still like t4 better for my games (that's where most of Pathfinder seems to end up, as well), but t3 and t4 mix pretty well, specially with optimization as a side dish.

[Lans]

But knowing that doesn't help us. They're not supposed to be Tier 1. Probably not supposed to be Tier 2 or Tier 6, either. But then where, between Tier 3 and Tier 5, were they intended to land?
.

You could look at design notes, and if they intended the the cleric to be the healer and for blasting to be the bees knees for wizards then that would mean they thought that the casters would be in the tier 4/5 area, maybe 3/4 if they highly mention out of combat utility.

I recall some things from when 3.0 came out like

A mentioning a wizard casting haste(3.0) being more powerful than a sorcerer spamming fireballs so I don't think thats going to be super accurate.

B A fighters feats being more powerful than a barbarians rage, which is why they gave him DR, more skill and hit points.

C That they supped up the cleric because nobody wanted to be the heal ******

[Lonely Tylenol]

You have still posted nothing but assertion and evidence of results – which may or may not have anything to do with intent, which was the initial claim I asked for proof of.

You haven't provided any, of course, because there is none to provide. Which is why I was sure you wouldn't. But you should not make claims you cannot back up.

You cannot base conclusions about intent from their results, because their results were so obviously poor. They did not achieve what they were intending – whatever that was. The Cleric, Druid, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Sorcerer, and Wizard prove that. If more than half the classes are so wildly imbalanced as to be obviously not what they intended, there is no way their results can be accurately descriptive of their initial intent. So their results do not demonstrate their intent, and you still have no evidence of intent.

I'm not arguing that they intended T3, or any other tier. I am arguing that you have absolutely no evidence for the claim you are making. I'm further commenting that, this being the case, you should not make the claim in the first place.

Not sure if any of this is directed at me... Or why it would be, since I didn't make the claims you are referring to... But your next post very clearly references mine.

Can you maybe, I don't know, elaborate on who this is directed at, a little bit?

Anyway, assuming that this is somehow (mis)directed at me, to answer the question of your second post--which tier the original arcane/divine casters would have been aimed at, were tiers a thing that they concerned themselves with upon creation--I can honestly say "tier 4". Healbot Cleric was very clearly meant to be "capable of doing one thing quite well, but often useless when encounters require other areas of expertise", because a core-only Cleric, when built without optimization in mind (and the forethought of years of experience), is perhaps an effective healbot (for whatever healing is worth) and buffbot, but cannot put out sustained damage, do much in the way of skills, or even maneuver effectively. The blaster Wizard/Sorcerer "rarely has any abilities that can outright handle an encounter unless that encounter directly plays to their strengths", because they are never Shcrodinger's Wizard, and probably don't have Banishment prepared when they happen to be fighting outsiders (or the means to know when that is), and if they're blasting (the most popular archetype), probably aren't straight up ending any CR-appropriate encounters (though they certainly contribute within this framework). Druids may be able to contribute to a wide number of things, but probably aren't breaking the game at any of them (an 8th-level Druid can shape into a bear and cast 4th-level spells, but can't do both in the same round due the lack of available swift-action spells, and they aren't tremendously effective at either, since Wild Armor is the only equipment they can take advantage of, and the Druid is expected to be all nature-y with their spell selection). The Favored Soul exists as a divine counterpart to the Sorcerer, which is supposed to suffer all the normal problems of a Sorcerer (which actually aren't problems).

They were hilariously far from their mark, sure, but I can see how, in an optimization-free, splat-free environment, these classes could play harmoniously with any of the T4 classes (and even some T5, by way of proximity). There is no disharmony there.

[Draz74]

You'll never provide even the slightest evidence of that assertion, I am sure. In fact, I'll be shocked if you even try...

I'd like to opine that the WotC-provided NPC stat blocks, including the "example characters" provided to showcase each new class in later splatbooks, constitute "evidence" of the kind of characters WotC expected people to play.

And most of the WotC-made NPC stat blocks are T4 or lower. Even the ones based on T1 classes (due to e.g. spell choice).

[Novawurmson]

I'd like to opine that the WotC-provided NPC stat blocks, including the "example characters" provided to showcase each new class in later splatbooks, constitute "evidence" of the kind of characters WotC expected people to play.

And most of the WotC-made NPC stat blocks are T4 or lower. Even the ones based on T1 classes (due to e.g. spell choice).

I'd just like to say that this applies to PF as well.

Ever tried throwing something from the Gamemastery Guide at a moderately optimized party?

[Answerer]

Not sure if any of this is directed at me... Or why it would be, since I didn't make the claims you are referring to... But your next post very clearly references mine.

Can you maybe, I don't know, elaborate on who this is directed at, a little bit?
Thiago. The point where I asked him to provide evidence has been quoted several times, and is what started this mess.

I don't know why you thought it was directed at you; I did reference your post a bit, but I would have thought that "even that list" would indicate that I wasn't specifically addressing you – I would have used "even your list". In any event, my apologies for the confusion.

By the way, what on earth would an "optimization-free" campaign be like? Optimization is very clearly a gradient, but I have no idea what it would be like to have absolutely none. Is that where you make every character decision by rolling dice? I mean, that's the only way I can imagine having no optimization. Optimization at its most basic is just "making decisions that make sense for your character."


Thiago's point is that this wasn't always the case, which is true.
Oh? Are you planning to provide evidence for this? Because Thiago has not.


It's officially stated that D&D is balanced around a aprty of blaster wizard, healer cleric, trapmonkey rogue and beatstick fighter.
[Citation Needed]

Anyway, I know the party is Tier 4. You know the party is Tier 4. The question that you have not answered, and must to prove your case, is did Wizards know?

They may have intended that to be the party composition, but they also may have intended for that party to be stronger than it actually turned out to be. See the numerous quotes (Son of Zeal's linked at least one) indicating that things like full BAB and armor proficiencies were overvalued by early WotC design teams. Look at the definition of Tier 4 – it highlights the one-trick-pony nature of the classes, or in the case of jacks of all trades, their inability to do much of anything right. That does not sound, to me, like what Wizards was likely going for. Maybe it was; I don't actually know. But your claims that it absolutely was seem unlikely to me, and your lack of evidence for your position does not improve my opinion of the hypothesis.


And most of the WotC-made NPC stat blocks are T4 or lower. Even the ones based on T1 classes (due to e.g. spell choice).
This falls into the same boat as Thiago's post above. That may be the result but results are a poor indicator of intent when Wizards has proven to be as inept as they are.

[Lonely Tylenol]

Thiago. The point where I asked him to provide evidence has been quoted several times, and is what started this mess.

I don't know why you thought it was directed at you; I did reference your post a bit, but I would have thought that "even that list" would indicate that I wasn't specifically addressing you – I would have used "even your list". In any event, my apologies for the confusion.

Well, your second post was RE: Featherman, and thus both Thiago and I would have fallen under the "they" category of "me/you/they", but neither of us was referenced directly in the third person at any point in either post, which left it ambiguous (considering I seem to have taken up the argument on his behalf, particularly).


By the way, what on earth would an "optimization-free" campaign be like? Optimization is very clearly a gradient, but I have no idea what it would be like to have absolutely none. Is that where you make every character decision by rolling dice? I mean, that's the only way I can imagine having no optimization. Optimization at its most basic is just "making decisions that make sense for your character."

Allow me to amend that for clarity's sake. What I meant by "optimization-free" was free of active optimization, which is to say, players of relative inexperience picking what appears at a cursory glance to be a typical spell selection (which can range from player to player, but is rarely, if ever, similar to a thoughtful, well-constructed list), typical weapon choices (which is to say, sword and board is unlikely for a Barbarian, just as likely as 2H for a Fighter, and probably more likely for a Paladin, based on how well it fits the archetypes). No actual optimization would be rolling randomly on a chart, probably, or somehow making decisions based on a rewrite of the PHB completely devoid of any mechanical explanation (where Fireball is "you throw a fireball"), where you only know the mechanics of your choices after the fact. A game free of active optimization (that is to say, players not actively trying to optimize beyond what is typical or obvious for a new player) is your typical low-op game, which is functionally not much different from the starting packages.

If "free of active optimization" means something beyond this definition to you, then let it at least be known that this was my stated intention when I said "optimization-free", and interpret it as such.

[ThiagoMartell]

{{scrubbed}}

[Answerer]

{{scrubbed}}

[Psyren]

Thiago's point is that this wasn't always the case, which is true.
Oh? Are you planning to provide evidence for this? Because Thiago has not.



Sure thing:

"From WotC_Mearls (D&D Lead Designer):

The hexblade suffers a little because he came on the scene relatively early in 3.5's life. As R&D pushes the boundaries of the game, we learn that some things we thought were risky or potentially broken aren't. Other times, we learn things that look fine don't actually work in play.

Armored mages fall into the first category. They seem really powerful, but in the long run they aren't. Spells and magic items allow an unarmored mage to build great defenses. The spell mage armor is as good as medium armor, and its duration allows most mages to keep it active at all times. If you compare the hexblade to the duskblade from PH 2, you can see how the thinking has changed."

Bolded portions for emphasis.

Note that he points at a squarely T3 class as an example of how the thinking has changed. The clear conclusion is that they were not designing towards what we call T3 in the beginning of 3.5.

[ThiagoMartell]

{{scrubbed}}

[Lonely Tylenol]

Lonely Tylenol, I think you are projecting a lot of your own preconceived notions about how the game should be played into the minds of those who play it "naively." I generally think that basically everyone does this, so I'm not singling you out, but I think it's worth pointing out when it gets brought up. There have been plenty of players who have naively broken the game (unsurprisingly, perhaps, most have played druids and noticed that natural spell is pretty awesome), and probably even more players who have naively found themselves feeling pretty useless (I've met more than a few people who figured out their monk just wasn't cutting it even if they're in a group of totally new people). I'll stipulate that neither is the norm for naive play, but in general I think that one cannot really speak realistically about how the "average" naive game will go. There's enormous amounts of variation.

I am referring to what is "typical". The bolded makes it clear that your counter examples are not.

If you do not accept that there is a "typical", normative level for beginner play, as common sense might dictate, then that's OK. All you have to accept is that, for any statistical range, a mean, a median and a mode exist:

If you were to take the sum of all beginning experiences (include the players that accidentally break the game, and the players that are accidentally broken by it), quantified it, and divided it, the result would be a mean well between the extremes.

Given that, even though the range of experiences are likely very wide, there is probably a bell curve whereby the mode can be derived, statistically, which is somewhere to the mean;

As a result of these two inferences (I won't insult you by calling them facts, I'm on a time crunch and can't Google to back this up right now), the median range likely covers a sizable portion of the beginner experiences for D&D, including both the mean and the mode (as both likely fall naturally within the bell curve).

The beginner's experience likely falls within a very predictable bell curve, common sense or no, because people are predictable and often think alike. You are aware of this; you're making the same specific to general claims about my reasoning. Since the devs are all people, it's safe to assume they follow many similar, predictable patterns of behavior, and probably designed well within this curve.


It's somewhat similar to the myth of "common sense." We assume that others' experiences have been and will be similar to our own, but they are more often than not quite different in a number of ways.

The problem is, none of what I've said reflects either my beginning experiences or my way of thinking the game should be played. More importantly, I could make an argument derived entirely from a statistical analysis (like a real version of the one posited above) and probably wind up with two arguments that are virtually indistinct.

[dextercorvia]

<Snip>

Note that he points at a squarely T3 class as an example of how the thinking has changed. The clear conclusion is that they were not designing towards what we call T3 in the beginning of 3.5.

It is possible that he meant that they were afraid giving the Hexblade armored casting would make it more powerful than what we've come to call T3. And, in that case, it would be the understanding that has changed rather than the intended balance point.

[Answerer]

Sure thing:

"From WotC_Mearls (D&D Lead Designer):

The hexblade suffers a little because he came on the scene relatively early in 3.5's life. As R&D pushes the boundaries of the game, we learn that some things we thought were risky or potentially broken aren't. Other times, we learn things that look fine don't actually work in play.

Armored mages fall into the first category. They seem really powerful, but in the long run they aren't. Spells and magic items allow an unarmored mage to build great defenses. The spell mage armor is as good as medium armor, and its duration allows most mages to keep it active at all times. If you compare the hexblade to the duskblade from PH 2, you can see how the thinking has changed."

Bolded portions for emphasis.

Note that he points at a squarely T3 class as an example of how the thinking has changed. The clear conclusion is that they were not designing towards what we call T3 in the beginning of 3.5.
I do not think you are reading that correctly.

He does not say that the thinking changed from "they should be this strong" to "they should be that strong." He is saying that thinking changed from "this is that strong" to "this is not actually that strong." What changed is their understanding of the system, not what they were intending to achieve from it.

The quote you pull makes this very clear, I think. The bolded section is exactly my point: they learned that things that they thought were might be too good (and therefore nerfed) weren't actually that bad (and thus the nerfing led to weak classes like the Hexblade), while other things they thought would be fine (feature-less Fighter, or the Sor/Wiz spell list) turned out to not be what they thought it was.

Nowhere does he talk about intent changing, at all. He talks about understanding changing, about them learning that they had not achieved what they intended to originally.

This does not mean that the intent didn't change. It means that this is not evidence that it changed.


I have supported my own argument. What I want to is go running through google to find an old quote just because you were not around at the time it came out at first. Google it if you're so interested.
No, you haven't. You have made a series of assertions without evidence, and then you have made a few logical fallacies, and then you have dismissed my opinion because I "haven't been around long enough," (which is, in addition to being quite insulting, also a logical fallacy).

I'm not going to do your own research for you. If you're so sure of yourself, then you needn't do it for your own sake – but I, for one, am not so sure (I actually think you're totally wrong, but I do not see enough evidence to make any solid case of this, so I have not made it) – and you should not post-as-true that which you are not going to back up so that people can respond to it. Bald assertions are simply rude.

Personally, I find it quite rude when I am told that I should accept something as true, without anything but "I was around longer" and "you wouldn't get it anyway" as reasons.


I am referring to what is "typical". The bolded makes it clear that your counter examples are not.
They were explicitly stated as likely non-typical. But:

If you do not accept that there is a "typical", normative level for beginner play, as common sense might dictate, then that's OK. All you have to accept is that, for any statistical range, a mean, a median and a mode exist:
They exist, certainly.

Neither you nor I know what they are. That was my entire point.

If you have not done the statistical analysis you describe (which you almost certainly have not, seeing as the data for doing so is not available without some kind of broad and enormous randomized survey), you do not know what is typical. Not in any specific sense. Making claims about what "typical" beginner play is like is basically meaningless. There's no way to know what that is.


The problem is, none of what I've said reflects either my beginning experiences or my way of thinking the game should be played. More importantly, I could make an argument derived entirely from a statistical analysis (like a real version of the one posited above) and probably wind up with two arguments that are virtually indistinct.
Your last statement is the problem. It holds no water. You're assuming that they would be indistinct, with absolutely no reason for thinking so. You assume you know what is typical. People always assume that they know what is typical.

But the reality is (and the history of statistical analyses can demonstrate) that people rarely have a good sense of what is typical, once you get away from their own personal experiences.

You might be able to talk about gamers in your geographic area, within whatever subculture(s) you ascribe to, or from online communities you frequent. But gamers from a totally different part of the world, who engage in subcultures and online communities that don't even exist in your language? You simply don't know.

Even if you acknowledge your own case as atypical, you're basing this on what you have observed of other groups within your experience. You have to; if you had not experienced them, you would not know that they were different from your own. You can hardly base it on things you haven't experienced: you don't know anything about them.

But they are real, and they definitely affect the average.

You are making the (extremely common; I'm fairly sure every human being does it several times a day, since we're wired to do so) mistake of generalizing too little information to too broad a situation.


It is possible that he meant that they were afraid giving the Hexblade armored casting would make it more powerful than what we've come to call T3. And, in that case, it would be the understanding that has changed rather than the intended balance point.
I would think so. Actually, more than "possible," I think that is the only correct reading; I think Psyren has misinterpreted the quote.

[ThiagoMartell]

No, you haven't. You have made a series of assertions without evidence, and then you have made a few logical fallacies, and then you have dismissed my opinion because I "haven't been around long enough," (which is, in addition to being quite insulting, also a logical fallacy).
This is not a debate. There are no logical fallacies. I'm not trying to convince you of anything.


I'm not going to do your own research for you. If you're so sure of yourself, then you needn't do it for your own sake – but I, for one, am not so sure (I actually think you're totally wrong, but I do not see enough evidence to make any solid case of this, so I have not made it) – and you should not post-as-true that which you are not going to back up so that people can respond to it. Bald assertions are simply rude.

Personally, I find it quite rude when I am told that I should accept something as true, without anything but "I was around longer" and "you wouldn't get it anyway" as reasons.
I'm not telling you to accept anything as true. I've said, repeatedly, that you're free to disagree. You'll notice you're the only one in this thread disputing this, because everyone else has seen the evidence, probably because they've been involved with D&D 3.0/3.5 longer than you.
I don't mean to be rude and if I came out that way I apologize, but you've been talking as if I'm trying to prove something I'm not. If you don't believe in my claim, hey, suit yourself. Not my problem. Everyone else does.

[Oscredwin]

If you have not done the statistical analysis you describe (which you almost certainly have not, seeing as the data for doing so is not available without some kind of broad and enormous randomized survey), Picking Nits: An easier way to get the data would be to get volunteers who've never played DnD before to make characters for a campaign (or range of campaigns) as part of a controlled study. Have them play a few sessions. I expect that would be easier and give you better data than sending out surveys. Don't give them any instruction that the books you want to see what is typical for (maybe just Core). SCIENCE!

[Lord_Gareth]

Why has no one yet addressed the point where arguing designer intent for 3.5 and/or Pathfinder is pointless not because it's impossible to assert, but because the designers are almost to a man wholly incompetent morons? Morons who, I may add, tried to retroactively cover their asses by claiming that they were deliberately embracing an Ivory Tower design (well, except for Pathfinder - there is no "retroactive" in that case) instead of having totally failed at creating their own game?

[dextercorvia]

Why has no one yet addressed the point where arguing designer intent for 3.5 and/or Pathfinder is pointless not because it's impossible to assert, but because the designers are almost to a man wholly incompetent morons? Morons who, I may add, tried to retroactively cover their asses by claiming that they were deliberately embracing an Ivory Tower design (well, except for Pathfinder - there is no "retroactive" in that case) instead of having totally failed at creating their own game?

Whoa. That's a little harsh. While they may have utterly failed at creating a balanced game. I'd say they were ultimately successful at creating a fun game (that many of us are still playing years after the edition change), and (even more importantly to WotC) a profitable one.

Ignorant about balance issues, Flippant about editing/errata/conflicting rules. But they still wrote the material that I enjoy more than 4e and 2e/AD&D (which I was around for).

[eggs]

I'm not telling you to accept anything as true. I've said, repeatedly, that you're free to disagree. You'll notice you're the only one in this thread disputing this, because everyone else has seen the evidence, probably because they've been involved with D&D 3.0/3.5 longer than you.
...You're really not contradicting Answerer's point here.

I don't mean to be rude and if I came out that way I apologize, but you've been talking as if I'm trying to prove something I'm not. If you don't believe in my claim, hey, suit yourself. Not my problem. Everyone else does.
You're baselessly attributing a motive to readers' silence. But with such absolute terms, I can say with absolute certainty that you're wrong on that last bit.

EDIT:
If you're going to reference evidence, cite it or you're just blowing wind. Blowing wind is fine, but citing other people's closed mouths isn't going to establish your point.

[Fax Celestis]

2 hand a 1 handed weapon for a size up

...That does not do that. Two-handing a one-hander gives +1.5*STR on damage instead of +STR.

[Lans]

...That does not do that. Two-handing a one-hander gives +1.5*STR on damage instead of +STR.

I think there is rules on this some where, and it gives like -4 to hit. He's talking about a human using a large sized long sword 2 handed.


I may add, tried to retroactively cover their asses by claiming that they were deliberately embracing an Ivory Tower design instead of having totally failed at creating their own game?

Actually in the count down to third articles of dragon, they actually talk about how n00bs are going to look at the sorcerer, barbarian, and toughness and think that they are better than the wizard, fighter, any other feat ever.

[Fax Celestis]

I think there is rules on this some where, and it gives like -4 to hit. He's talking about a human using a large sized long sword 2 handed.

...which monkey grip/powerful build/strongarm bracers would not increase further. You can do that to wield a weapon one size larger at a -4, or a -2 with monkey grip, or a +0 for powerful build or strongarm bracers. You cannot, however, wield a weapon two sizes larger utilizing monkey grip et al, as they don't have provisions for weapon sizes past one size larger.

[Answerer]

This is not a debate. There are no logical fallacies. I'm not trying to convince you of anything.
You made a claim, I commented on it, you chose to respond to it.

That is the definition of a debate.

Logical fallacies are not fallacious due to some arbitrary formalized debating rules. They are fallacious as a direct consequence of the mistakes made in their argumentation. In effect, when I say you are making a logical fallacy, I am saying that your statements do not back up your conclusions.

Which is a fact. They do not.


I'm not telling you to accept anything as true.
You made an absolute and definitive statement about the reality of a given situation.

My point is that when you make such a statement, you should expect that others will inquire as to your evidence thereof. If you do not have any, you shouldn't be making such a strong statement.


I've said, repeatedly, that you're free to disagree. You'll notice you're the only one in this thread disputing this, because everyone else has seen the evidence, probably because they've been involved with D&D 3.0/3.5 longer than you.I don't mean to be rude and if I came out that way I apologize, but you've been talking as if I'm trying to prove something I'm not. If you don't believe in my claim, hey, suit yourself. Not my problem. Everyone else does.
Funny, Son of Zeal was arguing with you just a few pages ago. I don't recall him posting that he has changed his mind and agreed with you. He may have stopped posting in this thread, but that hardly is evidence that his position has changed.

eggs is completely on point about this. You are assuming that everyone agrees with you. You are assuming that, again, without particularly strong evidence (and ignoring opposing evidence, in terms of Zeal's posting). And you are, once again, asserting as true that for which you lack evidence.


Picking Nits: An easier way to get the data would be to get volunteers who've never played DnD before to make characters for a campaign (or range of campaigns) as part of a controlled study. Have them play a few sessions. I expect that would be easier and give you better data than sending out surveys. Don't give them any instruction that the books you want to see what is typical for (maybe just Core). SCIENCE!
Easier, yes, but it would not serve as evidence for the claim being made. Any single randomized group has a fairly low chance of being representative of the entire population, which is what is necessary to make statements about the typical case.

In reality, your "test group" would be little different from any poster's reminiscing about their own first group. In fact, the controls on it could easily skew things (since most groups include at least one player who has played before, since most groups include some houserules, etc.). These complicating factors are problematic for a statistical study, but to control for them limits your ability to describe a population where they do occur, and frequently.

Which is why a survey approach is probably best; you get "naturally" formed groups that played under realistic settings. Of course, there are very obvious problems with the approach as well – you're relying on self reports, which are notoriously unreliable, and you're asking people to describe events that may have taken place in the distant past, which is hard for most people to do truly accurately even for the most notable of experiences. Then there's the question of actually designing the survey – they quite literally give several different types of post-graduate degrees for that kind of thing. And while houserules are too common to just completely omit from the survey, I think, there are also definitely games that are played where the houserules are so severe that they really are not playing 3.5 any more.


Why has no one yet addressed the point where arguing designer intent for 3.5 and/or Pathfinder is pointless not because it's impossible to assert, but because the designers are almost to a man wholly incompetent morons? Morons who, I may add, tried to retroactively cover their asses by claiming that they were deliberately embracing an Ivory Tower design (well, except for Pathfinder - there is no "retroactive" in that case) instead of having totally failed at creating their own game?
I have hinted at this in my response to Thiago: he based a lot of his argumentation on WotC's results rather than trying to directly talk to their intentions. My response was that this was invalid, because WotC has proven that it quite thoroughly failed to deliver whatever it was that they had intended.

[Psyren]

I do not think you are reading that correctly.

He does not say that the thinking changed from "they should be this strong" to "they should be that strong." He is saying that thinking changed from "this is that strong" to "this is not actually that strong." What changed is their understanding of the system, not what they were intending to achieve from it.

The quote you pull makes this very clear, I think. The bolded section is exactly my point: they learned that things that they thought were might be too good (and therefore nerfed) weren't actually that bad (and thus the nerfing led to weak classes like the Hexblade), while other things they thought would be fine (feature-less Fighter, or the Sor/Wiz spell list) turned out to not be what they thought it was.

Nowhere does he talk about intent changing, at all. He talks about understanding changing, about them learning that they had not achieved what they intended to originally.

This does not mean that the intent didn't change. It means that this is not evidence that it changed.

I see what you're saying but still don't quite agree. While it's true the quote also means that what they thought was "X strength" was really "(<X)", that does not itself prove that they were aiming for T3 from the beginning.

I too have seen the quote about the "blaster wizard, healbot cleric, sword-and-board-fighter, trapmonkey rogue" used to playtest 3e. If you want a WotC design doc with that party on it I can't help you, but I've seen it on far too many forums and similar discussion areas for it to be a coincidence.

Anyway, however they started 3e is moot - even after pegging the balance in the right place (whether by now aiming for T3, by shifting their understanding of what constitutes balanced, or some combination) they still repeatedly missed the mark due to lack of playtesting even towards the very end of the edition. My own point was that intent alone doesn't matter - Ari pretty clearly intended the Shadowcaster to be T3, and he pretty clearly dropped the ball. It was only after actually getting the time to playtest his creation that he came up with the necessary edits to get it where it needed to be.

[Answerer]

I see what you're saying but still don't quite agree. While it's true the quote also means that what they thought was "X strength" was really "(<X)", that does not itself prove that they were aiming for T3 from the beginning.
That is very explicitly not what I am arguing.

I am arguing that there is not enough evidence to say they were aiming for T4.

They may have easily been doing so. But I have not seen nearly enough evidence to be convinced that this is the case.

I do think they were aiming for T3, but because I have not come across anything I would consider solid evidence thereof, I have refrained from making that claim and have made a point of not arguing that it is the case. I, unlike Thiago, acknowledge that my position lacks enough evidence to be stated as fact.

[Psyren]

Why are you getting so upset about this? :smallconfused:


As for evidence that they were aiming for T4, that's precisely the tier that the "sword-and-board fighter, healbot cleric, blaster wizard, trapmonkey rogue" falls at. You can sub "Warmage" for blaster wizard and "healer" for Healbot cleric without missing a beat.

The question then becomes - do you accept the word of a dozen disparate message boards as evidence? Thiago and I do, you don't, and that's perfectly okay. We can leave the argument at that and go our separate ways.

[shadow_archmagi]

Responding to the OP:


Everything *can* be broken. Whether we can specifically refer to a class as broken depends on both the magnitude and the ease of breaking.

If there is in fact a way to get 8d8 at ECL 3 (I'm not seeing it) it's definitely a very specific combination of feats and powers and racial templates designed specifically around maximizing damage output, gleaned together from a dozen books, the sort of thing that only appears from either a huge time investment or the internet, and if you've memorized every book, or you're willing to draw on the internet for people who have, then you're going to break every class, every time.

Psychic warrior is a fun class that generally doesn't require too much effort to be able to contribute a decent amount in a variety of situations.

[Answerer]

Why are you getting so upset about this? :smallconfused:
Where I come from, italics mean only emphasis. You're reading in an emotional state that does not exist.



As for evidence that they were aiming for T4, that's precisely the tier that the "sword-and-board fighter, healbot cleric, blaster wizard, trapmonkey rogue" falls at. You can sub "Warmage" for blaster wizard and "healer" for Healbot cleric without missing a beat.
That's true, but does not speak to their intent, since Wizards was clearly (and admittedly) awful at achieving what they intended.


The question then becomes - do you accept the word of a dozen disparate message boards as evidence? Thiago and I do, you don't, and that's perfectly okay. We can leave the argument at that and go our separate ways.
I have not seen the "word of a dozen disparate message boards" I have seen the unbacked claims of two anonymous strangers.

[Psyren]

Where I come from, italics mean only emphasis. You're reading in an emotional state that does not exist.

Where I come from, emphasizing an entire sentence implies an emotional state. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here.



That's true, but does not speak to their intent, since Wizards was clearly (and admittedly) awful at achieving what they intended.

Were they universally bad at it? I find it hard to believe that every single arrow they shot missed the target.



I have not seen the "word of a dozen disparate message boards" I have seen the unbacked claims of two anonymous strangers.

If you're here, then surely you have access to Google and can see for yourself. What do I have to gain by lying?

[Drelua]

Why are you getting so upset about this? :smallconfused:

This is starting to sound a lot like a few arguments I've had, where the only reason I kept arguing was because whoever I was talking to kept arguing back, and people started thinking the point I was making was far more important to me than it is. This seems like a combination of that and the frustration that comes from failing to clearly communicate your point or other people failing to understand it. All Answerer is saying is that Thiago's point is entirely unsupported by facts, not that it's necessarily wrong or arguing a contrary point.

I agree with him on this, but thinks it's impossible to pin down any tier that was their goal. It's entirely possible that their priorities were so different from those of the tier system, which are a combination of power and versatility. Clearly they knew Fighters wouldn't be useful outside of combat, even if they thought they were the best class in combat. This seems to be evidence, though certainly not proof, that they viewed power and versatility as two types of weights on the same end of a scale, thinking that more of one should mean less of the other. As in, Fighters are the best in combat so they should be the worst out of it. This, to me, seems to be their way of thinking in very early 2005.

I also suspect that some of them (I'm looking at you, Monte Cook) knew casters were stronger than mundanes, but didn't think that was a bad thing, but that's a whole different conversation.

[sonofzeal]

This is starting to sound a lot like a few arguments I've had, where the only reason I kept arguing was because whoever I was talking to kept arguing back, and people started thinking the point I was making was far more important to me than it is. This seems like a combination of that and the frustration that comes from failing to clearly communicate your point or other people failing to understand it. All Answerer is saying is that Thiago's point is entirely unsupported by facts, not that it's necessarily wrong or arguing a contrary point.

I agree with him on this, but thinks it's impossible to pin down any tier that was their goal. It's entirely possible that their priorities were so different from those of the tier system, which are a combination of power and versatility. Clearly they knew Fighters wouldn't be useful outside of combat, even if they thought they were the best class in combat. This seems to be evidence, though certainly not proof, that they viewed power and versatility as two types of weights on the same end of a scale, thinking that more of one should mean less of the other. As in, Fighters are the best in combat so they should be the worst out of it. This, to me, seems to be their way of thinking in very early 2005.

I also suspect that some of them (I'm looking at you, Monte Cook) knew casters were stronger than mundanes, but didn't think that was a bad thing, but that's a whole different conversation.
I think there's a lot of truth here. Fighters were intended to be experts at combat; Rogues and Rangers were intended to be better outside of combat. Their whole approach doesn't line up very well with the Tier system.

[Answerer]

Were they universally bad at it? I find it hard to believe that every single arrow they shot missed the target.
It's more that they're spread all over the place, to the point where it's impossible to say which one (or which grouping) was "correct" and which "incorrect". No matter what you choose, those that "missed" outnumber those that "hit".

Not to mention, at least for the specific case of T4, we have developer comments that indicate that, e.g., the Hexblade was weaker than intended.


If you're here, then surely you have access to Google and can see for yourself. What do I have to gain by lying?
To be honest, I don't even know what you'd have me search for.

[ThiagoMartell]

...You're really not contradicting Answerer's point here.
I'm not trying to.


You're baselessly attributing a motive to readers' silence. But with such absolute terms, I can say with absolute certainty that you're wrong on that last bit.
No, I'm not. I just don't care much for exact words. People say "everyone" when they don't actually mean everyone.


EDIT:
If you're going to reference evidence, cite it or you're just blowing wind. Blowing wind is fine, but citing other people's closed mouths isn't going to establish your point.
I'm not trying to stablish anything. It's already been stablished long before this discussion started. Anyone is entitled to their own opinion, I'm not saying anyone has to agree with me.

[Psyren]

To be honest, I don't even know what you'd have me search for.

My own search was for the exact party Thiago mentioned (or at least the latter two members - "healbot cleric, blaster wizard.") Naturally, this thread is pretty high in the rankings for that term now, but such is the magic of the internet. :smalltongue:

Adding site switches cleans things up though, e.g. focusing the search on wizards.com, rpg.net, brilliantgameologists/minmaxboards, /tg/ (or aggregators thereof), paizo, ENworld, candlekeep, gamingden, and of course these boards themselves over the years.

Like Thiago, I'm not actually asking you to do this unless you want to - I don't really care if you agree with me or not - all I'm doing is conveying what I've seen.

[Answerer]

I'm not trying to.
Then you agree that you made a claim for which you did not provide evidence, have not provided evidence, and will not provide evidence, largely because the evidence necessary to make that claim does not exist, and therefore never should have made the claim in the first place?

If that's the case, I wonder why you continue to contradict my statements.


No, I'm not. I just don't care much for exact words. People say "everyone" when they don't actually mean everyone.
This is more or less my entire problem with your initial point, as well.

You should always say what you mean. If you don't, well, I'm not sure why you would expect anyone to attribute much meaning at all to what you say.


I'm not trying to stablish anything. It's already been stablished long before this discussion started. Anyone is entitled to their own opinion, I'm not saying anyone has to agree with me.
"This is an established fact"

"You're welcome to disagree though"

Clearly, this must be one of those cases where you are not meaning exactly what your words mean, because these two things are mutually exclusive.

If it is established as fact, then no one is welcome to disagree. Everyone is entitled to his own opinion; no one is entitled to his own facts.

If it is just an opinion, and there is room for disagreement, then it is not an established fact.

You cannot have it both ways.

Moreover, assertion of this establishment is getting old. I still have not seen any evidence for it at all. Am I to take this as another case where you are not using "exact words"?


My own search was for the exact party Thiago mentioned (or at least the latter two members - "healbot cleric, blaster wizard.") Naturally, this thread is pretty high in the rankings for that term now, but such is the magic of the internet. :smalltongue:
I never disputed that was the expected party.

I only disputed that Wizards knew, expected, and intended that that party would be Tier 4, or match Tier 4's definition (since clearly the term itself did not exist when they were designing the game).

That's a considerably harder thing to search for. I could search for, and probably find, lots of threads like this one from other sites (and maybe even this one), but while "a quick Google search" might be a reasonable thing for you to expect of me, digging through a dozen different threads like this one to find out if someone found and provided the evidence that you have not (though you claim it exists) is not a good use of my time. I'm not going to do your research for you.


My point is not about trying to convince me or anyone else. My point is not even particularly about the argument itself (there is a reason I have not made any counter-argument as to where I think WotC intended the balance to land).

My point is that it is disingenuous to state as fact that which you are not going to support. Effectively, I can either ask for clarification (which I did), or I can write off your statement as groundless assertion and ignore you. The former seemed more polite.

But if you are going to state something as fact, I am definitely not going to simply accept it as such. If you said "I think WotC intended to balance around Tier 4" I would have said nothing. But that is not what was said. It was stated as fact, you explicitly stated that "what Thiago said is true," etc.

And I don't particularly care if Thiago doesn't care for exact words: exact words matter. If you don't think what you say is meaningful and important enough to choose the words that actually say what you mean, then why on earth should I consider what you say important at all?

[Psyren]

I'm not going to do your research for you.

No one's asking you to. Sheesh.



My point is that it is disingenuous to state as fact that which you are not going to support.

Neither am I going to preface every single assertion with "in my opinion" or "I believe that..." It should be assumed that it's my opinion, otherwise why would I post it?

If that's a problem, too bad. *shrug*

[Answerer]

That is, I think, a very bad habit.

Because there is a meaningful distinction between that which is known as fact, and that which is your opinion, and it is useful to be able to indicate to others when you are referring to a thing as fact.

Because that is what your words actually mean.

Because, honestly, even if general statements without "I think that..." are opinions, you said "what Thiago said is true" without any qualifiers, and that is a much stronger statement.

[Psyren]

No, it's not a bad habit. I have multiple sources to prove it that I can't be bothered to post right now. :smallwink:

[Answerer]

Also, exact wording is especially critical on the Internet, where you're only capable of 10% (to throw around an oft-quoted figure; I have no idea if it is actually accurate) of your general communication skills, since it is a medium utterly devoid of anything but verbal communication. If words are all you have, it seems to me that it would be best to be careful with them.

Finally, and this probably will be my last comment on the matter, "I think that..." is not the only sort of construction that would be applicable. Had Thiago or you said, for example, "probably," that would have greatly softened your statement, and I could accept (though probably not agree) your reasoning as evidence that their intent was probably one thing or another. It's only when you state something as fact, without qualifiers, that I am going to demand a much higher level of evidence.

[ThiagoMartell]

Neither am I going to preface every single assertion with "in my opinion" or "I believe that..." It should be assumed that it's my opinion, otherwise why would I post it?

If that's a problem, too bad. *shrug*

I officially have a mancrush on you, dude.

Then you agree that you made a claim for which you did not provide evidence, have not provided evidence, and will not provide evidence, largely because the evidence necessary to make that claim does not exist, and therefore never should have made the claim in the first place?
No, because the evidence exists and I don't care enough about it to spend hours in google searching for it. I've said it plenty of times. If you don't want to look for it, well... it's not my problem.


It's only when you state something as fact, without qualifiers, that I am going to demand a much higher level of evidence.
In the words of TFS: "No one cares, Krillin."
Sincerely, what you demand or what you don't demand has no bearing on how I post in this forum nor will it ever have. You're simply in no position to demand anything from anyone because - as you so happily say about everyone else - you're just a random guy in the internet.
Oh, just to clarify, when I say 'everyone else', I don't actually mean everyone else. You don't need to tell me about how you don't call your mother a 'random guy in the internet'.
This is specially vexing because you come out as confrontational and elitist basically every time you disagree with someone. Several times it has been pointed out by me and other posters how that is rude, disrespectful and aggressive. Yet you never seem to change. Now you demand other people to preface their statements with "I think..."?
I don't think this is fair at all. I expected better from you.

[Psyren]

Also, exact wording is especially critical on the Internet, where you're only capable of 10% (to throw around an oft-quoted figure; I have no idea if it is actually accurate) of your general communication skills,

Source or it didn't happen! This is a bad habit and you should feel bad! :smalltongue:

I'll almost always favor ease of communication over precision. Call me lazy, but I'll be the lazy guy who doesn't put every post in APA format, and thus has more time to drink beer and play xbox. You know, the finer things in life. :smallsmile:

[Oscredwin]

Source or it didn't happen! This is a bad habit and you should feel bad! :smalltongue:

I'll almost always favor ease of communication over precision. Call me lazy, but I'll be the lazy guy who doesn't put every post in APA format, and thus has more time to drink beer and play xbox. You know, the finer things in life. :smallsmile:

When precision drops low enough, communication stops happening and your just sending a mess of words at other people. You say one thing, the person you're talking to hears another thing.

[Psyren]

When precision drops low enough, communication stops happening and your just sending a mess of words at other people. You say one thing, the person you're talking to hears another thing.

Turquoise bicycle shoe fins actualize radishes greenly? (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0068.html) :smalltongue:

The argument wasn't about communication breaking down though, just sourcing statements. Obviously the meaning got across or there'd be nothing to argue about. So wherever that threshold is, it's not a concern here (at least for me.)

[Answerer]

No, because the evidence exists and I don't care enough about it to spend hours in google searching for it. I've said it plenty of times. If you don't want to look for it, well... it's not my problem.
You haven't even asserted anything that would be evidence if it were shown to exist, so I don't know what you're talking about. All you've said is the equivalent of "it is known."


Source or it didn't happen! This is a bad habit and you should feel bad! :smalltongue:
Actually, that was explicitly acknowledging that I could not back up the statement. That is all I've asked for: for others to not make claims they could not justify or provide evidence for, or to acknowledge the limitations of their positions.


In the words of TFS: "No one cares, Krillin."
Sincerely, what you demand or what you don't demand has no bearing on how I post in this forum nor will it ever have. You're simply in no position to demand anything from anyone because - as you so happily say about everyone else - you're just a random guy in the internet.

This is specially vexing because you come out as confrontational and elitist basically every time you disagree with someone. Several times it has been pointed out by me and other posters how that is rude, disrespectful and aggressive. Yet you never seem to change. Now you demand other people to preface their statements with "I think..."?
I don't think this is fair at all. I expected better from you.

I'll almost always favor ease of communication over precision. Call me lazy, but I'll be the lazy guy who doesn't put every post in APA format, and thus has more time to drink beer and play xbox. You know, the finer things in life. :smallsmile:
If you cannot be bothered to take the time to say what you actually mean, if your position isn't important enough for you to make even the slightest effort to justify it, why on earth should I spend extra time trying to figure out what you meant?

Moreover, when you state as fact that which you will not back up, I am offended. I am aggressive about this because I find your post of a flat statement, without qualifier or any sort of justification, to be disrespectful to every single person who might happen to disagree with you. I do not consider this a minor thing: it's a very real, and very insulting behavior that you are displaying.