Can you cheat at D&D?

[jedipotter]

I guess the thing is that I don't understand how one can cheat at D&D. You can display unwelcome levels of cleverness, but unless you're fudging die rolls (while not being the DM) or using completely forbidden material and not telling anyone or giving yourself extra gold or moving your stuff around mid-game without telling the DM or doing some pretty horrendous metagaming, you can't really cheat at a tabletop game. Again, the group can have something against unwelcome levels of cleverness, especially when it comes to bending the rules in the book to the point where they don't resemble their old selves anymore, but if you're staying within the boundaries of the rules and the table's accepted level of cleverness, I don't really see "cheating" as a possibility.



First off everyone agrees that lying is cheating. If a character takes 20 damage, and the player does not subtract it from their characters hit points:Cheating. If a player just writes down a needed item on their character sheet when needed:Cheating. If a player adds in free damage from no game source:Cheating.


Then we are left with the other stuff. ...It would seem that most people say ''if you use the rules your never cheating.'' This is a bit of an odd statment as it lets a person ignore, bend or even break rules, but everyone will just say how ''clever'' they were to do that...

Now most of the world considers stacking the deck, that is ''following the rules'', but doing it in a way that makes the event unblanced in your favor to be cheating. For example if you were to have a football game with another group, it would be cheating for him to show up with NFL players. The same way it is cheating to have an adult compeat against a kid, as the kid will have not chance (depending on the event...)

I say that doing anything to ''make the game too easy for your character and invalidate any challange in the game is cheating.'' It does not matter if the rules ''let'' you do it or not. It is you as the player doing the act that is cheating. It's the players fault for not having the common sense to say ''well, I won't do that'' as it would be wrong and cheating.

Though it seems I'm the only one. Everyone else says ''anything goes''. You ''can't'' cheat at D&D. And all a poor DM can do is beg the players ''I know the rules are broken(all hail the rules), but can you pretty please with sugar on top not be a jerk?" and then the player, from up on his huge high horse can say, ''Ha ha, puny DM, why yes, sure I can play the game and not be a jerk...but just remember I do so at my whim....so we both know I'm so awesome I could break the game, but i'll agree not to do so for now.''

[Kazudo]

Well, since you quoted me I guess I'll chip in my two cents first then.

I think that using exceptional cleverness to overcome a specific hardship in ways that a DM either did not plan for, expect, or approve of (barring rules exceptions like houserules and known readings, etc) is just that: exceptional cleverness.

If the DM is not ok with that level of cleverness, then that DM should be up front about that kind of thing. A player using the rules to its own advantage is not cheating unless the DM has given a counterargument, and once the DM has given a counterargument any attempts for the player to do that kind of thing then BECOMES cheating.

EDIT: And actually, I see a primary problem. What you call cheating is what most people call "unfair". Bringing NFL players to a game against kids isn't cheating, it's unfair. However, it's only cheating if there was an understood agreement of even terms. If the DM did not bother saying "No extradimensional spaces", and a player comes up with an extradimensional space and uses it and is told he is cheating and to get out of the game, then there was no expectation and therefore he wasn't cheating, the DM was just being unfair.

[Slipperychicken]

What you're talking about is typically called "cheesing": a reference to exploit abuse in computer-games, since they could often be accomplished within the game's framework (that is, without hacking into the game or using a bot). Similar techniques in D&D are sometimes referred to as "cheese", and almost universally frowned upon if not banned outright.

[Kazudo]

When playing RPGs on video games, do you grind your characters' levels and equipment to be the most prepared for any coming bosses or encounters? If so then, by your own definition, it's cheating since you're using the game's rules to make an obstacle easier.

[weckar]

I've used loaded dice before.

[ryu]

When playing RPGs on video games, do you grind your characters' levels and equipment to be the most prepared for any coming bosses or encounters? If so then, by your own definition, it's cheating since you're using the game's rules to make an obstacle easier.

And considering Persona 4 repeatedly and emphatically recommended that very course of action I don't think any sane man would call it cheating.

[Kazudo]

I was thinking Earthbound myself, but that's neither here nor there.

The point is that if YOU call it cheating at your table, then it's cheating at your table. If Slipperychicken calls it cheesing at their table, then it's cheesing at that table. If I call it exceptional cleverness at my table, then it's exceptional cleverness at my table. If someone else calls it rudisplorking at their table, then it's rudisplorking at their table.

Either way, if you're the DM, you have control over situations like this. If you'd rather someone not rudisplork at your cheesing table, then let them know you don't want them to do things like that and that, for the purposes of the game, this just won't work.

[Urpriest]

What you're talking about is typically called "cheesing": a reference to exploit abuse in computer-games, since they could often be accomplished within the game's framework (that is, without hacking into the game or using a bot). Similar techniques in D&D are sometimes referred to as "cheese", and almost universally frowned upon if not banned outright.

This. Whether or not something is cheese is an argument. Claiming that something that the rules allow you do to is cheating, when you already have terms like this at your disposal, is just childish and petty.

[Captnq]

''Ha ha, puny DM, why yes, sure I can play the game and not be a jerk...but just remember I do so at my whim....so we both know I'm so awesome I could break the game, but i'll agree not to do so for now.''

If any player was so foolish as to say that to me, I wouldn't kill their PC, I would systematically destroy everything they every loved. Every friend, family member, heck, every NPC they pass on the street will die staring at their own lungs. Every good empire in the land will fall and be replaced by hordes of undead that feed on the living to make more horrific nightmares. And what is worse, the evil overlord will begin a PR campaign that not only blames the PC for everything that has gone wrong, but also make sure everyone believes he is a child molestor. Every victory he has ever achieved will be undone. Every flicker of hope he created will be squashed. Demons and devils will burst forth from the underverse, then flee in terror from the horrors that stalk the broken and poisoned land that said PC once called home.

Some puny PC wants to test his game breaking skills? I will demonstrate my SOUL breaking skills.

[Jeff the Green]

Now most of the world considers stacking the deck, that is ''following the rules'', but doing it in a way that makes the event unblanced in your favor to be cheating. For example if you were to have a football game with another group, it would be cheating for him to show up with NFL players. The same way it is cheating to have an adult compeat against a kid, as the kid will have not chance (depending on the event...)

First, swapping in players the other team doesn't know about is cheating, as is showing up with a group other than the one that was meant to play. Competing in an age-bracket you don't belong in is also cheating. But there are adult/kid competitions (off the top of my head, chess and pole-vaulting both have open competitions where you get middle-school to 70-year olds), and it's not cheating for an adult to enter those.

Second, there is a set of implicit rules for each game. Violating these is cheating. The thing is, "invalidating a challenge" and "making the game easy for your character" are most emphatically not against the implicit rules of D&D. Look at some of the old-school stuff, and you'll see how much they reward ignoring the obvious answers in favor of clever solutions that bypass the difficult stuff entirely. This style of play has been assumed since the beginning. The only difference is that 3rd was the first edition that had character creation be a large part of those clever strategies (as far as I can tell; I never actually played AD&D so I'm going off of what I've read about Gygax's own campaigns and stories from veterans.) An example would be diverting a river through the Tomb of Horrors and picking through the wreckage once it's been flushed out.

Now, there is being an *******. If the DM says "I know you have some good system mastery, but the other players don't and we're running a low-power campaign, so please tone it down," and you show up with a CoDzilla, Batman Wizard, or Mailman, you are an *******. You're not cheating because you're not actually violating rules set down by the DM or the game, but you are (potentially) ruining the fun of everyone else. A good player in this situation will either deliberately not optimize as much as they can (e.g. taking fun but mechanically poor spells), optimize a low-power option or class (e.g. entirely mundane archery, Soulborn), or pick a concept whose own optimization increases the other character's power (e.g. God Wizard, Buffificer, Bard).

To use your analogy, if there were a competition that was, per the rules, open to everyone, but it's traditionally only entered by kids (say, it's a My Little Pony drawing contest pre-bronies), the adult who competes and trounces the kids isn't a cheater; he's an *******.

Edit:
I suppose what happens when you take twenty minutes to type a post is people post before you without you seeing it.

If any player was so foolish as to say that to me, I wouldn't kill their PC, I would systematically destroy everything they every loved. Every friend, family member, heck, every NPC they pass on the street will die staring at their own lungs. Every good empire in the land will fall and be replaced by hordes of undead that feed on the living to make more horrific nightmares. And what is worse, the evil overlord will begin a PR campaign that not only blames the PC for everything that has gone wrong, but also make sure everyone believes he is a child molestor. Every victory he has ever achieved will be undone. Every flicker of hope he created will be squashed. Demons and devils will burst forth from the underverse, then flee in terror from the horrors that stalk the broken and poisoned land that said PC once called home.

Some puny PC wants to test his game breaking skills? I will demonstrate my SOUL breaking skills.

See, I can actually imagine this being a really fun game.

Also, there's another good exampleI thought of: card-counting. It's not cheating and so not against the law, but it's also entirely within the casino's rights to kick you out for it.

[Larkas]

And actually, I see a primary problem. What you call cheating is what most people call "unfair". Bringing NFL players to a game against kids isn't cheating, it's unfair. However, it's only cheating if there was an understood agreement of even terms. If the DM did not bother saying "No extradimensional spaces", and a player comes up with an extradimensional space and uses it and is told he is cheating and to get out of the game, then there was no expectation and therefore he wasn't cheating, the DM was just being unfair.

This. I would add that you may change the rules during the course of a campaign, specially if you only then noticed that something breaks anyone's fun ("hey, guys, about this polymorph spell..."), but you must be upfront about your reasons, and you must let your players adapt to the change of rules.

[Red Fel]

First off everyone agrees that lying is cheating. If a character takes 20 damage, and the player does not subtract it from their characters hit points:Cheating. If a player just writes down a needed item on their character sheet when needed:Cheating. If a player adds in free damage from no game source:Cheating.

Well, I wouldn't say all lying is cheating, but yes, the examples you give would be cheating, I agree.


Then we are left with the other stuff. ...It would seem that most people say ''if you use the rules your never cheating.'' This is a bit of an odd statment as it lets a person ignore, bend or even break rules, but everyone will just say how ''clever'' they were to do that...

First contradiction. How can you "use the rules" and then "break rules"? If you break the rules, you're no longer using them. That would probably be cheating.

Now, if you use the RAW, you may find that it leads to some absurd results. (See e.g. using a bucket of water to become immortal.) That's when the table acknowledges the incomplete or inartful nature of some rules, and decides to bend them collectively. And that's fine.

There are other times when you use the RAW to an absurdly minute degree. You're technically right, but the DM still wants to throw a book at you. You're not bending or breaking the rules, but you're using them in a bizarre and unintended way. Maybe you'll get away with that, maybe you won't.

As an aside, try not to use phrases like "everyone will say." You're building a straw man, and we're miles from a cornfield.


Now most of the world considers stacking the deck, that is ''following the rules'', but doing it in a way that makes the event unblanced in your favor to be cheating. For example if you were to have a football game with another group, it would be cheating for him to show up with NFL players. The same way it is cheating to have an adult compeat against a kid, as the kid will have not chance (depending on the event...)

Now, there you go again, "most of the world." Where are you getting all of that straw?

No, generally speaking, "stacking the deck" is not following the rules; it is breaking them, and that is cheating. "Stacking the deck" means setting up a scenario in such a way that, while it looks fair and even, is designed to be one-sided. It is generally seen as cheating because it breaks the assumption of the game - the idea that the game is somehow fair.

It's not following the rules, because one of the fundamental unwritten rules - that the game is starting from an even place with everyone's metaphorical cards on the table - is broken at the outset.


I say that doing anything to ''make the game too easy for your character and invalidate any challange in the game is cheating.'' It does not matter if the rules ''let'' you do it or not. It is you as the player doing the act that is cheating. It's the players fault for not having the common sense to say ''well, I won't do that'' as it would be wrong and cheating.

And that's where you run into a disagreement with many (note that I don't say "everyone" or "most of the world," just "many") people in this forum, myself included. To write it out clearly: Optimization is the process of creating a character designed to do a certain thing (or things) well. By necessity, being able to do something well means making it easier for that character. By necessity, making a thing easier for your character will make any challenge based upon that thing easier.Now, you're taking it to the extreme and suggesting that if your character can do anything, it's cheating because he can invalidate any challenge.

First off, unlike the earlier examples you've cited, being able to do anything within the game's confines isn't cheating under the standard definition. It may get books thrown at you, but it's legit. Under your definition which you specifically came up with to encompass the category of players you dislike, it would be cheating. But you could just as easily say "When a player accomplishes something I didn't intend, it's cheating," and you'd be equally off-target.

Nonetheless, what you're basically arguing is against optimization. If a player makes his character really good at something, it's cheating? If he can bypass obstacles by flying over them, it's cheating? If he has abilities that let him talk any intelligent enemy out of combat, it's cheating?

Your argument reads less like "Can you cheat at D&D" and more "I dislike players who do things I didn't intend."


Though it seems I'm the only one. Everyone else says ''anything goes''. You ''can't'' cheat at D&D. And all a poor DM can do is beg the players ''I know the rules are broken(all hail the rules), but can you pretty please with sugar on top not be a jerk?" and then the player, from up on his huge high horse can say, ''Ha ha, puny DM, why yes, sure I can play the game and not be a jerk...but just remember I do so at my whim....so we both know I'm so awesome I could break the game, but i'll agree not to do so for now.''

See, there you go again. "Everyone else says." Everyone else does not say that. I haven't seen people say you can't cheat, or that players should get away with anything, or that DMs should beg. Here's what I have heard. Players who fudge their rolls and their sheets are cheating, and should get warnings/sanctions/booted. DMs can make house rules, but should be upfront about them. Caving to every player's whim isn't good DMing. Running the rules as-written can lead to confusing crap.
Your straw man is huge at this point. I don't understand how you've gotten these bizarre views on what everyone else is supposedly saying. It reads less like you're trying to understand the perspective of many forum-goers, and more like you're trying to troll or antagonize.

You're not trolling, are you?

[Oddman80]

... If someone else calls it rudisplorking at their table, then it's rudisplorking at their table.

You know about rudisplorking? R u Czech? I thought my game group was only one with "no rudisplorking" policy. Small world, yes?

[Svata]

First off everyone agrees that lying is cheating. If a character takes 20 damage, and the player does not subtract it from their characters hit points:Cheating. If a player just writes down a needed item on their character sheet when needed:Cheating. If a player adds in free damage from no game source:Cheating.

Yes, those are cheating.



I say that doing anything to ''make the game too easy for your character and invalidate any challange in the game is cheating.'' It does not matter if the rules ''let'' you do it or not. It is you as the player doing the act that is cheating. It's the players fault for not having the common sense to say ''well, I won't do that'' as it would be wrong and cheating.

How is something determined to be "too easy", as opposed to merely easy or "easy if prepared for/you know what to do"?



Though it seems I'm the only one. Everyone else says ''anything goes''. You ''can't'' cheat at D&D. And all a poor DM can do is beg the players ''I know the rules are broken(all hail the rules), but can you pretty please with sugar on top not be a jerk?" and then the player, from up on his huge high horse can say, ''Ha ha, puny DM, why yes, sure I can play the game and not be a jerk...but just remember I do so at my whim....so we both know I'm so awesome I could break the game, but i'll agree not to do so for now.''


No, in return for the players' agreement to not break the rules over their knee, the DM agrees to the same, though he could do it on a larger scale, as he doesn't have to worry about WBL, or even making encounters roughly equivalent to the characters' ECL.

[Kantolin]

and then the player, from up on his huge high horse can say, ''Ha ha, puny DM, why yes, sure I can play the game and not be a jerk...but just remember I do so at my whim....

Isn't... that generally true?

I mean, a DM, or a player, or a Coach, or a Teacher, or heck even a Parent can only just /ask/ someone to not be a jerk. Without some sort of real life mind control, you can't /force/ someone not to be a jerk.

I mean sure, you can apply penalties or consequences to douchery, but there's no magic method I know of that a DM could use to prevent a player from being a jerk at the table. Maybe a rule like 'no talking, no interacting with other players' might do it? Although even then they could still sneer at someone when they rolled a natural 1 on something.

What's more is that there are intrinsic penalties to being a jerk at a D&D table - most D&D games consist of a group of friends that get together to have fun. If people stop having fun, people stop coming - if this happens to too many people, the game itself stops. So, presuming the would-be-jerk finds the game fun, the consequence to being a jerk at the table is that the game ends. Or, on a lesser scale, the jerk stops being invited.

This is also true if the DM is a jerk. A DM can append most of his sentences with, "Also, [character] dies again, roll up a new character." if he wants to. This is technically not cheating! Heck, it could also be done with the sentence appending being, "Also, the superior invisible level 600 wizard sitting next to you casts heightened slay living on you again. Make a DC 384 fort save or your character dies." Which would do it 19/20th of the time. Again technically not cheating!

It is, however, being a jerk. Which results in either the game ending, or the jerk not being invited and someone else running. :P

[Necroticplague]

Then we are left with the other stuff. ...It would seem that most people say ''if you use the rules your never cheating.'' This is a bit of an odd statment as it lets a person ignore, bend or even break rules, but everyone will just say how ''clever'' they were to do that...
No, breaking or ignoring rules is just as much cheating as lying is. If you use an elf only class when you're a human, you are cheating. As for bending the rules, I'm not sure what you mean. You are either following a rule, or are not. If you mean using what the rule says but not intends (e.x., using spiked chain training to apply flail expertise to a backstabbing because it counts as a flail and a light blade), then that actually is clever play. You're using your own skill and ability to improve your playing.


Now most of the world considers stacking the deck, that is ''following the rules'', but doing it in a way that makes the event unblanced in your favor to be cheating. For example if you were to have a football game with another group, it would be cheating for him to show up with NFL players. The same way it is cheating to have an adult compeat against a kid, as the kid will have not chance (depending on the event...) No, doing what you call "stacking the deck" is just good strategy. Good tactics is making the most of what you have, good strategy is making sure you have enough for tactics to work. It wouldn't be breaking the rules in either of those scenarios if you hadn't prohibited such before. It would be unfair, but not cheating if its not against the rules. Unfair=/=cheating.


I say that doing anything to ''make the game too easy for your character and invalidate any challange in the game is cheating.'' It does not matter if the rules ''let'' you do it or not. It is you as the player doing the act that is cheating. It's the players fault for not having the common sense to say ''well, I won't do that'' as it would be wrong and cheating.
And where do you define "too easy"? After all, the DM is the world, they have unlimited resources to bring to bear against the pcs. You do, however, bring up a valid point, that good role-playing, as a social activity, requires a social contract be in place and be followed.


Though it seems I'm the only one. Everyone else says ''anything goes''. You ''can't'' cheat at D&D. And all a poor DM can do is beg the players ''I know the rules are broken(all hail the rules), but can you pretty please with sugar on top not be a jerk?" and then the player, from up on his huge high horse can say, ''Ha ha, puny DM, why yes, sure I can play the game and not be a jerk...but just remember I do so at my whim....so we both know I'm so awesome I could break the game, but i'll agree not to do so for now.''

Oh no, you can cheat at dnd. Ignore any bans the DM has in place, load dice, violate prerequisites, don't track durations, have sharp dinger spell slots (if your a prepared caster), retroactively prepare yourself. And while asking the players not to break the game should be the first (and is the best) method, he certainly has others. Like saying "anything you can do, someone else can certainly do". And if the players increase their own power, the DM simply has to amp up the difficulty.

[Oddman80]

Now most of the world considers stacking the deck, that is ''following the rules'', but doing it in a way that makes the event unblanced in your favor to be cheating. For example if you were to have a football game with another group, it would be cheating for him to show up with NFL players. The same way it is cheating to have an adult compeat against a kid, as the kid will have not chance (depending on the event...)

Not to nitpick, but most leagues would specifically state in rules this would not be allowed. And if we are talking neighborhood pick up game... Well you are now a legend talked about for generations. that would be freaking awesome.

More to the point though, sports -all sports have a long history with trying to get the best advantage over the other teams while working within the rules.
When the Florida gators first used Gatorade and didn't pass out from heat or get cramps... They won. That was epic.
When the first runner used rubber soled shoes for a marathon, they won. Fantastic.
When the first Olympic team used the full body swim suits and shaved multiple seconds off the world record times... That was hot.
First speed skater to not where a wool turtleneck sweater (seriously, look at the photos from first Winter Olympics) - that was wicked awesome!

This could all be considered working within rules to gain advantage against competition. Nobody got trophies taken away for innovation while following rules.

Now back to combat related things. Let's say there were 10 styles of fighting I the world. And every year, the best of the best from each type fought each other. And every year, one style was always the winner. Would training in that style be smart, or unfair to potential attackers?

The d&d world is full of players. They have done amazing things, and word of their exploits have spread across the minds of others via this forum and many other formats...

A player who wants to be stronger that lifts weights isn't cheating I life, a character who wants to be great at something who takes the steps to achieve greatness at that thing is not cheating. Types of characters who naturally have an ability to do something amazing.... But for some reason, none of them do that thing.... That would just be weird.

[cobaltstarfire]

Yeah you can cheat at D&D. You can be dishonest about your rolls, have weighted dice, be dishonest about what spells you have memorized for the day or try to slip material that wasn't OK'd by the dm under their nose. That is cheating.

Using the rules to ones advantage? That isn't cheating. You don't like it, but it isn't cheating.

[khachaturian]

Your straw man is huge at this point. I don't understand how you've gotten these bizarre views on what everyone else is supposedly saying. It reads less like you're trying to understand the perspective of many forum-goers, and more like you're trying to troll or antagonize.

You're not trolling, are you?

big plus one on this

[Coidzor]

I may be proven wrong by some equestrians in the playground, but I believe that D&D is best played when the only equines are in the game itself rather than the metagame or literally, physically present.


Though it seems I'm the only one. Everyone else says ''anything goes''. You ''can't'' cheat at D&D. And all a poor DM can do is beg the players ''I know the rules are broken(all hail the rules), but can you pretty please with sugar on top not be a jerk?" and then the player, from up on his huge high horse can say, ''Ha ha, puny DM, why yes, sure I can play the game and not be a jerk...but just remember I do so at my whim....so we both know I'm so awesome I could break the game, but i'll agree not to do so for now.''

There's all kinds of table rules and house rules and rules tweaks and informal agreements not to use these rules due to Mutually Assured Destruction (of enjoyment with the game/the game).

The DM being some kind of simpering subhuman has nothing to do with anything and is nothing more than a rhetorical distraction or a bizarre fetish to insist upon bringing it up. All it does is poison your own position, making it harder for you to get your point across and for others to engage with you in good faith.

[Slipperychicken]

I may be proven wrong by some equestrians in the playground, but I believe that D&D is best played when the only equines are in the game itself rather than the metagame or literally, physically present.


I refuse to subscribe to such brazenly anthropocentric bigotry. Ungulates and other animals are always welcome at my gaming table! #AnimalRights #PoniesArePeopleToo

[eggynack]

Yes, you can cheat at D&D. Obviously. No, you can't cheat at D&D in this fashion. If you think that a particular thing that a player is doing makes the game too easy, or that the thing is too silly, then you ban it. Before the ban, the thing is rules legal, and thus not cheating, and after the ban, the player isn't using the thing, so there's obviously no cheating. Figuring out ways to solve problems in interesting ways is, in some sense, the very bedrock of most forms of gaming. If everyone just has to use the exact and expected solution to a problem (assuming that there isn't some difficulty in making use of that solution, as is the case in things like bullet hell games), then what's the point in even having players? Why not just write up a word document that lists all of the things you want to happen from the player end? Seems to be about the same thing, more or less.

[Threadnaught]

Yes, but there's very little gain and most of the cheating is done by the DM.

With a good enough DM, it is possimpible to cheat. Sometimes with a bad DM, cheating, or cheesing. depending on how you look at it. Well it can become necessary, sorta like a nuclear deterrent.

Basic advice to all DMs that I noticed others give while I was starting out two years ago, and I'll start giving it now. Always have an up to date copy of a player's Character Sheet and if a player has Spells and Manouvers to prepare/ready, make sure you know which they have on any given adventuring day.
Of course this advice flies in the face of how I'm playing my Wizard in that ******* Druid's Campaign, but it's best if nobody knows what I've got prepared. All they need is to know what I could prepare.


Edit: Wheaton's Law is the only Rule for my entire group over all DMs for every Campaign. It is sacred and if you break it, you'd damn well better do so in a funny way as a joke that everyone sees the funny side of, and not to profit at the expense of others in the group.

[Azraile]

number 1 way to stop cheating:

have your own copy of there Char Sheat on a computer or something, and use the stats from it.... when they level up ask them what changes there making, make them to your copy....

ONLY use your copy for anything, there's is just for reference so they know what they have.... if they change it to try and cheat then there just fooling themselves into thinking they got stuff they don't have which can cause trouble

online I lock down char sheats once there finalized and they can no longer change them at all, I do and they come to me when they want to use there exp or when they level

[Anlashok]

Your whole premise is absurd because none of your examples constitute following any sort of rules. And the whole idea that "breaking the rules is still following the rules" is utter and complete nonsense.

[Slipperychicken]

have your own copy of there Char Sheat on a computer or something, and use the stats from it.... when they level up ask them what changes there making, make them to your copy....


Some GMs actually scan their PCs' character sheets before/after each session, saving them into a computer file somewhere, as a way to check for wrongdoing.

You could do the same thing with a phone's camera too: Just take a picture of each character sheet after each session, save it to a specially-labelled file on your computer (remember to include something like the date and/or session number), and check it whenever necessary. This allows you to audit character sheets at your leisure ("hmm... Both sessions 4 and 5 took place on the same in-character day, but Mialee suddenly has two more Fireball spells prepared for the second session's boss-fight..."), familiarize yourself with your PCs capabilities, and easily provide replacements in case a player loses his sheet.

[Azraile]

Easiest fix is keep watch of them during the game, and then you hold onto there char sheets.

Thats what I did before I started copying them on a computer. I haven't had any problem with cheating besides people trying to fudge there rolls if they think there sitting far enough away that I can't see the dice

[jaydubs]

Bob: I hate murderers.
John: Yeah, I agree. Most people dislike murder.
Bob: How am I supposed to make a living when people keep murdering the merchandise from my store?
John: ...? :smallconfused: Please explain.
Bob: People keep walking into my store and taking stuff without paying for it. I don't know how to deal with all of these murderers.
John: You mean shoplifters?
Bob: I don't care what everyone else calls it. To me they're murderers. Everyone else should call them murderers too.

The purpose of language is communication. To make communication easier for all parties, we adhere to the commonly understood meaning of words to avoid confusion. Ignoring that common meaning, and expecting the rest of the world to adopt our personal interpretation instead, is both unreasonable and kind of silly.

[Elkad]

Years ago (pre 2nd edition) I played at a gaming club. D20s that actually went from 1-20 instead of 1-10 twice were still fairly rare. GMs all used the same rule. Roll your d20 using d6+d20, and the D6 had to have pips/numbers he could read from 8ft away at the other end of the big table. Gave him an easy check if you were over or under 10 at least.

I had a d6 that was numbered 1,4,4,5,5,6. Used it for a dozen sessions, nobody ever noticed. But 84% of my d20 rolls were 11+

[TheIronGolem]

Though it seems I'm the only one. Everyone else says ''anything goes''. You ''can't'' cheat at D&D. And all a poor DM can do is beg the players ''I know the rules are broken(all hail the rules), but can you pretty please with sugar on top not be a jerk?" and then the player, from up on his huge high horse can say, ''Ha ha, puny DM, why yes, sure I can play the game and not be a jerk...but just remember I do so at my whim....so we both know I'm so awesome I could break the game, but i'll agree not to do so for now.''

No, "everyone else" does not say that. Nobody else says it. Nobody here has ever said it, or anything that implies it, or anything that could even be honestly mistaken for it.

And you know it.

Stop. Lying.

[ben-zayb]

Now most of the world[Citation Needed] considers stacking the deck, that is ''following the rules'', but doing it in a way that makes the event unblanced in your favor to be cheating. For example if you were to have a football game with another group, it would be cheating for him to show up with NFL players. The same way it is cheating to have an adult compeat against a kid, as the kid will have not chance (depending on the event...)

I say that doing anything to ''make the game too easy for your character and invalidate any challange in the game is cheating.'' It does not matter if the rules ''let'' you do it or not. It is you as the player doing the act that is cheating. It's the players fault for not having the common sense to say ''well, I won't do that'' as it would be wrong and cheating.

Though it seems I'm the only one. Everyone else[Citation Needed] says ''anything goes''. You ''can't'' cheat at D&D. And all a poor DM can do is beg the players ''I know the rules are broken(all hail the rules), but can you pretty please with sugar on top not be a jerk?" and then the player, from up on his huge high horse can say, ''Ha ha, puny DM, why yes, sure I can play the game and not be a jerk...but just remember I do so at my whim....so we both know I'm so awesome I could break the game, but i'll agree not to do so for now.''I'm all for healthy argument and discourse. But, yeah, let's not get carried away and make generalizations without actual proof.


EDIT: No idea how I missed this, but it bears repeating:

Bob: I hate murderers.
John: Yeah, I agree. Most people dislike murder.
Bob: How am I supposed to make a living when people keep murdering the merchandise from my store?
John: ...? :smallconfused: Please explain.
Bob: People keep walking into my store and taking stuff without paying for it. I don't know how to deal with all of these murderers.
John: You mean shoplifters?
Bob: I don't care what everyone else calls it. To me they're murderers. Everyone else should call them murderers too.

The purpose of language is communication. To make communication easier for all parties, we adhere to the commonly understood meaning of words to avoid confusion. Ignoring that common meaning, and expecting the rest of the world to adopt our personal interpretation instead, is both unreasonable and kind of silly.

[NickChaisson]

... all a poor DM can do is beg the players ''I know the rules are broken(all hail the rules), but can you pretty please with sugar on top not be a jerk?" and then the player, from up on his huge high horse can say, ''Ha ha, puny DM, why yes, sure I can play the game and not be a jerk...but just remember I do so at my whim....so we both know I'm so awesome I could break the game, but i'll agree not to do so for now.''

See, this kind of attitude is something that really bothers me. I have done the exact same thing with my group several times and this is not at all how it goes. It more or less goes like this.

Me: "Hey guys, It was cool when you used the poor wording of this rule/spell and destroyed that entire fortress I planned for you guys to adventure it. But I'm thinking that the wording of rule/spell unbalances the game and makes it less fun for everyone. Hows about we work together to come up with a new version of said rule/spell"
them: "Yeah, it was really cool the first time we did it. But We can see how it would make the game less fun. Lets change it"


The DM is no more important than the players. You cant have a game without both. If you feel that compromise and working with your players to craft a fun play experience is somehow a hit to your ego then I think you need to step out from behind the screen. Because that is literally the major part of DMing. You NEED to work with your players or else whats the bloody point? Why even bother playing with other people if your not going to let them have any control over their characters. Or any sort of creative solution to the problems you give to them? You might as well be playing against computers. If you're going to punish players for just playing the game, you're not playing D&D, you're playing a little power fantasy game for yourself.

[Grod_The_Giant]

No, "everyone else" does not say that. Nobody else says it. Nobody here has ever said it, or anything that implies it, or anything that could even be honestly mistaken for it.

And you know it.

Stop. Lying.
http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110911014341/icarly/images/e/e0/LOL-Monty_Python_Applause.gif

-------

Jedipotter, no-one cares how you run your games. Not really. (Well, maybe to feel sorry for anyone you drove away from the hobby) It's apparently working for you and your group, so have fun with that. But then you come here, and present your style of play as the only appropriate one? In rude, dismissive ways? Insulting the community as a whole? Not ok. And damn right we're going to defend out style of gaming when you tell us that we're having wrongbadfun.

[Kazudo]

Well, now that the entire thread's happened, I guess I'll weigh in again. I think the big issue is that the only way to cheat at normal style D&D is to be a DM who takes from his players what he gives to his NPCs, has control over the entire game world and all of its inhabitants and can generate whatever encounter he wants bar none, and will refuse his players the bastions of hope and power that they hold left. And even then, that's not cheating. It's being a really, gigantically huge jerk.

It would be like telling the wizard he can't have fireball because sulfur is too hard to come across, then throwing only sorcerers who keep spamming fireball at the party. It's still not really cheating then either. It's still just being a really big jerk.

If there WERE a DM out there who WAS a really big jerk but somehow kept having players and people interested in playing his games, then I'd say that whatever's working is working and not to worry. However, if said DM had a problem with losing PCs who didn't agree with his play style, I'd think that the DM would have the humility to check his own play style.

I still maintain though that aside from general dishonesty and untrustworthiness there IS no way to "cheat" at a tabletop game. There are only ways to be clever. If a table says "no that doesn't work because reasons sorry maybe do this instead?" then that'd be different as long as it's UNIFORM.

There's a difference between approaching "Well, because of physics I throw a gigantic wall of fire at the opening to this one-way-in cave and suffocate out the inhabitants" with "No, it won't work that way unfortunately. There aren't any real hard and fast rules about oxygen use in D&D, and I'm not willing to apply that level of real-world physics to a fantasy game. However, we could pretty easily say that any smoke generated by stuff burning could have an effect like this and so with some that in your whatever" and approaching it with "No, that's cheating get away from my table you optimizer".

[Hand_of_Vecna]

This. Whether or not something is cheese is an argument. Claiming that something that the rules allow you do to is cheating, when you already have terms like this at your disposal, is just childish and petty.

and it's a good way to get punched in the face, get tables flipped, get called names etc. We're not that far removed from it being grounds for a duel.

[jedipotter]

See, this kind of attitude is something that really bothers me. I have done the exact same thing with my group several times and this is not at all how it goes. It more or less goes like this.

Me: "Hey guys, It was cool when you used the poor wording of this rule/spell and destroyed that entire fortress I planned for you guys to adventure it. But I'm thinking that the wording of rule/spell unbalances the game and makes it less fun for everyone. Hows about we work together to come up with a new version of said rule/spell"
them: "Yeah, it was really cool the first time we did it. But We can see how it would make the game less fun. Lets change it"

I find more players like this:

Player: "It's in the book, man..in the rules! All hail the Rules! The rules were made by super smart gamer dudes, and we must follow them or we are not playing official D&D. I see how that rule makes the game less fun for you DM, but we players don't care as the rule is awesome for us!''


But then you come here, and present your style of play as the only appropriate one? In rude, dismissive ways? Insulting the community as a whole? Not ok. And damn right we're going to defend out style of gaming when you tell us that we're having wrongbadfun.

When did I say ''my way is the only one''? Well, ''rude'' and ''dismissive'' are very much YMMV type things, as is ''insulting''.




It would be like telling the wizard he can't have fireball because sulfur is too hard to come across, then throwing only sorcerers who keep spamming fireball at the party. It's still not really cheating then either. It's still just being a really big jerk.

What? What if the sorcerers had eschew materials? What if they had a sulfur mine?

[SpawnOfMorbo]

First off everyone agrees that lying is cheating. If a character takes 20 damage, and the player does not subtract it from their characters hit points:Cheating. If a player just writes down a needed item on their character sheet when needed:Cheating. If a player adds in free damage from no game source:Cheating.


Then we are left with the other stuff. ...It would seem that most people say ''if you use the rules your never cheating.'' This is a bit of an odd statment as it lets a person ignore, bend or even break rules, but everyone will just say how ''clever'' they were to do that...

Now most of the world considers stacking the deck, that is ''following the rules'', but doing it in a way that makes the event unblanced in your favor to be cheating. For example if you were to have a football game with another group, it would be cheating for him to show up with NFL players. The same way it is cheating to have an adult compeat against a kid, as the kid will have not chance (depending on the event...)

I say that doing anything to ''make the game too easy for your character and invalidate any challange in the game is cheating.'' It does not matter if the rules ''let'' you do it or not. It is you as the player doing the act that is cheating. It's the players fault for not having the common sense to say ''well, I won't do that'' as it would be wrong and cheating.

Though it seems I'm the only one. Everyone else says ''anything goes''. You ''can't'' cheat at D&D. And all a poor DM can do is beg the players ''I know the rules are broken(all hail the rules), but can you pretty please with sugar on top not be a jerk?" and then the player, from up on his huge high horse can say, ''Ha ha, puny DM, why yes, sure I can play the game and not be a jerk...but just remember I do so at my whim....so we both know I'm so awesome I could break the game, but i'll agree not to do so for now.''

Counter argument on one point, only to be THAT guy haha.

If the rules of abgame doesn't call out lying as cheating then it isn't cheating. Rules usually assume many things but without them being called out a person can, and probably will, not consider lying to be cheating.

Do I think lying = cheating? Yes. But is lying against the rules and thus cheating? Well that depends if it is spelled out within the rules of the game. Rules are guidelines to most people not laws. And technically, even by American (and most other countries) standards/practices, it isn't illegal unless you get caught. Getting caught is what you get punished for, not the actual act.

[Zanos]

I find more players like this:

Player: "It's in the book, man..in the rules! All hail the Rules! The rules were made by super smart gamer dudes, and we must follow them or we are not playing official D&D. I see how that rule makes the game less fun for you DM, but we players don't care as the rule is awesome for us!''

I highly doubt that's true because I can't even think of a reason to associate with such a person, let alone share your favorite hobby with them.

[Kraken]

As outrageous as it sounds, I've actually met a couple people like what jedipotter describes over the years. That said, they're so rare that I'd also consider talking of them to be a non-issue, practically speaking, outside sharing amusing stories about them.

[Arkhaic]

I highly doubt that's true because I can't even think of a reason to associate with such a person, let alone share your favorite hobby with them.

I can think of at least one reason: if you've driven away all the sane people, that's the sort of player you end up with.

Edit: Or it's reactionary to a totalitarian style of game.

[LordHenry]

Counter argument on one point, only to be THAT guy haha.

And technically, even by American (and most other countries) standards/practices, it isn't illegal unless you get caught. Getting caught is what you get punished for, not the actual act.


As a law student I beg to differ. It is true that lying is not illegal in most cases (in court for example it is). But you always get punished for the act, not for getting caught. Of course you do not get punished if you do not get caught. But as far as i know in pretty much every country in the world, you get punished because you broke a law, and doing so was illegal.

[jedipotter]

Wow didn't even see this thread until a bit ago. I have to say, I'm actually curious to know where Jedipotter draws the line at "cheating".

Let's say Jack is playing John Barbarianmann, eldest son of the Barbarianmann tribe of lion totem barbarians. John has weapon focus (greataxe), powerattack, an 18 strength and his big 'ol greataxe. His average damage will vary from 9-20 on a powerattack/charge with a +6 to hit. while raging his damage goes up to 12-23 at +8 to hit. His average damage will kill most CR1 beasties and CR2s will be left hurting, possibly dead/dying on a good roll. Note that he'll probably be landing most of those attacks since at low level natural armor isn't a huge factor and manufactured armor is still non-magical.

Is this "cheating"? Our theoretical barbarian is really just taking feats and weapons that synergize well with what he's normally going to do: punch faces with big, heavy weapons. What if the takes feats like Leap Attack which enhances his power attack even more? Or feats like Combat Brute (even more power attack damage) or Shock Trooper (AC penalty instead of Attack Penalty on power attack)?

Nope, Jack is not cheating, I'd be fine with his barbarian character in my game.




blindness/deafness: no spell components and immediately removes a sense on a single failed save. fighter types, or at least those with good fort saves, have a better chance of ignoring it's effects but most rogue or caster types can quickly find themselves in VERY bad positions. a traditional trap-finder/disabler or scout rogue-type can find themselves effectively out of the game due to the permanent duration of the spell... it's not pretty. if memory serves, casters also suffer a 20% spell failure for being deafened though I would say blinding them is far graver a fate.

No problem with this spell at all.



alter self: While the spell does grant a few combat buffs (troglodyte form is stupid good for +6 natural AC), it's best uses are for disguises (don't want to be recognized? turn into a generic elf/dwarf/half-human/etc...) or alternate forms of travel (Locathah, for example, grants you a swim speed of 60ft). At level 3 when you get it allows you a half hour of these boons. Going outside of core we get the Avarial race and it's flight speed of 50 we can nab and I wouldn't be surprised if there is one with a burrow speed.

Very potent and no components.

Alter Self is one of the spells Fixed in my game: The new form must be within one size category of your normal size. The maximum HD of an assumed form is equal to your caster level (or your HD, whichever is lower), to a maximum of 5 HD at 5th level. Any movement speeds gained by the spell is capped at 10 feet per 3 caster levels (max 50 feet at 15th level). Use the caster's base land speed if it is higher. Flight speeds are not granted until caster level 5, and the maneuverability is never greater than average. And you need a part of anything you want to change into as a material component.



The whole polymorph line is pretty broken, really. But for this exercise I'm keeping it at spells which have no components or things that would be generally trivial to find.

My Polymorph fix has the ''need a part of any creature you wish to transform into as a material component.'' And even better, I use the ''lose your mind '' in the new form idea from 2E. And I can say this one is a real gem as lots of players love it when they lose their mind and have to play the monster.



Dispel Magic (area)/Explosive Runes - A very potent spell combination where the trick is to always prepare Explosive Runes as high a level as possible and keep Dispel Magic's caster level as low as possible. Carry around a bunch of these, throw them at your problem and area dispel, choosing to roll to see if the ER is dispelled or not. at level 5 we're looking at a CL5 check VS DC 16. At level 10 a dispel magic cast at CL5 is still CL5 but VS a DC 21 Explosive Runes. At CL15 you can make explosive runes that are undispelable by your CL5 dispel magic.

Again: no special components beyond the page or whatever needed to scribe the explosive rune on and the time/effort to write something on the page. Many of which can be placed in a scroll case for carry and toss.

Explosive Runes fix: Multiple triggering of explosive runes in the same AoE cannot exceed the spell's maximum damage potential. An explosive rune on an object that is physically destroyed does not take effect (as the document is now unreadable). The runes deal fire damage. Those close enough to read the runes may make a Reflex save at a -5 penalty.



These are spells, or in the latter case's spell combos that can be done with no material components and allow for quite a bit of versatility.

I don't just use the material components to balance magic, I fixed a lot of the spells too. And fixed a lot of things about magic in general.

[Kazudo]

I'd like a writeup of this fix.

[Oddman80]

Counter argument on one point, only to be THAT guy haha.

If the rules of abgame doesn't call out lying as cheating then it isn't cheating. Rules usually assume many things but without them being called out a person can, and probably will, not consider lying to be cheating.

Do I think lying = cheating? Yes. But is lying against the rules and thus cheating? Well that depends if it is spelled out within the rules of the game. Rules are guidelines to most people not laws. And technically, even by American (and most other countries) standards/practices, it isn't illegal unless you get caught. Getting caught is what you get punished for, not the actual act.

I'm annoyed two fold right now. First for the fact that you posted jedipotters entire original quote, and there fore I read that dribble again... But then also for what you wrote...

While, yes it is true people only get in trouble if they are caught... That doesn't validate doing the known offense so long as you don't get caught. Whether caught or not, doing an illegal/cheating thing is wrong.

I agree with jedipotters first paragraph. I think everyone does. That type of behavior should nit be tolerated for anyone at the table.

Caviat time. Yes it is within DMs fiat to fudge rolls here or there, but specifically within the scope of keeping things enjoyable- never out of retaliation. So the barbarian just one shotted the bbeg? cool. Don't make the bbeg suddenly have 3x the hp. However, also make sure the barbarian isn't taking fun away from other players. To figure out how next encounter should be modified.

But have you all seen jedipotters stance on what he think the player / dm relationship should be? It is entirely one directional. It is like a catholic school marm smacking the hands of original sin laden children that must learn their place before the eyes of a terrifying god.

Seriously... That's his stance... That players should cower before the great and mighty power of the dm, and that the dm must sit in judgment of the players actions.


Most of the people I've seen on this site tend to take the position that the dm and players are equally important and mutual trust and respect is key. The players have to trust that the dm wont fudge rolls to TPK the group cuz he didn't like how they cleverly solved last encounter (or according to jedipotter-they cheated)

The dm is forming a narrative responding to the wishes of the party, making tense, memorable encounters. If players keep finding work arounds, beyond the intention of the dm, the dm shouldn't yell CHEATERS!!!!!

He should talk to the players and explain that the work he's been putting into encounters keeps getting negated by the players never coming at the problem head on. Explain, that their solutions are pretty clever, but as a dm, you can't plan for them, and are losing your own enjoyment of crafting new encounters because you feel the group isn't engaging them anyway...

If the players aren't receptive to that.... Then there is a lack of that much needed respect... And changing players might be in order. Alternately, the players might actually be able to help the dm grow, and learn how to better plan for more unconventional contingencies.

Telling an archer that he can't shoot the big iron chandelier down, in order to crush the enemy that is standing below it, because it wasn't what the dm intended.... Well, that is just taking away the players a ability to have any affect on the game in which they are playing.

There are people in this world who are famous for thinking outside the box and for solving problems in ways nobody else had ever considerred. These people are not denigrated by society as cheaters (unless the successes they are having comes at the direct expense of innocent bystanders). More frequently - they are lauded for their innovation, and word of their exploits/endeavors spreads through the public to be emulated by others.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

As a law student I beg to differ. It is true that lying is not illegal in most cases (in court for example it is). But you always get punished for the act, not for getting caught. Of course you do not get punished if you do not get caught. But as far as i know in pretty much every country in the world, you get punished because you broke a law, and doing so was illegal.

They can't punish someone that they don't know broke a law (well legally at least haha).

So getting caught (or found) doing something illegal is what is against the law. If the act itself was illegal then as soon as you did something illegal you would be punished. However it is only the people caught (or found guilty via trial) are punish. Heck, sometimes those found guilty aren't the ones that broke the law and yet they are punished anyways.

Thus, caught/found to be guilty is what is illegal because that is what gets you punished.

[eggynack]

They can't punish someone that they don't know broke a law (well legally at least haha).

So getting caught (or found) doing something illegal is what is against the law. If the act itself was illegal then as soon as you did something illegal you would be punished. However it is only the people caught (or found guilty via trial) are punish. Heck, sometimes those found guilty aren't the ones that broke the law and yet they are punished anyways.

Thus, caught/found to be guilty is what is illegal because that is what gets you punished.
No, the illegal thing is the illegal thing. Them capturing you is just acting based on the knowledge that you did something illegal, rather than the act that makes your actions illegal. You are mistaken in your assertion.

[Vedhin]

They can't punish someone that they don't know broke a law (well legally at least haha).

So getting caught (or found) doing something illegal is what is against the law. If the act itself was illegal then as soon as you did something illegal you would be punished. However it is only the people caught (or found guilty via trial) are punish. Heck, sometimes those found guilty aren't the ones that broke the law and yet they are punished anyways.

Thus, caught/found to be guilty is what is illegal because that is what gets you punished.

I don't get this logic. Human error is what causes people to get away with crimes or be wrongly convicted.

The law states that doing X is wrong. Just because the law can only punish those it catches (or wrongly convicts) doesn't mean that the behavior is legal for those not caught.

[Necroticplague]

Nope, Jack is not cheating, I'd be fine with his barbarian character in my game.




No problem with this spell at all.
Why not? Both of those make a certain task very easy. A blind character is pretty much useless in a fight, and that barbarian can trivially cut through any combat by charging at it. Yes, it has some weaknesses you can use. However, the same can be said of literally anything a player can use, as the DM can always find things to challenge the players, making nothing "too easy".




Alter Self is one of the spells Fixed in my game: The new form must be within one size category of your normal size. The maximum HD of an assumed form is equal to your caster level (or your HD, whichever is lower), to a maximum of 5 HD at 5th level. Any movement speeds gained by the spell is capped at 10 feet per 3 caster levels (max 50 feet at 15th level). Use the caster's base land speed if it is higher. Flight speeds are not granted until caster level 5, and the maneuverability is never greater than average. And you need a part of anything you want to change into as a material component.
Doesn't solve the problem of granting massive natural armor and wide array of abilities not otherwise accessible. A burrow speed can trivialize stealth missions, and the armor from some forms can trivialize many combats. Yes, it can be challenged, but again, everything can, so nothing is cheating under that definition.




My Polymorph fix has the ''need a part of any creature you wish to transform into as a material component.'' And even better, I use the ''lose your mind '' in the new form idea from 2E. And I can say this one is a real gem as lots of players love it when they lose their mind and have to play the monster.
No clue about losing your mind, so I'll ignore that. But a simple Eschew Materials fixes that component problem easy, as does a spell component pouch and various creation spells.




Explosive Runes fix: Multiple triggering of explosive runes in the same AoE cannot exceed the spell's maximum damage potential. An explosive rune on an object that is physically destroyed does not take effect (as the document is now unreadable). The runes deal fire damage. Those close enough to read the runes may make a Reflex save at a -5 penalty.
The fire damage actually somewhat cancels out the part about the destroyed object, since that means simply using something more resilient than a normal book is needed. Like a simple metal box with some messages engraved into it, and a couple casting of hardening should survive the boom easily (thanks to fire doing very little damage to objects). And pray, do tell, what is this "maximum potential"? I'm not seeing it referenced anywhere in the spell itself, so it sound like a bit of out-of-rear fiat. What if some of them are Admixture (which they now qualify for)? Cast by a warmage (who would get bonus damage)? What if some are Searing?

[Oddman80]

They can't punish someone that they don't know broke a law (well legally at least haha).

So getting caught (or found) doing something illegal is what is against the law. If the act itself was illegal then as soon as you did something illegal you would be punished. However it is only the people caught (or found guilty via trial) are punish. Heck, sometimes those found guilty aren't the ones that broke the law and yet they are punished anyways.

Thus, caught/found to be guilty is what is illegal because that is what gets you punished.

You're just trolling, right?
You do know that that status of something's legality is not contingent on being caught, right? Laws establish what is and is not legal. I have never heard of a law having a "unless you don't get caught" clause... Ever.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

No, the illegal thing is the illegal thing. Them capturing you is just acting based on the knowledge that you did something illegal, rather than the act that makes your actions illegal. You are mistaken in your assertion.

No.

Them catching you is on the assumption that you did something against the rules. They have no proof you did anything illegal or broke any rules. Finding proof against you is a product of catching you.

Since they caught you/found you guilty (even if you are innocent) that is when and what you are punished for. If you are never caught or never found guilty then you are never punished.

If things worked your way then we wouldn't have innocent people going to jail or being punished because the act would automatically mean you get punished. Humans aren't that good (yet) and thus can only punish people for being caught or found guilty.

[eggynack]

No.

Them catching you is on the assumption that you did something against the rules. They have no proof you did anything illegal or broke any rules. Finding proof against you is a product of catching you.

Since they caught you/found you guilty (even if you are innocent) that is when and what you are punished for. If you are never caught or never found guilty then you are never punished.

If things worked your way then we wouldn't have innocent people going to jail or being punished because the act would automatically mean you get punished. Humans aren't that good (yet) and thus can only punish people for being caught or found guilty.
Being found guilty or not guilty does nothing to impact the legality of your actions. It's just completely irrelevant. If you murder some guy, then that act was against the law. If you're found not guilty, then you're a guy who did an illegal thing and got away with it. Punishment is a consequence of illegality, rather than the object itself.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Being found guilty or not guilty does nothing to impact the legality of your actions. It's just completely irrelevant. If you murder some guy, then that act was against the law. If you're found not guilty, then you're a guy who did an illegal thing and got away with it. Punishment is a consequence of illegality, rather than the object itself.

No. Punishment is the result of being caught or being found guilty of a crime. If you are never caught then you never practically broke a law.

I don't like it any more than other people do, but that is the world we live in. That is the only way humans have to operate until we can see the future/past.

If the law is No Jaywalking, and you jay walk and no one sees it... Do you get punished? No. You broke a law but had no punishment. Breaking a law means there is a punishment, that is part of the law. However the only way to be punished is being caught red handed or being found guilty (assuming that the court system isn't biased or rail reading you).

Heck even being found guilty in a court doesn't mean you broke or didnt break a law, just that a person or people think or don't think you did or didn't.

Humans at the moment, can't work any other way. Our perception isn't able to be used to do the whole "break the rules = punishment" only "get caught/found guilty = punishment".

Maybe someday we can go all minority report (not that I want that) but right now we can't. Humans, for all of our awesome abilities, are still severely limited.

[LordHenry]

If you are never caught then you never practically broke a law.

No. If you do what a law prohibts you broke it. It does not matter if you are ever found out or whether or not you get punished. If possession of drugs is illegal and you possess drugs, you broke a law.

[eggynack]

No. Punishment is the result of being caught or being found guilty of a crime. If you are never caught then you never practically broke a law.

I don't like it any more than other people do, but that is the world we live in. That is the only way humans have to operate until we can see the future/past.

If the law is No Jaywalking, and you jay walk and no one sees it... Do you get punished? No. You broke a law but had no punishment. Breaking a law means there is a punishment, that is part of the law. However the only way to be punished is being caught red handed or being found guilty (assuming that the court system isn't biased or rail reading you).

Heck even being found guilty in a court doesn't mean you broke or didnt break a law, just that a person or people think or don't think you did or didn't.

Humans at the moment, can't work any other way. Our perception isn't able to be used to do the whole "break the rules = punishment" only "get caught/found guilty = punishment".

Maybe someday we can go all minority report (not that I want that) but right now we can't. Humans, for all of our awesome abilities, are still severely limited.
Man, you're going into all these ridiculous things about philosophy of law and junk, and you're just wrong by definition. Illegal is defined as, "Forbidden by law or statute." Murdering someone is forbidden by law or statute, whether you get caught or not, so it's illegal. That's all there is to it. Flaws in our current legal system, as compared to some theoretical perfect one, are completely irrelevant.

[Spuddles]

Bob: I hate murderers.
John: Yeah, I agree. Most people dislike murder.
Bob: How am I supposed to make a living when people keep murdering the merchandise from my store?
John: ...? :smallconfused: Please explain.
Bob: People keep walking into my store and taking stuff without paying for it. I don't know how to deal with all of these murderers.
John: You mean shoplifters?
Bob: I don't care what everyone else calls it. To me they're murderers. Everyone else should call them murderers too.

The purpose of language is communication. To make communication easier for all parties, we adhere to the commonly understood meaning of words to avoid confusion. Ignoring that common meaning, and expecting the rest of the world to adopt our personal interpretation instead, is both unreasonable and kind of silly.

end of thread

[thethird]

So back in my day we used to jump by pulling the leg, then this **** Fosbury came and totally cheated, because he made it easier by being all YOLO RAW. What an ass. I hate that guy.

This is more or less what is going on, isn't it?

[Karnith]

This is more or less what is going on, isn't it?
In the first part of the thread, yes. But now we have a wonderful new discussion about someone using a different word to mean something that it doesn't. And it's going great places.

[thethird]

Dyslexia is a serious problem.

[Amphetryon]

Lying can be cheating. It is not always, so the very first point in the thread is setting up a false equivalency. Heck, a Character who is good at Bluff lies as part of her basic shtick; the Player should not be punished or called a cheater for roleplaying the Character in front of her as the situation, stats and dice dictate.

[ryu]

Lying can be cheating. It is not always, so the very first point in the thread is setting up a false equivalency. Heck, a Character who is good at Bluff lies as part of her basic shtick; the Player should not be punished or called a cheater for roleplaying the Character in front of her as the situation, stats and dice dictate.

Lets not even begin to get into games where lying is not only an option within the rules but an assumed part of day to day survival.

[NickChaisson]

I find more players like this:

Player: "It's in the book, man..in the rules! All hail the Rules! The rules were made by super smart gamer dudes, and we must follow them or we are not playing official D&D. I see how that rule makes the game less fun for you DM, but we players don't care as the rule is awesome for us!''

You play with houserules and "fixes" to systems. By definition your game is not "official D&D" either, so I fail to see how that is relevant. Also, if worse comes to worse just use their tactics against them. One of my players found a really easy way to kill people with a spell combination. I asked him to stop, he said no. So in the next encounter I had an enemy spellcaster do it to him. After he died I asked if he saw my point and he did. I always tell my players that if they use cheese, I'll use cheese.


I for one found your posts to be on the ruder side of things. You make broad statements and you keep making threads that are continuations of old threads. Usually starting with a quote of something from the previous thread. You also keep using the word "cheating" and you clearly have no idea what it means even though everyone is telling you what it means.

On the topic of sulfur:

It would all depend on if you let your caster use eschew materials so that they could use fireball. If you say that they cannot, then why can the sorcerers? Assuming that they don't have the feat and instead have a "sulfur mine" that's just DM dickery. YOU gave those NPCs access to the sulfur so that you can trivialized an encounter with the PCs. Therefore, you are the one "cheating" by your own definition.

[jiriku]

Jedipotter, I think there's a more fundamental question you should be asking yourself. "Do I like my players... and do they like me?" The DM/player relationships that you describe sound like interactions between people who don't respect and can barely tolerate each other. When I sit down at a gaming tables and encounter those dynamics (and that has happened to me before), I leave early and I don't come back.

If your players are treating you like the "typical player" from your stories, I have to ask... why do you hang out with those people? There are a lot of people in the world and many of them value friendship, respect, and consideration. And they play D&D. Find them, game with them, dump the losers. You deserve to be treated respect by the people who share your hobby, and there is no reason for you to allow anyone to treat you badly.

On the other hand, if you are treating your players like the DM in your stories... man, that's seriously messed up. I'm not talking about bat guano or house rules or encounter design, I'm talking about the standards you apply to yourself for how you should treat other human beings. Other people and their viewpoints are worthy of your respect. The same kind of respect that you and your views should also receive. Note that "respect" doesn't mean "agreement". You can disagree vigorously with someone's actions or ideas while still conducting yourself with class. It's not something that a lot of people strive for, but it's very much worth the striving, believe me.

Maybe I'm taking things out of context. I sure hope so. I'll admit i haven't read all the fast-trending threads on the forum, and I really only have time to catch a snippet here and there. I'd like to think that being decent towards each other is something we can nearly all agree upon, though.

[jedipotter]

Jedipotter, I think there's a more fundamental question you should be asking yourself. "Do I like my players... and do they like me?" The DM/player relationships that you describe sound like interactions between people who don't respect and can barely tolerate each other. When I sit down at a gaming tables and encounter those dynamics (and that has happened to me before), I leave early and I don't come back.

Do I like all my players? No, not even close. I'd say I even dislike some of them. I don't always get to game with ''my best friends in the whole world'', often I just game with ''people I know'' or even ''people I don't know''.





If your players are treating you like the "typical player" from your stories, I have to ask... why do you hang out with those people? There are a lot of people in the world and many of them value friendship, respect, and consideration. And they play D&D. Find them, game with them, dump the losers. You deserve to be treated respect by the people who share your hobby, and there is no reason for you to allow anyone to treat you badly.

Very often I will game with someone I'm not friends with at all, ''I just know their name''. And worse I often game with ''brothers, cousins or friends of friends'' and so on. And I can't throw ''jerk cousin'' of of the game as the good player will leave along with his cousin.

It would be nice if ''Good Player Joe'' could see and understand his cousin is a ''Jerk'', but that just does not happen. And as Joe has weird ''family ties'', he can't be more then ten feet from his jerk cousin, for no reasonable reason.




On the other hand, if you are treating your players like the DM in your stories... man, that's seriously messed up. I'm not talking about bat guano or house rules or encounter design, I'm talking about the standards you apply to yourself for how you should treat other human beings. Other people and their viewpoints are worthy of your respect. The same kind of respect that you and your views should also receive. Note that "respect" doesn't mean "agreement". You can disagree vigorously with someone's actions or ideas while still conducting yourself with class. It's not something that a lot of people strive for, but it's very much worth the striving, believe me.

Maybe I'm taking things out of context. I sure hope so. I'll admit i haven't read all the fast-trending threads on the forum, and I really only have time to catch a snippet here and there. I'd like to think that being decent towards each other is something we can nearly all agree upon, though.

I lot of players are what I call problem players, there only seeming goal in playing the game is to cause problems for everyone else. While everyone else is having fun playing the game, they are having fun by ruining other peoples fun. Then a lot of players idea of having fun is very self centered. As long as they, personalty, are having fun, they don't care about the others.

And some players think that ''as long it is a rule, it is ok'' and hide behind that.

A great many players, who I'd call problem players won't even play in my game once they see the house rules. I'm glad to watch them go. And some players, when handed some house rules, just play by them, and everyone has a good game. It's amazing how if you give people boundaries, they will just follow them.

So, for example, my game has no cleric-zilla. If a player did that, their god would act in the game to stop them. And that brings out the whole point of the house rules: to make the game fun for everyone.

[enderlord99]

Stay away from jedikettleter. You wouldn't like him.

[Coidzor]

I don't just use the material components to balance magic, I fixed a lot of the spells too. And fixed a lot of things about magic in general.

Which, funnily enough, is the only part of all of this that is actually interesting in a less-than-morbid fashion and doesn't make the majority of people wonder why you're not just playing a retroclone.

[NickChaisson]

Jedi, you really should just limit your group to the people you actually want to play with. If you lose some players, so what? you'll eventually have a group you actually enjoy playing with. My current group only has four people (including myself) but we are all good friends. It took some time to get that group together, but now its so awesome to DM for them.

I've been there man, I hope you get a good group going. Best of luck ^_^

[Oscredwin]

So, for example, my game has no cleric-zilla. If a player did that, their god would act in the game to stop them. And that brings out the whole point of the house rules: to make the game fun for everyone.

So St. Cuthbert doesn't approve of his clerics buffing up and smashing face harder than a fighter can? Kord disapproves of such things? Really?

[sakuuya]

So St. Cuthbert doesn't approve of his clerics buffing up and smashing face harder than a fighter can? Kord disapproves of such things? Really?

No, see, it's a monotheistic setting where everyone worships The God of Doing Things the DM's Way.

[Svata]

So St. Cuthbert doesn't approve of his clerics buffing up and smashing face harder than a fighter can? Kord disapproves of such things? Really?

This. Why would the gods disapprove of their cleics kicking ass and taking names?

[Juntao112]

Do I like all my players? No, not even close. I'd say I even dislike some of them. I don't always get to game with ''my best friends in the whole world'', often I just game with ''people I know'' or even ''people I don't know''.

...

Very often I will game with someone I'm not friends with at all, ''I just know their name''. And worse I often game with ''brothers, cousins or friends of friends'' and so on. And I can't throw ''jerk cousin'' of of the game as the good player will leave along with his cousin.

It would be nice if ''Good Player Joe'' could see and understand his cousin is a ''Jerk'', but that just does not happen. And as Joe has weird ''family ties'', he can't be more then ten feet from his jerk cousin, for no reasonable reason.

...

I lot of players are what I call problem players, there only seeming goal in playing the game is to cause problems for everyone else. While everyone else is having fun playing the game, they are having fun by ruining other peoples fun. Then a lot of players idea of having fun is very self centered. As long as they, personalty, are having fun, they don't care about the others.

And some players think that ''as long it is a rule, it is ok'' and hide behind that.

A great many players, who I'd call problem players won't even play in my game once they see the house rules. I'm glad to watch them go. And some players, when handed some house rules, just play by them, and everyone has a good game. It's amazing how if you give people boundaries, they will just follow them.

So, for example, my game has no cleric-zilla. If a player did that, their god would act in the game to stop them. And that brings out the whole point of the house rules: to make the game fun for everyone.

“Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster. For when you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.”

― Friedrich Nietzsche

[Dimers]

Me: "Hey guys, It was cool when you used the poor wording of this rule/spell and destroyed that entire fortress I planned for you guys to adventure it. But I'm thinking that the wording of rule/spell unbalances the game and makes it less fun for everyone. Hows about we work together to come up with a new version of said rule/spell"
them: "Yeah, it was really cool the first time we did it. But We can see how it would make the game less fun. Lets change it"

More often in my case it's been "Hey Ms. DM, I noticed that this thing is way too powerful, could we change or ban it?" "Now that you mention it Dimers that does look pretty ridiculous, what do you think of this fix ...?" And I don't just mean me, I'm talking about the people I play with. Our DMs don't trend toward being the leaders in understanding optimization, so it's up to the players to catch the bad stuff and identify it as too much.

Naturally, that's even farther away from jedipotter's world. Gods, that place sounds depressing. :smallyuk:

[Urpriest]

jedipotter, it's tricky when you have a ****ty friend network, I get that. But you should understand, your problem players aren't getting their problems from us. This forum's culture is very much in favor of adjusting your optimization to fit the game, to talking problems out rather than acting out, to tempering your cheese with gentlemen's agreements. We discuss in terms of RAW because it's a useful, interesting proving ground for ideas, because it limits creativity and encourages innovation, not to "get one over" on other players or DMs.

Are there players who act out, who misread the rules and quote platitudes like "it's in the rules" and "it's what my character would do" when they do something wrong? Yes, of course. Here on this forum, we call players like that munchkins, and we deride them as much as you do. We care about making powerful characters, they care about making powerful characters, so it's understandable that you would get us mixed up...but we represent different perspectives on the game. We don't condone people like that, and we aren't legitimizing or inspiring them.

I think if you stopped using us as a surrogate for your frustrations with the people you game with, you might be able to enjoy this forum a lot more.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

There are always ways to game any system.

Let's take a classic example from a somewhat modern video game: Final Fantasy VII. The materia is called "Knights of the Round Table". Combo with Dual-Summon, then have three mastered Mimic materias and you pretty much win everything but the Ruby WEAPON, and even then only because it requires specific events to make it vulnerable. You one-round everything up to and including Seph.

Is it cheating? Nope. No hax, no cheat codes, just insanely good synergy. I don't think the guys making the game realized how powerful Mimic could be when you could pull this combo out, but honestly it doesn't generally take more than one casting of KOTR + Dual-Summon (since it was one of the few summons that Quatra-Magic didn't actually work on) to roflstomp any given encounter. It does, however, trivialize the game.

Similarly, I could build a Batman Wizard, a Mailman Sorcerer, a Cleric or Druid Zilla, or similar build and do much the same thing with D&D 3.5. Once the combo gets rolling, there's very little that can be done to actually stop it short of 'Rocks Fall', and even THAT might not work depending on how paranoid the wizard is (Lesser Planar Binding a Nightmare for Astral Projection so even if you 'kill' the wizard, that was just his projection and not actually him).

Doing so pretty much ruins the game for everyone, yourself included, and is considered bad form by most players who are aware of these builds (there's a reason they fall under the heading of 'Theoretical Optimization', even the CharOp crew knew that these shouldn't be played in an actual game), but there's nothing explicitly stating that playing a build like this is cheating.

[One Step Two]

We care about making powerful characters, they care about making powerful characters, so it's understandable that you would get us mixed up...but we represent different perspectives on the game. We don't condone people like that, and we aren't legitimizing or inspiring them.

I've been reading this thread and others like it for sometime, and I agree with everything Urpriest has said here, and I want to elaborate on the above point little.

It's not just powerful characters, but effective characters who can meaningfully contribute to the game. This isn't limited to strong builds alone, it's player agency. Jedipotter claims that players using the lines "It's in the rules" like it's a bad thing, but those rules are extra options that allow the players to feel they have the ability to contribute.

I personally like saying yes, to almost any request made of me as DM usually with a caveat or two, to let the players either expand their characters, and the setting/game we're playing. Because I am so open with them making characters, if something goes really out of hand and I find myself flabbergasted with a result, I'll usually remark, "That was awesome/scary/bull-hockey!" and then feel perfectly comfortable asking of them in return to either tone it down, or not to make a massive habit of repeating it due to the effect it has on the other players and/or the tone of the game, and I cannot recall offhand when my request has been staunchly denied by anyone.

As an example, when playing in a game recently, I accidentally disrupted a plotline by having casted Anticipate Teleport. It's part of my usual buffs that I denote on my character sheet. We haven't been teleport ambushed in some time, so it's easy to understand how the DM forgot. The first thing I said was, "Look, this was meant to be a banquet, I can retcon my character to not having it up today." The DM was annoyed, not with me personally, just how the game was hampered, but his response was still, "You're all playing Intelligent characters who have been adventuring for a long time, it was my oversight problem, I'll do some work to fix the plot."
There is a mutual trust and respect between the DM and the party, I was happy to undo my action as were the other players, but the DM wasn't willing to allow that, because the PC's have that power, and are intelligent enough to maintain their paranoia, and undoing it is just punishing intelligent play. We have chatted about ways to get around it, and ideas on how the spell can be altered, to make the spell still viable in the future without being a total pain. This is one example, but it's just to elaborate that we can all play to make the game better for everyone.

In short: A good group of gamers should feel they can contribute not just to the game session, but to the group itself in a positive manner.

[jedipotter]

So St. Cuthbert doesn't approve of his clerics buffing up and smashing face harder than a fighter can? Kord disapproves of such things? Really?

Well, I don't know much about the Greyhawk gods....but St. Cuthbert is the LG god of like knights, right? He would have no problem with his clerics buffing up and smashing evil. But he won't support them if they ''try to rob the magic shop'' or ''kill the gold dragon to get it's treasure''.

And again, don't know much about Kord as he is a Greyhawk god, but I think he is the god that says ''Clerics believe magic should be used to enhance allies rather than strike directly at foes. ''

But again I know very little about Greyhawk gods....


“Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster. For when you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.”

― Friedrich Nietzsche

Well, we are all in The Monster Manual, right there under the letter 'H'......muhahaha...

[eggynack]

Well, I don't know much about the Greyhawk gods....but St. Cuthbert is the LG god of like knights, right? He would have no problem with his clerics buffing up and smashing evil. But he won't support them if they ''try to rob the magic shop'' or ''kill the gold dragon to get it's treasure''.
Well, sure. Instead, you just rob the magic store that uses its funds to stab orphans, and kill the red dragon to get its treasure. Really, I think there must be some pretty substantial differences between acting vastly outside your alignment, and casting spells in moderately effective ways.

[jedipotter]

Well, sure. Instead, you just rob the magic store that uses its funds to stab orphans, and kill the red dragon to get its treasure. Really, I think there must be some pretty substantial differences between acting vastly outside your alignment, and casting spells in moderately effective ways.

It is not just about alignment, and it varies from god to god. Corellon Larethian, for example, would expect a cleric to help elves more often then not(assuming no ticking magic bomb the would kill innocents). But if the cleric ignores a group of elf villagers that need help, just to go slay a dragon ''for the fun and loot'', then he will face the gods wrath.

[Juntao112]

How is helping out villages incompatible with CoDzilla?

[ryu]

How is helping out villages incompatible with CoDzilla?

And for that matter how on earth is a nearby dragon of evil alignment not a bigger problem than whatever the hell they're dealing with? At the very least that thing would warrant some serious consideration.

[Sir Chuckles]

If I was in an elf village and my perrogative was "help the elf village" and a tribe of Orcs was harrasing their farmland, you damn well better bet that I'd become a 15ft pseudo-avatar and put the fear of my god in them.

Also, Kord is in the player's handbook.
He is the god of physical strength and competition. His edicts are, in a nutshell, "get ripped, fight stuff, wrestle each other for sport". He is literally a giant muscle-bound man.

Bonus:
There is the prestige class "Mighty Contender of Kord" that revolves around class features such as "Feat of Power". I've played a Cleric 10/MCoK 10. For 1d4+1 rounds STR Mod/day, you get +25 enhancement bonus to Strength. It was beautiful.

[Flickerdart]

I suspect that whatever the deity's personal goals are in the books, they can be corrupted to serve the Overdeity, the great God of Railroads.

[Svata]

Well, I don't know much about the Greyhawk gods....but St. Cuthbert is the LG god of like knights, right? He would have no problem with his clerics buffing up and smashing evil. But he won't support them if they ''try to rob the magic shop'' or ''kill the gold dragon to get it's treasure''.

LN, god of retribution. Doesn't accept evil clerics. He would be fine with you face-smashing a gold dragon if it did something to you first. His signature weapon is a mace, so face-smashing is right up his alley, even.


And again, don't know much about Kord as he is a Greyhawk god, but I think he is the god that says ''Clerics believe magic should be used to enhance allies rather than strike directly at foes

I do not recall that having ever being said. And as he is the god of strength, it seems unlikely that it was.



Well, we are all in The Monster Manual, right there under the letter 'H'......muhahaha...

Look again. Human is absent from the 3.5 Monster manual, and likely the 3.0 one as well.

[Larkas]

Let's take a classic example from a somewhat modern video game: Final Fantasy VII. The materia is called "Knights of the Round Table". Combo with Dual-Summon, then have three mastered Mimic materias and you pretty much win everything but the Ruby WEAPON, and even then only because it requires specific events to make it vulnerable. You one-round everything up to and including Seph.

Now, I don't remember if I did it in one or two rounds, but that's pretty much how I stomped the Ruby! :smallbiggrin:

EDIT: Come to think of it, I think I followed a round of Limit Breaks with that strategy. Been too long since I last played the game. I guess I must remedy this soon! :smallbiggrin:

[Angelalex242]

Can you cheat?

Sure, there's lots of ways to cheat.

Rolling dice and incorrectly reporting the number rolled is the biggest one.

Altering the stats of your character sheet is another. (Int 10? Nah, now it's int 14...)

Adding items or magic items that weren't there before is another. (I don't remember us finding one of those...)
========================

That said, if you are following RAW and RAI, there is no cheating. Just sourcebooks the DM disallows. No build is 'cheating' unless it has more skill points, more feats, or more stats (in point buy) then add up. That is to say, I don't consider it cheating unless the math of the game is violated.

I, personally, am especially forgiving of Tier 4 and worse 'super builds.' There's no build in the universe that can keep up with a T1, so let the melee and skill types have their fun.

[Svata]

Now, I don't remember if I did it in one or two rounds, but that's pretty much how I stomped the Ruby! :smallbiggrin:

EDIT: Come to think of it, I think I followed a round of Limit Breaks with that strategy. Been too long since I last played the game. I guess I must remedy this soon! :smallbiggrin:

I went in with Cloud and Cid dead, and Yuffie with minimal HP. Shegot killed and used the Phoenix summon (had it paired to the Final Attack materia), Then she W-summoned Knighs paired to an MP absorb materia, Then I mime-cycled it, though I only had two mime materia, the one cloud had was actually the Master Command Materia. Yuffie had the Master Summon Materia in case something broke the mime-cycle, which did happen, she got killed and Phoenix'd again, so she had to W-summon again, but since Master Summon lets you summon as many times as you have MP for, and Knights was attached to MP absorb... Well, I couldn't really lose. On Emerald, I used the all lucky 7's trick. Cloud and Cid had two materia each, and 9999 HP going in, so when he used Aire Tam Storm, it put both of them at 7777, initiating the cycle of pain.

[Kazudo]

Well, we are all in The Monster Manual, right there under the letter 'H'......muhahaha...

Minor sticking point. Unless you're talking about some other race, Humans aren't IN the Monster Manual.

[Larkas]

Minor sticking point. Unless you're talking about some other race, Humans aren't IN the Monster Manual.

Maybe he's a hobgoblin? His DMing style sounds really LE to me! :smallbiggrin:

[Oddman80]

Minor sticking point. Unless you're talking about some other race, Humans aren't IN the Monster Manual.

Everyone keeps forgetting that every comment jedipotter makes - regardless of how it looks - is not actually about D&D 3.5. Its about Jedipotter 2e (i assume even he didn't get it all right on the first edition). In Jedipotter 2e, humans ARE in the monster manual - because when left to their own devices they are constantly cheating, and therefore are all clearly monsters.

[avr]

I've gamed with someone I actively disliked. When he finally left my gaming group the feeling of relief was just wonderful.

If you're gaming with people who are distorting your personality the way some of Jedipotter's players are apparently distorting his personality, look elsewhere for gamers. It will be good for you.

[Kazudo]

And sure enough someone pointed that out before me.

I'm not sure how Nietzsche would feel about Humans not being in the book about Monsters. Then again, I don't know as much about Nietzsche as I probably should.

Realistically though, the best way to handle someone who is antagonizing, sometimes rude, and sometimes upsetting is not to resort to ad hominem retorts. I think that Jedipotter plays a version of D&D that probably works at his table. It's not something that any of us are likely to take up simply because our players would probably throw books at our heads for it and, let's face it, we're there to have fun with people we normally consider friends.

See, with a very few exceptions, I really like my players. I like them as people too a good majority of the time. I want them to be happy, and I know that despite the ones that are only happy when they're eating mountains full of EXPs and getting class features and mad loots and such, they're also happy to be hanging with me and being intellectually challenged. If their intellect, when challenged, proves to be superior, I bow to it and craft different encounters. If the person continually conquers the challenges in interesting ways, then I have at times recommended that the person look into Dungeon Mastering on their own.

[137beth]

Is it cheating to post in this thread?

[Oscredwin]

No. It's not.

[Adderkleet]

It is not just about alignment, and it varies from god to god. Corellon Larethian, for example, would expect a cleric to help elves more often then not(assuming no ticking magic bomb the would kill innocents). But if the cleric ignores a group of elf villagers that need help, just to go slay a dragon ''for the fun and loot'', then he will face the gods wrath.

It sounds like either you're playing with Evil/Chaotic characters (no matter how much the player claims they're just CN or CG), or you are trying to play a game style that the players are unused to or don't want to play. I've had that problem before (leading to the immortal line "I never said I was following the party. I want to [do something completely different to everyone else]")

To answer the initial question: Yes, you can cheat.

The bigger worry is "yes, the DM can do anything they want to and restrict players to the point that no one is having fun". And that swings both ways: Players who cleric-zilla et. al. to extreme levels can ruin games as easily as an overly-forceful DM. There's a point where it's just too cheesy for the DM to deal with, or too restrictive for the players to enjoy.

[Threadnaught]

It is not just about alignment, and it varies from god to god. Corellon Larethian, for example, would expect a cleric to help elves more often then not(assuming no ticking magic bomb the would kill innocents). But if the cleric ignores a group of elf villagers that need help, just to go slay a dragon ''for the fun and loot'', then he will face the gods wrath.

Red Dragon. Implies the Dragon is evil and likely doing bad things to the villagers anyway.

Okay let's imagine for a moment that the Elf villagers need help from a band of Orcs who follow the orders of the Red Dragon. Done that? Good, so the Cleric singlehandedly kills all the Orcs, but because they failed to stop the Dragon leading the Orcs from harassing the Elves, an avatar of Corellon Larethian comes down in a beam of light and destroys the Cleric's soul. Roll a new character my pathetic little mongrel slave of a player, but before you do that, bow down to me right now and admit that I am your master and your life would be nothing without me in it. I will not compromise by accepting any less, I never compromise.

Okay then, that was horrible for the player, but let's imagine the exact same situation handled differently by the same DM. So the Cleric singlehandedly kills the Dragon, but because they failed to stop the Orc minions from harassing the Elves, an avatar of Corellon Larethian comes down in a beam of light and destroys the Cleric's soul. Roll a new character my pathetic little mongrel slave of a player, but before you do that, bow down to me right now and admit that I am your master and your life would be nothing without me in it. I will not compromise by accepting any less, I never compromise.

Okay, so the Cleric decides to help the Elves move instead, trying to find a third option. The Cleric singlehandedly moves the Elves to a new village, but because they failed to stop the Dragon and it's Orc minions, an avatar of Corellon Larethian comes down in a beam of light and destroys the Cleric's soul. Roll a new character my pathetic little mongrel slave of a player, but before you do that, bow down to me right now and admit that I am your master and your life would be nothing without me in it. I will not compromise by accepting any less, I never compromise.


Wow, our completely hypothetical DM seems to create a rather hostile environment for their hypothetical Players. I can absolutely imagine in this hypothetical scenario that some would rebel against the hypothetical DM's iron fist choking the life out of the hypothetical game. The most likely form of rebellion besides leaving the hypothetical game, would be to be antagonistic toward the hypothetical DM, by abusing loopholes, lying about things on their sheets and using TO in actual gameplay.

This has been an interesting thought experiment jedipotter, I'm glad nobody here runs their games like the hypothetical DM. :smallbiggrin:

[Juntao112]

Is it cheating to post in this thread?

Only if you post arguments that jedipotter did not expect to encounter.

[Dimcair]

I think jedipotter's problem is finally being talked about.

DM-Player relationships and relationships with other human beings.

I don't mean this in a bad way. I just think that THAT should be your discussion. I also acknowledge that this is one of the hardest things to do when playing pen-paper rpgs.

Dealing with one or two players is easier than adjusting the whole system to circumvent the problems your players are causing you.
There are many threads on this forum about specific issues DMs with players (or players with other players). Don't hesitate to open another one as every case can be unique.

[winter92]

I fundamentally disagree with the use of the word "cheat" in your example. Cheating in a game means breaking the rules as they are defined. Playing "heads I win, tails you lose" is grossly unfair and no fun for anyone, but if I win every time that doesn't mean I'm "cheating".

That said, D&D has more ambiguity this way than most games. Across its broad array of sources and authors it's inherently contradictory, and the rules can't all be followed. In light of this, I would grant that consciously using rules conflicts to your advantage is cheating if you don't tell the other players.

In short, if I play an unbalanced game, I walk away upset with the game. If I play someone who's using a different rulebook than me, I walk away upset with the player.

[Brookshw]

Red Dragon. Implies the Dragon is evil and likely doing bad things to the villagers anyway.

Okay let's imagine for a moment that the Elf villagers need help from a band of Orcs who follow the orders of the Red Dragon. Done that? Good, so the Cleric singlehandedly kills all the Orcs, but because they failed to stop the Dragon leading the Orcs from harassing the Elves, an avatar of Corellon Larethian comes down in a beam of light and destroys the Cleric's soul. Roll a new character my pathetic little mongrel slave of a player, but before you do that, bow down to me right now and admit that I am your master and your life would be nothing without me in it. I will not compromise by accepting any less, I never compromise.

Okay then, that was horrible for the player, but let's imagine the exact same situation handled differently by the same DM. So the Cleric singlehandedly kills the Dragon, but because they failed to stop the Orc minions from harassing the Elves, an avatar of Corellon Larethian comes down in a beam of light and destroys the Cleric's soul. Roll a new character my pathetic little mongrel slave of a player, but before you do that, bow down to me right now and admit that I am your master and your life would be nothing without me in it. I will not compromise by accepting any less, I never compromise.

Okay, so the Cleric decides to help the Elves move instead, trying to find a third option. The Cleric singlehandedly moves the Elves to a new village, but because they failed to stop the Dragon and it's Orc minions, an avatar of Corellon Larethian comes down in a beam of light and destroys the Cleric's soul. Roll a new character my pathetic little mongrel slave of a player, but before you do that, bow down to me right now and admit that I am your master and your life would be nothing without me in it. I will not compromise by accepting any less, I never compromise.


Wow, our completely hypothetical DM seems to create a rather hostile environment for their hypothetical Players. I can absolutely imagine in this hypothetical scenario that some would rebel against the hypothetical DM's iron fist choking the life out of the hypothetical game. The most likely form of rebellion besides leaving the hypothetical game, would be to be antagonistic toward the hypothetical DM, by abusing loopholes, lying about things on their sheets and using TO in actual gameplay.

This has been an interesting thought experiment jedipotter, I'm glad nobody here runs their games like the hypothetical DM. :smallbiggrin:

While I completely disagree with jedi on almost every point this is unfair, you've included elements in the scenario he did not and prescribed actions he did not, that's just not cricket but plain strawman and character assasination.

[Threadnaught]

While I completely disagree with jedi on almost every point this is unfair, you've included elements in the scenario he did not and prescribed actions he did not, that's just not cricket but plain strawman and character assasination.

It's a hypothetical scenario using a hypothetical DM who wants specific things from their hypothetical players and who punishes them whether they go along with the very specific rules they set, find a way to deal with the very specific rules they set, or try to find workaround so the very specific rules they set aren't obstructive to the game.

It's not supposed to be jedipotter, but rather a literal application of some of his more controversial statements about how the game "should be played" as a hypothetical game.


If I were actually referring directly to anything he said, I'd be more straightforward. As it stands, the discussions about all the possible ways Players and DMs can cheat by making up/ignoring/changing the rules as they go along, is far more interesting to me than the question of whether or not jedipotter's statements indicate a potentially bad DM.

The DM in the above situation btw, is obviously cheating.

[Flickerdart]

The DM in the above situation btw, is obviously cheating.
It's not a cheat - the DM isn't going against the rules he's set for his gods. It's just that the rules he's set are asinine, and nobody in their right mind would worship these gods that find ways punish them no matter what they do. We're basically taking about every god being a reskin of Lolth at this point.

[ryu]

It's not a cheat - the DM isn't going against the rules he's set for his gods. It's just that the rules he's set are asinine, and nobody in their right mind would worship these gods that find ways punish them no matter what they do. We're basically taking about every god being a reskin of Lolth at this point.

You'd actually be safer with Lolth. Lolth is chaotic and capricious, but she doesn't bring about unilateral soul destruction of anyone who worships her. No what we're looking at is everything being re-skins of the Lady of Pain.

[Necroticplague]

It's not a cheat - the DM isn't going against the rules he's set for his gods. It's just that the rules he's set are asinine, and nobody in their right mind would worship these gods that find ways punish them no matter what they do. We're basically taking about every god being a reskin of Lolth at this point.

To be fair, even lolth occasionally lays off the worshiper-murdering (IIRC, when all the drow backstabbing starts to diminish their population too much, she tells them to cut that crap out.).

[Brookshw]

It's a hypothetical scenario using a hypothetical DM who wants specific things from their hypothetical players and who punishes them whether they go along with the very specific rules they set, find a way to deal with the very specific rules they set, or try to find workaround so the very specific rules they set aren't obstructive to the game.

It's not supposed to be jedipotter, but rather a literal application of some of his more controversial statements about how the game "should be played" as a hypothetical game.


If I were actually referring directly to anything he said, I'd be more straightforward. As it stands, the discussions about all the possible ways Players and DMs can cheat by making up/ignoring/changing the rules as they go along, is far more interesting to me than the question of whether or not jedipotter's statements indicate a potentially bad DM.

The DM in the above situation btw, is obviously cheating.

If its a hypothetical then its unrelated to the thread and I question why you've mentioned it.:smallconfused:

[Svata]

You'd actually be safer with Lolth. Lolth is chaotic and capricious, but she doesn't bring about unilateral soul destruction of anyone who worships her. No what we're looking at is everything being re-skins of the Lady of Pain.

I hope hypothetical DM doesn't run games in the Forgotten Realms.

[Threadnaught]

If its a hypothetical then its unrelated to the thread and I question why you've mentioned it.:smallconfused:

It's hypothetical, because it isn't a real game. The relationship between my hypothetical situation and the thread is that the hypothetical situation, where a hypothetical DM screws a player no matter what they decide to do, is based on some of the things mentioned in this thread.


It's not a cheat - the DM isn't going against the rules he's set for his gods. It's just that the rules he's set are asinine, and nobody in their right mind would worship these gods that find ways punish them no matter what they do. We're basically taking about every god being a reskin of Lolth at this point.

No matter what you do, I'll always change the situation so you lose and have to burn your character sheet. Imagine if the hypothetical Player somehow played through the exact same hypothetical Elven villagers encounter three times, each time attempting one of those three methods and the DM used the same response in each of them. That is plain cheating, the hypothetical DM is setting rules and breaking them so the hypothetical Player does not know how to behave in any given situation.
Though I probably should've outright mentioned that the hypothetical soul destruction was a result of "not helping the Elves" rather than merely implying it. My bad.


I hope hypothetical DM doesn't run games in the Forgotten Realms.

Hypothetically speaking, if they did, would you play it?

[Brookshw]

It's hypothetical, because it isn't a real game. The relationship between my hypothetical situation and the thread is that the hypothetical situation, where a hypothetical DM screws a player no matter what they decide to do, is based on some of the things mentioned in this thread.


So a hypothetical dm has some form of relevance on a thread how exactly if its not in response to anything someone proposed. Does it add something to the question "can you cheat at d&d"?

[Sir Chuckles]

So a hypothetical dm has some form of relevance on a thread how exactly if its not in response to anything someone proposed. Does it add something to the question "can you cheat at d&d"?

It adds to the discussion, yes.
This thread went beyond it's own title very early, and was doomed to be this way even before the post was made, due to the poster, his ideas, and the thread he made before this one.

Why? Because the hypothetical presented is somewhat representative of what Jedipotter may see as cheating; casting spells and/or acting in a way that he the god your Cleric worships does not see fit. It draws out why the "the god will deny the spell and possibly punish the caster" is a terrible idea, especially since it implies:
1) That the gods are actively monitoring all of creation and their followers 100% of the time.
2) The gods are adjudicating their willing followers 100% of the time.
3) All Cleric have a homebrewed Paladin code that isn't put on paper.
And here's the big one:
4) That the DM (Jedipotter) has put in place a system that gives him direct control over a player's actions through threat of heavy punishment, possibly even unpreventable player death, on said DM's whim. This is particularly bad in Jedipotter's case, as it was recently found that he is not familiar with even the PHB gods.

[Threadnaught]

So a hypothetical dm has some form of relevance on a thread how exactly if its not in response to anything someone proposed. Does it add something to the question "can you cheat at d&d"?

The hypothetical DM is an answer to the question of whether or not a DM is capable of cheating, by applying several rules designed to prevent Players from cheating and either tightening or loosening where most beneficial for the hypothetical DM, and detrimental for the hypothetical Players.
Whether or not a DM can cheat is a specific part of the topic, the topic being "Is it possible to cheat at D&D?" and the answer being "Yes, from both sides of the screen."

It's already been answered and accepted that Players can cheat and that they are horrible people* for doing so.

*I feel like maybe I should've put that part in Blue?

[Svata]

Hypothetically speaking, if they did, would you play it?

Not on your life. Your character's damned to be condemned to death, and likely dcried as "false", or be "faithless", and either way, sent to the Wall upon death, where your very personality is slowly robbed from you? I'd rather not play.

[Brookshw]

It adds to the discussion, yes.
This thread went beyond it's own title very early, and was doomed to be this way even before the post was made, due to the poster, his ideas, and the thread he made before this one.

Why? Because the hypothetical presented is somewhat representative of what Jedipotter may see as cheating; casting spells and/or acting in a way that he the god your Cleric worships does not see fit. It draws out why the "the god will deny the spell and possibly punish the caster" is a terrible idea, especially since it implies:
1) That the gods are actively monitoring all of creation and their followers 100% of the time.
2) The gods are adjudicating their willing followers 100% of the time.
3) All Cleric have a homebrewed Paladin code that isn't put on paper.
And here's the big one:
4) That the DM (Jedipotter) has put in place a system that gives him direct control over a player's actions through threat of heavy punishment, possibly even unpreventable player death, on said DM's whim. This is particularly bad in Jedipotter's case, as it was recently found that he is not familiar with even the PHB gods.

That's exactly why its contrived, if it was about how a dm can cheat you wouldn't have referenced jedi so much would you? Can a dm cheat, sure, does using someone's example to fabricate a counter unrelated to the context they used it in qualify? Hardly.

I don't dig what he's laying down but it was a cheapshot.

[eggynack]

I don't dig what he's laying down but it was a cheapshot.
A cheapshot... or a cheatshot? Cause of the whole cheating thing, you see.

[jedipotter]

1) That the gods are actively monitoring all of creation and their followers 100% of the time.
2) The gods are adjudicating their willing followers 100% of the time.
3) All Cleric have a homebrewed Paladin code that isn't put on paper.
And here's the big one:
4) That the DM (Jedipotter) has put in place a system that gives him direct control over a player's actions through threat of heavy punishment, possibly even unpreventable player death, on said DM's whim. This is particularly bad in Jedipotter's case, as it was recently found that he is not familiar with even the PHB gods.


1) Yes. I'd say gods do this
2) And this.
3)Well....I do have handouts for this, so it is on paper.
4) Well, I use the Forgotten Realms and know the gods there very well.

I guess the knee jerk extreme reaction is that ''the DM sits over the player and nit picks every action they do on a whim.'' It's not like that for the good role players. The problem players have a problem, but then that is why they are problem players. For the good role players, it's a great way to role play.

It works like this: The player is give the basic guidelines. Your god likes this and that, but does not like this or that. Your god wants you to do this and that, but never this or that. Then, during the game, each spell cast give the character a bit more of an idea of what to do and how to act.

[Flickerdart]

I guess the knee jerk extreme reaction is that ''the DM sits over the player and nit picks every action they do on a whim.'' It's not like that for the good role players. The problem players have a problem, but then that is why they are problem players. For the good role players, it's a great way to role play.

It works like this: The player is give the basic guidelines. Your god likes this and that, but does not like this or that. Your god wants you to do this and that, but never this or that. Then, during the game, each spell cast give the character a bit more of an idea of what to do and how to act.
So "good role players" are defined here as "people willing to follow the extremely stereotypical and confining rules set out by the DM about their gods"? This really looks like a case of the DM trying to program the PCs as well as every NPC. I guess if your idea of good roleplaying is reading off a script, this kind of works...if scripts only had vague demands and then expected the actor to read the playwright's mind or be shot.

[jedipotter]

So "good role players" are defined here as "people willing to follow the extremely stereotypical and confining rules set out by the DM about their gods"? This really looks like a case of the DM trying to program the PCs as well as every NPC. I guess if your idea of good roleplaying is reading off a script, this kind of works...if scripts only had vague demands and then expected the actor to read the playwright's mind or be shot.

Well, more like a good role player that has a divine spellcaster defined as ''people willing to act as a direct divine agent of the god they have chosen, biased on the guidelines provided by the DM.'' But, again, good role players don't have a problem with this. A good role player will pick a god that fits their role playing concept. The problem player picks a god just to get a feat, spell, ability, prestige class or whatever floats their cheating optimization build.

[Flickerdart]

Well, more like a good role player that has a divine spellcaster defined as ''people willing to act as a direct divine agent of the god they have chosen, biased on the guidelines provided by the DM.'' But, again, good role players don't have a problem with this. A good role player will pick a god that fits their role playing concept. The problem player picks a god just to get a feat, spell, ability, prestige class or whatever floats their cheating optimization build.
You heard it here first, folks - having a character concept that jedipotter doesn't approve of is cheating.

[Sir Chuckles]

...except the problem there is that it is not a good roleplay environment. Setting-based restrictions are fine, but those rules put you into a position that is not only ripe for abuse, but also intrinsically bad for roleplay. Telling a player what they can and cannot do does not make for a good character. The DM should almost never tell a player what their character should do.
A rigid code like a Paladin's is actually considered a massive negative to the class. You should not have to fear your DM suddenly saying "Pelor does not want you to do that." and then directly punish them for it. Living by a code can make for good roleplay. Making that code a contract makes it bad roleplay. It does not enhance your character, it makes it predictable.

You can give a basic guideline, but in the example you've provided, you're applying something basic to a complex action: roleplay. Always following a strict code is what a computer does, not what a living character does. The it is reinforced is also bad. It's a classic stick vs. carrot, and it seems that you skip the stick and go right to the nuclear launch key.

This really loops back to your ideas of "the DM is a specially gifted person, never compromise, I am the leader, the players are my foes".


Well, more like a good role player that has a divine spellcaster defined as ''people willing to act as a direct divine agent of the god they have chosen, biased on the guidelines provided by the DM.'' But, again, good role players don't have a problem with this. A good role player will pick a god that fits their role playing concept. The problem player picks a god just to get a feat, spell, ability, prestige class or whatever floats their cheating optimization build.
A great roleplayer will choose a god that fits their concept and optimization build. Optimization does not equal cheating. You may have had experience with a munchkin directly cheating, but that does not make for "damn one, damn them all".

In addition, you could very easily have a Cleric worshipping more than one god. Kord and Fharlanghn=Traveling Wrestling Champion. Boom, Travel and Luck Domains.


To address everyone else:
I said it before, I'll say it again. Jedipotter is not going to be swayed away from his position. He has labeled us as an opposing force, and thus compromise is not in his dictionary. He views the DM chair as a right, as a autocratic power position. I know I am trying to reason with him in the very same post I am saying he cannot be swayed, but I never said I wasn't foolish.

[thethird]

Technically you cannot revere two gods as a cleric (you can pray to as many as you want but you only revere one for mechanical reasons), but you can revere a pantheon. You can for example revere the elven pantheon, or the mulhorandi pantheon. Since this is faerun you cannot revere a concept, and cannot cherry pick your domains.

This kind of game calls for heretic of the faith, though, just to have some breathing room.

[Brookshw]

A cheapshot... or a cheatshot? Cause of the whole cheating thing, you see.

Touche sir, touche:smallbiggrin:

[Red Fel]

Well, more like a good role player that has a divine spellcaster defined as ''people willing to act as a direct divine agent of the god they have chosen, biased on the guidelines provided by the DM.'' But, again, good role players don't have a problem with this. A good role player will pick a god that fits their role playing concept. The problem player picks a god just to get a feat, spell, ability, prestige class or whatever floats their cheating optimization build.

Two concerns.

First, as others have mentioned, you seem to have created a false dichotomy. You suggest that either a player chooses his deity based on concept, or for mechanical benefit. I say that this is a false dichotomy for a simple reason: Why can't it be both? That's not a rhetorical question, Jedi: Why can't a player be a good player, and choose a deity both for roleplay and mechanical reasons?

Second, does it bother you (1) that you have effectively created a new class feature for Clerics by providing them with an effective code, and/or (2) that by giving deities such direct control over their Clerics' actions, you are in effect exercising direct control over the PCs? The former I understand as a house rule, albeit an unusual one (heck, you could impose a Code of Conduct for almost any class under the right circumstances), but the latter strongly jeopardizes player agency, if not outright eliminating it. I further note with more than a little concern that the import of your statement is that the "good" roleplayers don't need that control exercised - does it worry you that, if this is subject to DM discretion, the implementation of such a system of controls could lead to favoritism?

[Jeff the Green]

Second, does it bother you (1) that you have effectively created a new class feature for Clerics by providing them with an effective code, and/or (2) that by giving deities such direct control over their Clerics' actions, you are in effect exercising direct control over the PCs? The former I understand as a house rule, albeit an unusual one (heck, you could impose a Code of Conduct for almost any class under the right circumstances), but the latter strongly jeopardizes player agency, if not outright eliminating it. I further note with more than a little concern that the import of your statement is that the "good" roleplayers don't need that control exercised - does it worry you that, if this is subject to DM discretion, the implementation of such a system of controls could lead to favoritism?

We'll, clerics do have a code of conduct (which isn't precisely spelled out even in deity descriptions :smallannoyed:), but you have to grossly violate it to lose powers. For Corellon, this probably wouldn't involve abandoning a group of elves. It'd require actively harming or betraying them—remember that he can have CN clerics too. Also, no other caster has such restrictions: your patron god will not care if you ignore his dictates as long as you're a Druid, Favored Soul, Spirit Shaman, Paladin, or Ranger. (You will be judged among the False in the Forgotten Realms, though.)

[Svata]

Anyone else here really dislike the entire concept of the Wall of the Faithless?

[ryu]

Anyone else here really dislike the entire concept of the Wall of the Faithless?

Right here. Actively struck it down the first time we campaigned in the realms.

[Dimers]

Right here. Actively struck it down the first time we campaigned in the realms.

Struck down the concept of the Wall, or struck down the Wall? :smalltongue:

Svata -- a cleric objecting to the Wall is one of the central concepts in the Neverwinter Nights 2 epic-level game Mask of the Betrayer. If you feel passionate about it, you should definitely give the game a try.

[Flickerdart]

(You will be judged among the False in the Forgotten Realms, though.)
The False are only those who betrayed their deities, not those who served them poorly, according to FRCS. You have to significantly go against the tenets of your patron.


Anyone else here really dislike the entire concept of the Wall of the Faithless?
It was created by Myrkul, an evil god of Death. Of course it's going to be dumb. The False don't go there, though; Kelemvor determines their punishment himself.

[Svata]

Struck down the concept of the Wall, or struck down the Wall? :smalltongue:

Svata -- a cleric objecting to the Wall is one of the central concepts in the Neverwinter Nights 2 epic-level game Mask of the Betrayer. If you feel passionate about it, you should definitely give the game a try.

Just started yesterday. Got a used copy for like 9 bucks, and it had the main game disc too.

[ryu]

Struck down the concept of the Wall, or struck down the Wall? :smalltongue:

Svata -- a cleric objecting to the Wall is one of the central concepts in the Neverwinter Nights 2 epic-level game Mask of the Betrayer. If you feel passionate about it, you should definitely give the game a try.

The answer is yes.

[jedipotter]

...except the problem there is that it is not a good roleplay environment. Setting-based restrictions are fine, but those rules put you into a position that is not only ripe for abuse, but also intrinsically bad for roleplay. Telling a player what they can and cannot do does not make for a good character. The DM should almost never tell a player what their character should do.

I find it to be a great role play environment. It makes each cleric unique, and not just boring copies. I'm not sure why you think it's bad to tell a player what there character can do. After all D&D already has this: alignment.




A rigid code like a Paladin's is actually considered a massive negative to the class. You should not have to fear your DM suddenly saying "Pelor does not want you to do that." and then directly punish them for it. Living by a code can make for good roleplay. Making that code a contract makes it bad roleplay. It does not enhance your character, it makes it predictable.

It's not always a rigid code. Plenty of gods are more free spirited. With over a hundred gods, each with a different view point, not much is predictable.

An example:
Keith is playing Elmond, an elven cleric of Corellon Larethian. The group fights a bunch of drow in a dark forest. When the battle is over, the group has a single drow prisoner. The group knows there is a drow vault full of treasure somewhere in the woods. And Keith comes up with his plan. He plans to have Elmond cure the drow prisoner so he can repeatedly torture the drow and get the information out of him, for the single reason as Keith ''wants more loot''.

Now, Corellon Larethian does not approve of casting healing spells on drow, other then a few exceptions. And ''making one of his clerics rich with loot'', is not one of them. Corellon Larethian also does not approve of torture. And Corellon Larethian also does not like it when people are greedy.

So when Elmond walks over and casts cure moderate wounds on the wounded drow prisoner.....Corellon Larethian twists the spell into cause moderate wounds and kills the drow.

Keith is shocked, and he does not think he did anything wrong....but now he is not so sure. He might step back and consider that torture and greed are not the way to go, though he will likely need a bit of guidance to get to that point. Keith now knows a little more about the faith of Corellon Larethian and can role play it.

Now if Keith was just a cheating type optimizer who picked Corellon Larethian just to get true strike as a divine spell as part of some crazy build, he will be upset as he can't ''play'' his character the way he wants to: he just wants to kill, loot, repeat while spamming true strikes. And chances are that Corellon Larethian will like every little of what the character does, and sooner or later will take action.

And just note: it's only for divine magic/powers. If Elmond tortured the drow and healed him with a potion to get the information......Corellon Larethian would have done nothing directly at that time. Though he would still disprove of everything done. Corellon Larethian would add him to the ''bad list'' and send some visions, advice, guidance or such to put the cleric on the right path.





You can give a basic guideline, but in the example you've provided, you're applying something basic to a complex action: roleplay. Always following a strict code is what a computer does, not what a living character does. The it is reinforced is also bad. It's a classic stick vs. carrot, and it seems that you skip the stick and go right to the nuclear launch key. This really loops back to your ideas of "the DM is a specially gifted person, never compromise, I am the leader, the players are my foes".

I don't see the problem of having a code and role playing it. It's much more fun to role play anything other then ''oh, my character does whatever he wants all the time''.



A great roleplayer will choose a god that fits their concept and optimization build. Optimization does not equal cheating. You may have had experience with a munchkin directly cheating, but that does not make for "damn one, damn them all".

True a great role player will choose a god that fits their concept. But few optimizers are great role players. Most optimizers are roll players. They want the maximum combat benefits by the numbers and all they look at is crunch. They don't care about the fluff of the gods, they are looking a domain spells and abilities. They look at the spell anyspell, dream up some optimized way to use it and just randomly pick a god that has the spell domain. And then they just play whatever they want and do whatever they want and use the spell however they want. The god they picked is just a tiny foot note on their character sheet somewhere.



First, as others have mentioned, you seem to have created a false dichotomy. You suggest that either a player chooses his deity based on concept, or for mechanical benefit. I say that this is a false dichotomy for a simple reason: Why can't it be both? That's not a rhetorical question, Jedi: Why can't a player be a good player, and choose a deity both for roleplay and mechanical reasons?

A player could do this, and the good role players do so all the time. It's all the other players that have the problem. The ones just picking things for mechanics.



Second, does it bother you (1) that you have effectively created a new class feature for Clerics by providing them with an effective code, and/or (2) that by giving deities such direct control over their Clerics' actions, you are in effect exercising direct control over the PCs? The former I understand as a house rule, albeit an unusual one (heck, you could impose a Code of Conduct for almost any class under the right circumstances), but the latter strongly jeopardizes player agency, if not outright eliminating it. I further note with more than a little concern that the import of your statement is that the "good" roleplayers don't need that control exercised - does it worry you that, if this is subject to DM discretion, the implementation of such a system of controls could lead to favoritism?

I guess you could call ''you must role play following the faith of the god you have chosen'' a class feature. It's not so much ''control'' as it ''encourages role play''. So a player can't just pick the god Gond and the domain Planning just to get the free extend spell feat, and then just do whatever they want...like being an insane killer. But the player that wants to role play a cleric of Gond and ''bring more firearms to the Realms'' has no problems(that player could make a cleric/gunfighter no problem).

And I'm a good DM (Ahem). It's not like when Bob with a character that is cleric of Tyr slaughters a ton of innocents as a diversion so he can escape that Tyr approves and gives him a pat on the back, but when Fred with a character that is cleric of Tyr slaughters an innocent by accident that Tyr will blast him into the Abyss.


We'll, clerics do have a code of conduct (which isn't precisely spelled out even in deity descriptions :smallannoyed:),

Lucky, the Forgotten Realms is over flowing with fluff

[Juntao112]

True a great role player will choose a god that fits their concept. But few optimizers are great role players. Most optimizers are roll players. They want the maximum combat benefits by the numbers and all they look at is crunch. They don't care about the fluff of the gods, they are looking a domain spells and abilities. They look at the spell anyspell, dream up some optimized way to use it and just randomly pick a god that has the spell domain. And then they just play whatever they want and do whatever they want and use the spell however they want. The god they picked is just a tiny foot note on their character sheet somewhere.
Be sure of it. Give me the ocular proof
Or by the worth of mine eternal soul
Thou hadst been better have been born a dog
Than answer my waked wrath!

[Svata]

Actually, I cansee Corellon supporting the removal of wealth and resources (i.e. loot) from the clutches of his enemies (drow), especially of it goes to the support of his allies (his cleric).

[Necroticplague]

I find it to be a great role play environment. It makes each cleric unique, and not just boring copies. I'm not sure why you think it's bad to tell a player what there character can do. After all D&D already has this: alignment.
Alignment doesn't punish you for taking actions, though, it just notes them (along with the whole system being moronic, but thats a different point). Its not "you're [alignment], so you have to do XYZ", its "You do XYZ, so you're [alignment]



I don't see the problem of having a code and role playing it. It's much more fun to role play anything other then ''oh, my character does whatever he wants all the time''.
Indeed, one of the defining traits of a character is what lines they wont be willing to cross.Such things like that should be part of how the character is played, and not part of the mechanics, however. One reason for such is that characters can develop. If their thoughts change, then their lines should be able to follow such. A code you have to stick with, however, fights that sort of developement.




True a great role player will choose a god that fits their concept. But few optimizers are great role players. Most optimizers are roll players. They want the maximum combat benefits by the numbers and all they look at is crunch. They don't care about the fluff of the gods, they are looking a domain spells and abilities. They look at the spell anyspell, dream up some optimized way to use it and just randomly pick a god that has the spell domain. And then they just play whatever they want and do whatever they want and use the spell however they want. The god they picked is just a tiny foot note on their character sheet somewhere.No. First off, if somebody is optimizing, they will want to be able to do as many different things as reasonable.Not just combat. What you're describing is a powergamer/munchkin, not an optimizer. Optimizing is making sure that your character concept can be mechanically represented properly while being useful to the party, not merely going for the most power (otherwise I would go straight for StP erudites filled to the brim with crafting abuse to know every spell and power in the game, using metaconcert to circumvent UPD limit, and Affinity Feild+bestow power+Fusion to never run out of PP. Almost nobody does because thats a lot of work just to ultimately get forced to make something less game-wrecking. And even so, this restriction only exists for that one class, while not restricting some other, equally powerful options (see above STP erudite, artificer, druid).



I guess you could call ''you must role play following the faith of the god you have chosen'' a class feature. It's not so much ''control'' as it ''encourages role play''. So a player can't just pick the god Gond and the domain Planning just to get the free extend spell feat, and then just do whatever they want...like being an insane killer. But the player that wants to role play a cleric of Gond and ''bring more firearms to the Realms'' has no problems(that player could make a cleric/gunfighter no problem).

Umm, last I checked, punishing when you act incorrectly is pretty much one of the the most classic forms of control that their is (technically, operant conditioning, but thats beside the point).

[jedipotter]

Actually, I cansee Corellon supporting the removal of wealth and resources (i.e. loot) from the clutches of his enemies (drow), especially of it goes to the support of his allies (his cleric).

I would agree. But I don't see Corellon Larethian supporting torture or healing a wounded drow just to be tortured again. The ''I will do anything for loot'' is being greedy. He'd want the cleric to ''find another way'' to get the loot.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I don't see the problem of having a code and role playing it. It's much more fun to role play anything other then ''oh, my character does whatever he wants all the time''.
Isn't it more meaningful roleplaying if you're the one keeping yourself to the code, rather than the DM? If you're trying to keep the code because you think it's interesting and fun, rather than because you (the player) will be punished (by having your choices and/or mechanical effectiveness removed) if you don't? In short, isn't roleplaying better when it grows from the player, rather than being imposed by the DM?

[Amphetryon]

Isn't it more meaningful roleplaying if you're the one keeping yourself to the code, rather than the DM? If you're trying to keep the code because you think it's interesting and fun, rather than because you (the player) will be punished (by having your choices and/or mechanical effectiveness removed) if you don't? In short, isn't roleplaying better when it grows from the player, rather than being imposed by the DM?

As an objective observation not intended as a criticism, I don't expect there's a lot of Character growth stemming from the Players in jedipotter's preferred style of play.

[Red Fel]

I find it to be a great role play environment. It makes each cleric unique, and not just boring copies.

Actually, if you have two Clerics of the same deity, it does make them boring copies; by your own definition, they would have to act in a manner actively endorsed and sanctioned by their deity. And I doubt that a single deity, with a rigidly-defined morality, would have different standards for two different Clerics.


An example:

This... Is extremely worrisome. You have just told a prepared spellcaster - that is, someone who has to carefully and precisely choose his spells in advance - that if you don't like how he uses his spells, you can change them into any spell you think would be more appropriate. That is nothing less than telling a player how he should play his character, by seizing control of that character's actions. You can't argue it as being anything else.

I'd also like to note that, technically, Corellon is a Good deity; murdering a captive is an Evil act, and one that would be detestable to Corellon, even if that prisoner were Drow.


True a great role player will choose a god that fits their concept. But few optimizers are great role players. Most optimizers are roll players. They want the maximum combat benefits by the numbers and all they look at is crunch. They don't care about the fluff of the gods, they are looking a domain spells and abilities. They look at the spell anyspell, dream up some optimized way to use it and just randomly pick a god that has the spell domain. And then they just play whatever they want and do whatever they want and use the spell however they want. The god they picked is just a tiny foot note on their character sheet somewhere.

Slap me in the face and call me names. Could you have perhaps come up with a less offensive and insulting generalization? I happen to build around concepts. Fluff concepts. Many are mechanically poor. I come here for help optimizing them. I suppose that makes me an optimizer.

You just told me, in essence, that despite loving concepts, enjoying drama and character depth and backgrounds and lore, and playing my alignment to the hilt, I am probably a "roll player." You just spoke disparagingly of my play style - the play style of a person you have never met - because I happen to like some crunch to go with my fluff.

Good thing I'm too stupid to be insulted by that.


I guess you could call ''you must role play following the faith of the god you have chosen'' a class feature. It's not so much ''control'' as it ''encourages role play''. So a player can't just pick the god Gond and the domain Planning just to get the free extend spell feat, and then just do whatever they want...like being an insane killer. But the player that wants to role play a cleric of Gond and ''bring more firearms to the Realms'' has no problems(that player could make a cleric/gunfighter no problem).

But what you described above - changing a spell as it is cast - is exactly "control." It's not "encouraging role play." It's a case of "you're doing it wrong and now I have to fix it." You're also describing a false dichotomy - there is something between choosing Gond and doing exactly what you say Gond says, and choosing Gond and completely ignoring that choice. Generally, "being an insane killer" will put you away from your deity's alignment, unless that alignment is CE.

Which raises another point. You acknowledge that alignment is a thing. Why do Clerics require another thing on top of alignment?


And I'm a good DM (Ahem). It's not like when Bob with a character that is cleric of Tyr slaughters a ton of innocents as a diversion so he can escape that Tyr approves and gives him a pat on the back, but when Fred with a character that is cleric of Tyr slaughters an innocent by accident that Tyr will blast him into the Abyss.

Did Bob pay for the pizza?

[Amphetryon]

But few optimizers are great role players. Most optimizers are roll players.Could we see the comprehensive statistical analysis to bear out these findings, or are they merely hyperbole?

[Sir Chuckles]

I would agree. But I don't see Corellon Larethian supporting torture or healing a wounded drow just to be tortured again. The ''I will do anything for loot'' is being greedy. He'd want the cleric to ''find another way'' to get the loot.
The way I see it is that "Corellon Larethian" and "The DM" are far too easily used interchangeably, which is the inherent problem with doing this. As you see here, there are multiple interpretations for every situation, and you cannot lay out a code that covers all of them.


I find it to be a great role play environment. It makes each cleric unique, and not just boring copies. I'm not sure why you think it's bad to tell a player what there character can do. After all D&D already has this: alignment.

It's not always a rigid code. Plenty of gods are more free spirited. With over a hundred gods, each with a different view point, not much is predictable.

I don't see the problem of having a code and role playing it. It's much more fun to role play anything other then ''oh, my character does whatever he wants all the time''.
Actually, it only makes Clerics more cliche. Each set of Clerics may have a different set of rules, but each Cleric is never going to change. THe key here is set. You've made every Cleric of X the same. There may be many gods, but when you walk into a Church of Pelor, you're going to see copy n' paste characters. Which is bad roleplay.

And alignment does not tell a player what to do. Going "I'm Lawful, so I must do this" is bad roleplay.


True a great role player will choose a god that fits their concept. But few optimizers are great role players. Most optimizers are roll players. They want the maximum combat benefits by the numbers and all they look at is crunch. They don't care about the fluff of the gods, they are looking a domain spells and abilities. They look at the spell anyspell, dream up some optimized way to use it and just randomly pick a god that has the spell domain. And then they just play whatever they want and do whatever they want and use the spell however they want. The god they picked is just a tiny foot note on their character sheet somewhere.
Take a drink, Stormwind Fallacy.
Optimization is not powergaming. Optimization is not muchkining. Optimization is taking a character and making it good at something. A good optimizer mixes his optimization with roleplay, and makes a better character, both from a power and a roleplay standpoint. When you shoehorn in rules and tenets of a deity as a way to force your characters into a specific way of playing, it's bad roleplay. You're not playing a character, you're playing Cleric of X #218.
Let me give you an example of optimization. Brüntak the Neanderthal Barbarian 2/Wizard 5/Rage Mage 7. It was optimization for him to take Born of Three Thunders, 7 levels in Rage Mage, Energy Substitution (Electricity), and fill his spellbook with energy spells. It is an optimized character. It is optimized to a concept.


I guess you could call ''you must role play following the faith of the god you have chosen'' a class feature. It's not so much ''control'' as it ''encourages role play''.

It does not encourage roleplay. It encourages using cookie cutter behavior patterns and one-dimensional characters. A Fighter does not have to be a fullplate wearing soldier. A Rogue does not have to be a thief. A Cleric of Clangeddin does not have to be a blacksmith.

[Vedhin]

Take a drink, Stormwind Fallacy.

How have you not died of alcohol poisoning yet?

[ryu]

How have you not died of alcohol poisoning yet?

Maybe he's a wizard or perhaps a cleric?

[Flickerdart]

I like that a consistent pattern is starting to emerge. We're getting somewhere. Let us consolidate our findings by defining a few terms.

Good roleplayer: A player whose character does what jedipotter wants them to do.
Problem player/optimizer/rollplayer: A player whose character does not do what jedipotter wants them to do.
Cheater: A player whose character has the audacity to be mechanically capable of doing the things jedipotter does not want them to do.
God: An avatar of jedipotter used to alter the mechanics of cheater characters so that they are no longer capable of doing the things he does not want them to do.

Jedipotter, did you know that there is another hobby where you get to control the actions of every character? A hobby that is pure fluff with no pesky cheater mechanics whatsoever? It's called writing, and I think it would be perfect for you.

[Juntao112]

Actually, a good writer lets the character drive the story, not the other way around.

[Kazudo]

I'm still waiting for a comprehensive write up of Jedipotter's magic system fix myself. Unless he posted it somewhere else.

[Flickerdart]

Actually, a good writer lets the character drive the story, not the other way around.
I'm not sure where you got "good" from. I never said anything about being good at writing.

[Kantolin]

Gee, the moral I got from that is: Kill all drow! Drow must die!

Which I could actually see coming from Corellon Larethian given his disdain for dark elves. In your example, would Corellon also /explain/ the problem? As if not, uh... it really seems like the logical conclusion is that Corellon was stating 'Wait - you're /healing/ the dark elf?! No healing dark elves! Kill dark elves! KILL DARK ELVES!"

I mean, that sounds more like he's encouraging torture and stuff, just not involving 'healing dark elves'. Next time he should break fingers or something to try to appease his deity.

Although meh - you've got a 50/50 survival rate each round of combat. You probably won't last through the next fight with drow before making a new character anyway, so it won't matter whether or not Cleric A learned that killing drow is the appropriate response when you have one helpless and a prisoner.

(Now, if Corellon had made the resulting spell healing with a sanctuary effect, /that/ might have resulted in a conclusion more like 'Wait, Corellon /doesn't/ want me stabbing this drow? That's pretty abnormal - I wonder what's up.)

Aaaaaaanyway, uh... you said that a 'cheater' or something would... eh, lemme just quote you:


Now if Keith was just a cheating type optimizer who picked Corellon Larethian just to get true strike as a divine spell as part of some crazy build, he will be upset as he can't ''play'' his character the way he wants to: he just wants to kill, loot, repeat while spamming true strikes.

Thus, the aformentioned cheating type optimizer would never end up in this situation. He would've said 'Hey, stop sitting around torturing things, I wanna go back to killing, looting, and repeating while spamming true strikes'. And presumably in this case, they're elves of Corellon Larethian, killing drow, and Corellon just totally gave his OK on this 'killing drow' stuff. Cool! Back to spamming true strikes. Knock off that 'I hate drow so much I want to torture them' roleplay crap, I wanna go back to spamming true strikes and killing drow - see, Corellon even wants us to hop to it. It's really a roleplayer that's being punished here.

Personally, this 'Keith' guy is a lousy optimizer anyway. You stated that Corellon is totally okay with his elves getting at the drow's stuff, just so long as they go about it in a way that doesn't involve torture. Torture (on the presumption that this game is mostly core anyway) requires a lot of house ruling anyway - I'd just cast augury or something with this request. Corellon has stated he's okay with this, so he will probably even help out!

Or use gather information / tracking as appropriate. Those are ways you could find where the drow came from more logically.

In addition, an optimizer probably wouldn't go around intentionally acting in a way that would anger their deity, as that can cause you issues. Instead, an optimizer might say, 'Well this game is called kill the drow, so I think this might be a bad time to worship lloth. Lemme pull up a cleric of Corellon Larethian, use Divine Power on myself, and go stab some drow with my longsword'. It'd be /terrible/ optimization to say 'Lemme play a cleric of Corellon and go stab elves' or something - that's firmly the kind of idea a roleplayer would come up with much more, as an optimizer would look at that and say, "No that'd wreck my ability to /be/ a cleric of Corellon' while a roleplayer might say, "Because becoming a traitor could make for some interesting roleplay".


I'm not sure why you think it's bad to tell a player what there character can do.

You know, presuming this happens as often as it seems it does, this would actually be a convenient method of playing in one of Jedipotter's games. Just get a phylactery of faithfulness (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#phylacteryofFaithfulness) - I presume Corellon (or most of Jedipotter's deities) would appreciate having their clerics stop and state, 'Oh great Corellon, what do you suggest?' rather than having to go about telling their clerics what the clerics must do in a half-baked backwards way. Then you can bring a book to the table and just more or less have the DM play your character for you most of the time, then look up for combat. Find a deity that is okay with whatever the campaign is going to be doing and run with it.

If you end up in a fight and Corellon says, "Sorry, I don't like you casting true strike and then whacking drow. I don't like you attacking drow at all.", well then your deity personally is suggesting you sit on your hands, so by jove sit on your hands! Have your character /also/ pull out a book - the holy text of Corellon - and as your actions in combat talk about how your character is cheerfully trying to think of how he can better serve Corellon next. If your party dies, then that's not /your/ bloody fault.

Heck, if you put ranks in Craft(Art) (be sure to ask Corellon first if this is okay; don't wanna be in bad standings with your deity!), then you can doodle at the table and simply be working on your character's next project. Also have a rank or two in knowledge(history) (again, ask Corellon first if knowing about history is bad or good or what) and read Faerun books.

Worst case scenario, Corellon gives you a 'I leave this in your capable hands' response, which means you have to make your own decisions like a cheating optimizer again. Ugh. Hopefully after a few rounds of 'killing the hated enemies of your god' on your own (ugh, I can just /taste/ the optimization!) Corellon will change his mind and go back to telling you what to do, which you can cheerfully follow. Heck, nickname your character 'sheep' (his elven name is too long to pronounce anyway).

[Brookshw]

Did Bob pay for the pizza?


Only the white pizza, red sauce is from tomatoes that are fruit that doesn't go in fruit salad. That's cheating so red sauce is banned.

[Flickerdart]

Clerics get Summon Monster, so just ask Corellon to deliver unto you a divine servant cognizant of his will, and then sit back while the magic badger goes about doing exactly what Corellon wants.

[Sir Chuckles]

How have you not died of alcohol poisoning yet?

On one hand I'm a big mean Scotsman.
On the other, I like blueberry juice.

[jedipotter]

Isn't it more meaningful roleplaying if you're the one keeping yourself to the code, rather than the DM? If you're trying to keep the code because you think it's interesting and fun, rather than because you (the player) will be punished (by having your choices and/or mechanical effectiveness removed) if you don't? In short, isn't roleplaying better when it grows from the player, rather than being imposed by the DM?

Well, sure it is always nice if a player can come up with a code and follow it. But a lot of players don't have the ability to do that. Not everyone can do that. And that is why it's nice when the DM steps up and helps out.


This... Is extremely worrisome. You have just told a prepared spellcaster - that is, someone who has to carefully and precisely choose his spells in advance - that if you don't like how he uses his spells, you can change them into any spell you think would be more appropriate. That is nothing less than telling a player how he should play his character, by seizing control of that character's actions. You can't argue it as being anything else.

Well, sure I can. A player of a cleric character can't ''just do whatever they want'', they have to follow the faith of their chosen god. And the DM is the one that creates the faith. It's not as hard as it sounds to follow the faith of a god, as long as your not acting like a problem player.



I'd also like to note that, technically, Corellon is a Good deity; murdering a captive is an Evil act, and one that would be detestable to Corellon, even if that prisoner were Drow.

Well, we could do a whole thread or six on alignment. But I'll say my version of Corellon ''wants the worse for drow'' and is ''willing to turn a blind eye'', but that is just my view.




Actually, it only makes Clerics more cliche. Each set of Clerics may have a different set of rules, but each Cleric is never going to change. THe key here is set. You've made every Cleric of X the same. There may be many gods, but when you walk into a Church of Pelor, you're going to see copy n' paste characters. Which is bad roleplay.

Well, all clerics of Torm would never hurt an innocent for fun. So that makes them ''all the same''. But then there are, oh a billion ways each one is different and unique.



Take a drink, Stormwind Fallacy.

I think it's false. Sure it's a fancy name and it gets repeated at lot....but that does not make it true.



Let me give you an example of optimization. Brüntak the Neanderthal Barbarian 2/Wizard 5/Rage Mage 7. It was optimization for him to take Born of Three Thunders, 7 levels in Rage Mage, Energy Substitution (Electricity), and fill his spellbook with energy spells. It is an optimized character. It is optimized to a concept.

Brüntak looks like a fine character to me. If only more optimized your way, and not ''I made a list of all four level spellcaster classes so I can get powerful spells at lower levels for my artificer''.



It does not encourage roleplay. It encourages using cookie cutter behavior patterns and one-dimensional characters. A Fighter does not have to be a fullplate wearing soldier. A Rogue does not have to be a thief. A Cleric of Clangeddin does not have to be a blacksmith.

True. But a cleric of a god should follow the faith and not just ''randomly act and do whatever they want with the divine power.'' And remember it's only the divine power.





Good roleplayer: A player whose character does what jedipotter wants them to do.
Problem player/optimizer/rollplayer: A player whose character does not do what jedipotter wants them to do.
Cheater: A player whose character has the audacity to be mechanically capable of doing the things jedipotter does not want them to do.
God: An avatar of jedipotter used to alter the mechanics of cheater characters so that they are no longer capable of doing the things he does not want them to do.

Oh lets try:

Good Role Player-A player that plays a well rounded and full fictional character to the fullest extent of their ability. They are not just ''Joe playing the character Snogn'', when the game starts, Joe is Snogn.
Problem Player: Someone who comes to the game just to make a problem. Examples are they want to steal from the group or ruin encounters by always attacking.
The Cheating Optimizer- a player who is cheating, exploiting a rule or such for gain. The artificer above is a good example.
Roll Player: Someone who just wants to roll. Not just hack and slash, but roll through all encounters too. They specifically want to avoid role playing. ''I talk to the NPC *roll* what did they tell me?''
Cheater: someone who exploits a rule, loop hole or unintended effect for the personal gain of having a great character. The first printing of OA has that weapon with a crit range of 11-20, they will say ''it's in the book so i use it''.
God: an imortal being that has created a faith for followers to worship and follow.

[Juntao112]

Well, we could do a whole thread or six on alignment. But I'll say my version of Corellon ''wants the worse for drow'' and is ''willing to turn a blind eye'', but that is just my view.

You are wrong. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eilistraee)

[Kantolin]

But I'll say my version of Corellon ''wants the worse for drow'' and is ''willing to turn a blind eye'', but that is just my view.

...so Corellon says torture is fine after all? I'm even more confused. What exactly does Corellon want?

Or are you saying that Corellon was punishing this cleric because the cleric's player likes gaining rewards in game? :smallconfused: The cleric was doing the right (or well, the acceptable) thing, but jedipotter is mad at the player so Corellon punishes this cleric for no reason?

[Sir Chuckles]

Brüntak looks like a fine character to me. If only more optimized your way, and not ''I made a list of all four level spellcaster classes so I can get powerful spells at lower levels for my artificer''.

I think you need to notice that a majority of players do optimize like I do. Some do it with higher end characters, sure, but I love my gishes and skillmonkies.
Many of the extreme builds posts online are not meant to be slapped onto a character sheet and called done. It's like asking for help with math homework.
Your friend shows you the answer and how to do the problem, but it's up to you to decided to work it out yourself, or just copy his paper. Clearly, the latter is the lesser option.

But it seems that it loops back to the problem that you view the DM seat as a seat of power, that you should be telling people what to do. D&D is about fun, it's about the collective. You're not giving your players freedom, which is why they become problem players. When they become problem players, you react in an ever more aggressive way. It create an arms race that only ends when you kick the player, or the player leaves. Cycle through enough players and you will eventually find those who want your kind of game. I think it might be a problem of transparency. Do new players know that they have a 50% chance of dieing per round? That they need a litteral binder of characters to get through one session? Because if they don't, they will optimize to defeat your rather extreme death rate, creating a similar cycle. It does not help that you're rather caustic in your stances. Communication is a skill that is very important in D&D.


...so Corellon says torture is fine after all? I'm even more confused. What exactly does Corellon want?

Or are you saying that Corellon was punishing this cleric because the cleric's player likes gaining rewards in game? :smallconfused: The cleric was doing the right (or well, the acceptable) thing, but jedipotter is mad at the player so Corellon punishes this cleric for no reason?

Corellon is not Corellon. Corellon is Jedipotter as seen through a filter. The same can likely be said about many gods.

[Red Fel]

Well, sure I can. A player of a cleric character can't ''just do whatever they want'', they have to follow the faith of their chosen god. And the DM is the one that creates the faith. It's not as hard as it sounds to follow the faith of a god, as long as your not acting like a problem player.

It's one thing to say a character "[has] to follow the faith of their chosen god." It's another to say that, when they fail to do so in your perspective, you will take the decision out of their hands. The latter is seizing agency away from the player. I am very disappointed that you can see it as anything else.


Well, we could do a whole thread or six on alignment. But I'll say my version of Corellon ''wants the worse for drow'' and is ''willing to turn a blind eye'', but that is just my view.

We can, and we have. But even when there is intractable debate, one thing we generally agree upon, based on the canonical material, is that the murder of a helpless prisoner, absent a suitable trial or other exigent circumstances, is Evil. Corellon is not Evil. He's not even Neutral. He's Good. Chaotic Good, but Good nonetheless.

The combination of these two positions you have described can be summarized as follows: Clerics must follow the code of conduct demanded by their gods. The gods are as I describe them, not as the books or canon or RAW describe them. Therefore, Clerics must follow the code of conduct demanded by me. Clerics do not fail to follow the code of conduct demanded by their gods; rather, the gods actively conform their behavior to prevent them from deviating. A Cleric whose actions deviate from their code of conduct will have those actions conformed. Because I define the gods, I define what actions are permitted or precluded by the code of conduct. Therefore, a Cleric who takes actions of which I do not approve will have those actions conformed to my expectations.
Player agency, at least with regard to Clerics, is rendered nonexistent by such a conclusion. You cannot prove otherwise. Saying "Clerics are free to do what they want, provided that I approve of it," is the definition of robbing them of agency.

If you don't like their conduct, give them an alignment penalty, strip them of their spells, but don't tell them, "Nope, what you actually did was this." That's the First Rule. The PCs belong to the players. You are the DM; you control every NPC and force of nature in the world. Let the players at least have the PCs.


Well, all clerics of Torm would never hurt an innocent for fun. So that makes them ''all the same''. But then there are, oh a billion ways each one is different and unique.

But you've already said that a god can - and does - explicitly state what a Cleric can and cannot do. If he has the same expectations of all Clerics, then they are all subject to the same restraints on their conduct. They will all behave the same way. All Clerics of Torm are subject to having their behavior conformed by Torm, until they are all little mini-Torms.


I think it's false. Sure it's a fancy name and it gets repeated at lot....but that does not make it true.

Really? That's... That's your whole argument? "Well, I think it's wrong?"

The Stormwind Fallacy says, very simply, that optimization and roleplaying are not mutually exclusive. You offer scant and anecdotal evidence, along with straw men in abundance, to contend that they are. The weight of evidence - and logic - is against you on this one. "I think it's false" is not a logical argument, nor a sufficient response.


True. But a cleric of a god should follow the faith and not just ''randomly act and do whatever they want with the divine power.'' And remember it's only the divine power.

Divine power is their primary class feature! You are telling a class that if they use their primary class feature in ways they don't like, you will take it away and use it how you like!

What's to stop a frustrated player from simply preparing random spells, and casting them on random targets, knowing that his deity/DM will simply alter the spells into what they're supposed to be upon casting?

And don't say he'll lose favor with his deity. Do not say that. If that were an option, you would have used it first, rather than robbing the players of agency by seizing control of their spells.


Oh lets try:

I cannot help but notice that, once again, you have equated "optimizer" and "cheater." There are cheaters who aren't optimizers, in your definitions, but no optimizers who aren't cheaters.

Do you honestly believe all optimizers are cheaters? Do you honestly believe that no optimizers are roleplayers?

And I ask you again, because I don't recall you answering: Are you honestly trolling? Because if you are, it's gone on quite long enough, and it's gone from mildly amusing-slash-infuriating to deeply disturbing.

[Necroticplague]

Well, sure it is always nice if a player can come up with a code and follow it. But a lot of players don't have the ability to do that. Not everyone can do that. And that is why it's nice when the DM steps up and helps out.
You've seem to use this logic almost constantly. You seem to have a very dim view of every other persons capabilities, especially when compared to your own. What if the slight violations of their old code is an intentional attempt at character developement?




Well, sure I can. A player of a cleric character can't ''just do whatever they want'', they have to follow the faith of their chosen god. And the DM is the one that creates the faith. It's not as hard as it sounds to follow the faith of a god, as long as your not acting like a problem player.
Or, you know, you act like a person who has some independent thoughts, questions whether they should be devoted, and is willing to get their hands dirty.


I think it's false. Sure it's a fancy name and it gets repeated at lot....but that does not make it true.
Care to explain why? Any reason why skill at one thing (role-playing) should have any relation to a seperate skill (ability to make competent character)? Arguably, since both should go up with experience, they should have some direct correlation, not inverse. Saying they are inversely related would be like saying "your ability to know the skills available and itemization are inversely related" to a dota2 player. To which any reasonable person would go "huh? Both of those go up as you play more". Except, being a moba, it would be a lot ruder, but thats a side point.




Brüntak looks like a fine character to me. If only more optimized your way, and not ''I made a list of all four level spellcaster classes so I can get powerful spells at lower levels for my artificer''. So using a basic ability is horrifically overpowered? When it actually takes a fair bit of time to use properly? If they aren't supposed to look around, what should they use? They dont have their own list to use, so of course they have to ape off of others.



Oh lets try:

Good Role Player-A player that plays a well rounded and full fictional character to the fullest extent of their ability. They are not just ''Joe playing the character Snogn'', when the game starts, Joe is Snogn.
Problem Player: Someone who comes to the game just to make a problem. Examples are they want to steal from the group or ruin encounters by always attacking.
The Cheating Optimizer- a player who is cheating, exploiting a rule or such for gain. The artificer above is a good example.
Roll Player: Someone who just wants to roll. Not just hack and slash, but roll through all encounters too. They specifically want to avoid role playing. ''I talk to the NPC *roll* what did they tell me?''
Cheater: someone who exploits a rule, loop hole or unintended effect for the personal gain of having a great character. The first printing of OA has that weapon with a crit range of 11-20, they will say ''it's in the book so i use it''.Responses in respective orders:

Um, wouldn't being a good roleplayer require optimization that you keep railing against in order to play to the fullest extent of their ability?

Eh basic greifers, every single game that ever existed has these. Of course, it doesn't seem logical that whether they want to cause issues with anyone else should correlate with any other thing. The earlier cleric actually sounded like he was being helpful to his party (trying to get more resources), and yet he was labeled as a problem player.

With this definition, their comes a significant problem: where is the line? I mean, just for playing the game, using the rules is required. Where, exactly, is the line between using and abusing? That's different for all groups, and you seem to have a ridiculously low bar. Most people would consider that basic artificer behaivor.

Eh, just like every game is gonna have its greifers, every game is gonna have some people who really suck. They'll either get better due to getting bored and leaving (if all you wanna do is roll dice, video games are way better), or getting more experienced (seeing how the good roleplayers react, and then following suit).

Again, this runs into the whole "where does the line lie" issue as earlier.

[Juntao112]

And I ask you again, because I don't recall you answering: Are you honestly trolling? Because if you are, it's gone on quite long enough, and it's gone from mildly amusing-slash-infuriating to deeply disturbing.

Allow me to remind you that one should never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by something else.

[Flickerdart]

Really? That's... That's your whole argument? "Well, I think it's wrong?"
That's what every single one of his posts boils down to, though. "I'm right, everyone else is wrong, everyone that doesn't do what I want them to do is dumb and a cheater."

[torrasque666]

I can offer you proof of the Stormwind Fallacy jedipotter. I have an optimized DMM Persist Cleric. I follow the Lord of Blades not only because he has decent domains for a beatstick cleric(War) but also because I'm a evil Warforged.

This cleric toned down his slightly Godwin's Law invoking tendencies to fit with the group, but at his heart he's still a bit of a Godwin's Law in regards to "fleshies". Am I a bad roleplayer? Nope. Am I optimized? Yep.



That's what every single one of his posts boils down to, though. "I'm right, everyone else is wrong, everyone that doesn't do what I want them to do is dumb and a cheater."

Well Doi.

[Amphetryon]

Do you honestly believe all optimizers are cheaters? Do you honestly believe that no optimizers are roleplayers?
If you'll recall, jedipotter has previously defined 'cheater' in such a. . . nonstandard way that it's functionally a unique word, unknown in any other dialect of English.

[Threadnaught]

You are wrong. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eilistraee)

Actually if it's his own homebrew version of Corellon, then it's allowed to behave how he wants it to. In his case Corellon Larethian wants nothing less than the complete and utter genocide to all Drow everywhere, possibly regardless of alignment, relationship to other Elves, age and whether or not they actually worship Lolth.


jedipotter, if a Cleric grossly violates their god's Code of Conduct. You don't have to take control of their actions, you can just allow them the Spell or action at the time and then strip them of all Cleric Class Features, turning them into an Ex-Cleric.
I know for some people here, this seems like a horrible thing to say/idea to give, but at least the Player would be allowed to perform the actions they said they were performing. It's also a more lenient form of punishment than outright shredding the character sheet, or forcing the player to watch their character become an NPC.

It's a nice little "that thing you refuse to do as it's, a sign of weakness" jedi. :smallwink:
Also, unlike your own version, it's in the rules.


Clerics with Planning Domain just for the Feat? Nah. :smalltongue:
Lawful Neutral Cloistered Cleric with Magic and Planning Domain, and Knowledge because Cloistered. Wants to turn the world into a police state for the benefit of all whether they like it or not. Will crack down on most criminal activity with disproportionate force as crime is harmful for a lawful civilization. Always attempts to stay within the laws for whatever region he's in, unless they hinder his war on Chaos and disorder. Has little interest in material wealth, but recognizes it's value. For the most part, as long as he has enough for a few useful items, the rest can go to anything that'll help keep order.
Also he has a twin brother who is a Druid, they're at odds on their beliefs, but their relationship is good. And though his brother and the rest of his party may not be the paragons of Lawfulness he sets out to be, he recognizes that sometimes such things are necessary for creating order.

"Oh mighty gods of Law, grant me your magic that I might destroy those who are unlawful."

That character there has some optimization beyond the Domains, no the Druid brother has nothing to do with this character's own optimization, that's just part of his backstory/concept. The Druid has his own specific optimization. They're completely different characters.

[torrasque666]

B-b-b-b-but you picked a T1 class! That's being a dirty cheater/optimized!

[Grod_The_Giant]

Well, sure it is always nice if a player can come up with a code and follow it. But a lot of players don't have the ability to do that. Not everyone can do that. And that is why it's nice when the DM steps up and helps out.
How are they going to get better if you play their character for them?

And don't say "they'll learn from watching me." All they'll learn from you stealing their characters when they displease you is to only make characters that do what you think they should do. (Or learn to find another game. Or learn to hate the hobby you're trying to teach them, because you're snatching their toys and say "no, that's not how you play with that.")

[kardar233]

I have a hypothesis.

Were I to join Jedipotter's game, not knowing of his positions on roleplaying and optimization, I'd probably come in with a mid-powered character with reasonably general utility. In fact, I've been thinking a lot about him recently, so I'd probably bring in Arcolin, a LG Charging Smite/Mystic Fire Knight/Sword of the Arcane Order Paladin of Mystra. He was the third son of a noble family who needed to regain some prestige and so they shipped him off to a knightly order to make them look good. He had a knack for magic so they gave him some elementary arcane training (Magical Training) and he later learned to apply his arcane training to his granted divine magic. In combat, he prefers to intimidate opponents into surrender (Dreadful Wrath, Imperious Command) as it means he won't have to kill them, but if he does he makes it with a single clean cut (Power Attack, Leap Attack).

Now, Arcolin's somewhat optimized, but he's starting with a low-tier class and there's only so much I can do, and he's by no means unbeatable.

So I walk into Jedipotter's game and Arcolin dies messily in the first couple of sessions. I realize that this is a seriously hardcore campaign and so I need to play someone a bit more hardcore.

Maybe I bring in Lacion, a Snow Elf Warblade->Eternal Blade. He's fully formed too (I don't feel like writing up his backstory here) but he's considerably rougher and tougher than Arcolin, what with the save-replacement counters and Wall of Blades and such. Again, though, it's only so much time before Lacion kicks it, maybe from a no-save death of some kind or something.

So perhaps I haven't quite got the point. Perhaps I really want to play in this game and so I want to make a character who just won't die, so I can actually play them for some time. I start bringing in more powerful characters just in the hopes that they'll survive long enough to be properly played, and Jedipotter comes up with more ways to have them killed. Likely, a way is used that the character is immune to (maybe Cal, my Cleric/Bone Knight, gets hit with a death effect) and that's considered 'cheating'. If I happen to be particularly thick, I might even bring in some of the really big guns, like Cayemril, the Archivist/Spelldancer/Initiate of the Sevenfold Veils, who is functionally immune to anything.

Eventually I give up on the game and Jedipotter gets another cautionary tale about 'optimizers'. Does that sound plausible?

[Amphetryon]

I have a hypothesis.

Were I to join Jedipotter's game, not knowing of his positions on roleplaying and optimization, I'd probably come in with a mid-powered character with reasonably general utility. In fact, I've been thinking a lot about him recently, so I'd probably bring in Arcolin, a LG Charging Smite/Mystic Fire Knight/Sword of the Arcane Order Paladin of Mystra. He was the third son of a noble family who needed to regain some prestige and so they shipped him off to a knightly order to make them look good. He had a knack for magic so they gave him some elementary arcane training (Magical Training) and he later learned to apply his arcane training to his granted divine magic. In combat, he prefers to intimidate opponents into surrender (Dreadful Wrath, Imperious Command) as it means he won't have to kill them, but if he does he makes it with a single clean cut (Power Attack, Leap Attack).

Now, Arcolin's somewhat optimized, but he's starting with a low-tier class and there's only so much I can do, and he's by no means unbeatable.

So I walk into Jedipotter's game and Arcolin dies messily in the first couple of sessions. I realize that this is a seriously hardcore campaign and so I need to play someone a bit more hardcore.

Maybe I bring in Lacion, a Snow Elf Warblade->Eternal Blade. He's fully formed too (I don't feel like writing up his backstory here) but he's considerably rougher and tougher than Arcolin, what with the save-replacement counters and Wall of Blades and such. Again, though, it's only so much time before Lacion kicks it, maybe from a no-save death of some kind or something.

So perhaps I haven't quite got the point. Perhaps I really want to play in this game and so I want to make a character who just won't die, so I can actually play them for some time. I start bringing in more powerful characters just in the hopes that they'll survive long enough to be properly played, and Jedipotter comes up with more ways to have them killed. Likely, a way is used that the character is immune to (maybe Cal, my Cleric/Bone Knight, gets hit with a death effect) and that's considered 'cheating'. If I happen to be particularly thick, I might even bring in some of the really big guns, like Cayemril, the Archivist/Spelldancer/Initiate of the Sevenfold Veils, who is functionally immune to anything.

Eventually I give up on the game and Jedipotter gets another cautionary tale about 'optimizers'. Does that sound plausible?

The reason I'd say 'no' is that I believe jedipotter has a stated aversion to ToB, invalidating Lacion as a valid second option.

[Sir Chuckles]

He thinks ToB is silly and does not allow it.
...and has not provided reasoning for it.

[Kazudo]

As a DM, whenever I have an aversion to something even if the reason is silly I bring it up before the game. If I'd rather not, for example, have essentia, psionics, initiators, shadowmages, truenamers, etc. and the reason is because "it involves tracking another subsystem that I'd rather not have to deal with" then I tell my players even if I know they'd judge me for it because that's the honest truth, and as someone in the game even as the DM I would hope they'd respect me as much as if, say, as a player I was to say something like "Would you please not play a Duskblade since you'll completely overshadow my Warmage? My character was built first and I've put a lot of work into it." Yes, it'll hurt feelings, yes it'll step on toes, but it's best to have small confrontations early than big ones later.

And there have been times where I've done worse. "No, I don't want Wu Jen in my game because that gives it an Asian flavor and I'd prefer to keep it Nordic" or "Sorry, no Paladins. The alignment doesn't need to be THAT polarized in this cityscape game" and other things. But if you bring it up and LIST YOUR REASONING, no matter HOW asinine it might appear, it usually works out for the best.

That requires communication. That requires understanding. It requires, yes, compromise. It's not a sign of weakness, it's a sign of greatness.

So there are times when I list my aversion to Tome of Battle. It's not as bad as it used to be, since I've had players who ARE skilled at Tome of Battle and who have said "Actually, it's this way" and completely removed a fog cloud over it, but if I have to cut subsystems for the sake of game simplicity it's one of the first to go since it's not core. But at least I tell people that before they get to the table.

[jedipotter]

It's one thing to say a character "[has] to follow the faith of their chosen god." It's another to say that, when they fail to do so in your perspective, you will take the decision out of their hands. The latter is seizing agency away from the player. I am very disappointed that you can see it as anything else.

It's more like giving them guidelines to follow. Say Bob has a cleric of Tyr. By default Tyr wants his clerics to follow all laws that are not out right evil, even if the cleric does not like them. But Bob just has his character do whatever he feels like and ignores all local laws. So the next time his character uses searing light after the cities 10 pm quiet time law, he might find the spell twisted into silence. A subtle reminder from Tyr to ''follow the local laws''.

Is that taking control of the character? Really?



We can, and we have. But even when there is intractable debate, one thing we generally agree upon, based on the canonical material, is that the murder of a helpless prisoner, absent a suitable trial or other exigent circumstances, is Evil. Corellon is not Evil. He's not even Neutral. He's Good. Chaotic Good, but Good nonetheless.


Well I'm the 13th guy that does not agree with you.



Therefore, a Cleric who takes actions of which I do not approve will have those actions conformed to my expectations.[/list]
Player agency, at least with regard to Clerics, is rendered nonexistent by such a conclusion. You cannot prove otherwise. Saying "Clerics are free to do what they want, provided that I approve of it," is the definition of robbing them of agency.

I'm not really sure were you going on the whole ''well the DM makes all that stuff up''. Well....yea? That is what DM's do. DM's create the setting, things like races, countries, NPC's and even gods. Most of the PbP games right here on the forums do it that way, so I can't be too far off. I'm not sure where you see the problem.



If you don't like their conduct, give them an alignment penalty, strip them of their spells, but don't tell them, "Nope, what you actually did was this." That's the First Rule. The PCs belong to the players. You are the DM; you control every NPC and force of nature in the world. Let the players at least have the PCs.

Well, I'd give lots of hints...plus maybe a vision or two to put the player on the right path. But in my game Tyr is simply not going to keep a cleric that just ''slaughters everything in sight''. Eventually Tyr will dump him, but note Malar would be quick to offer the cleric a spot.




But you've already said that a god can - and does - explicitly state what a Cleric can and cannot do. If he has the same expectations of all Clerics, then they are all subject to the same restraints on their conduct. They will all behave the same way. All Clerics of Torm are subject to having their behavior conformed by Torm, until they are all little mini-Torms.

Well, for the third or fourth time: the god does not care what the cleric does with his life in general. It's what the cleric does with the gods divine power that gets the spotlight.

But that is exaclty right: the cleric of Torm is the personal representative of Torm, a ''mini torm'' if you will.



What's to stop a frustrated player from simply preparing random spells, and casting them on random targets, knowing that his deity/DM will simply alter the spells into what they're supposed to be upon casting?

And don't say he'll lose favor with his deity. Do not say that. If that were an option, you would have used it first, rather than robbing the players of agency by seizing control of their spells.

I guess a player could do that, just for the two or three spells a day that might get twisted. But most actions for most gods fall under ''don't care too much.'' So the player of a cleric of Mystra can cast bless on a goblin bandit instead of magic stone and watch the bless spell effect the goblin normally, just as once or twice a day when he casts a cure spell on a wizard it heals one more extra point of damage.

All the spell twisting comes way before losing favor...



Do you honestly believe all optimizers are cheaters? Do you honestly believe that no optimizers are roleplayers?

And I ask you again, because I don't recall you answering: Are you honestly trolling? Because if you are, it's gone on quite long enough, and it's gone from mildly amusing-slash-infuriating to deeply disturbing.

No, and I never did. There are optimizers, I'd call myself one AND optimizer cheaters.

I'm not a troll (I'm a hobgoblin. see page, er, 4 or 5)


You've seem to use this logic almost constantly. You seem to have a very dim view of every other persons capabilities, especially when compared to your own. What if the slight violations of their old code is an intentional attempt at character developement?

Not ''every person'', but a lot of players and a lot of people for that matter are not creative. Some are, some are not. I don't see it as a big deal to say it, as it's true.



Um, wouldn't being a good roleplayer require optimization that you keep railing against in order to play to the fullest extent of their ability?

Guess I should make another thread ''hot air: the false stormwind''.



With this definition, their comes a significant problem: where is the line? I mean, just for playing the game, using the rules is required. Where, exactly, is the line between using and abusing? That's different for all groups, and you seem to have a ridiculously low bar. Most people would consider that basic artificer behaivor.

Sure lots of DM's just say ''ok'' and let the artificer do whatever they want. I don't. I even have a house rule just for this.


jedipotter, if a Cleric grossly violates their god's Code of Conduct. You don't have to take control of their actions, you can just allow them the Spell or action at the time and then strip them of all Cleric Class Features, turning them into an Ex-Cleric.

See if a cleric of Tyr slaughter some helpless innocents I would start by ''when you attempt to cast flame strike on the farmers that are in your way, the spell fizzles to no effect'', not ''Tyr casts you out''. I would not do that for just one action, unless it was a ''blow up the moon kind of action''.



That character there has some optimization beyond the Domains, no the Druid brother has nothing to do with this character's own optimization, that's just part of his backstory/concept. The Druid has his own specific optimization. They're completely different characters.

That character concept looks fine, he can play in my game any day. But I wonder what god he'd worship?

[Kish]

Of course you can cheat at D&D. For example you could--

fudging die rolls (while not being the DM) or using completely forbidden material and not telling anyone or giving yourself extra gold or moving your stuff around mid-game without telling the DM
--uh.

The quote in the OP strikes me as, "I don't understand how you can cheat at D&D; I suppose you could cheat, but if you're not cheating, you're not cheating."


Then we are left with the other stuff. ...It would seem that most people say ''if you use the rules your never cheating.'' This is a bit of an odd statment as it lets a person ignore, bend or even break rules, but everyone will just say how ''clever'' they were to do that...

Huh? How do you "ignore, bend, or even break rules" while...using the rules? If you do any of those things you aren't using the rules.


Now most of the world considers stacking the deck, that is ''following the rules'', but doing it in a way that makes the event unblanced in your favor to be cheating.

...huh? "Most of the world" seems to have an utterly arbitrary definition of "cheating" by this claim. Apparently, in any game more complicated than War, playing well is sometimes cheating.


Though it seems I'm the only one. Everyone else says ''anything goes''. You ''can't'' cheat at D&D. And all a poor DM can do is beg the players ''I know the rules are broken(all hail the rules), but can you pretty please with sugar on top not be a jerk?" and then the player, from up on his huge high horse can say, ''Ha ha, puny DM, why yes, sure I can play the game and not be a jerk...but just remember I do so at my whim....so we both know I'm so awesome I could break the game, but i'll agree not to do so for now.''
No, the DM can change the rules. What the DM shouldn't do, and is being neither fair nor coherent if s/he does do, is say, "Yes, Natural Spell exists in this game. No, there is nothing stopping your druid from taking it. If s/he does take it, you're cheating."


We can, and we have. But even when there is intractable debate, one thing we generally agree upon, based on the canonical material, is that the murder of a helpless prisoner, absent a suitable trial or other exigent circumstances, is Evil.

What's an exigent circumstance?

If you're saying no Good character slaughters innocent people for convenience, I'm with you. If you're saying every (or most...or quite possibly any...) Chaotic Good character believes justice is guaranteed by a formal legal trial, I'm very much not with you. I would expect the average Chaotic Good character who believes that execution is valid to take the view, "If you go to trial, you'll be convicted if you lack influence or acquitted if you have influence, regardless of whether you're actually guilty, so I'll decide whether I think you're guilty of a crime that I believe should get the death penalty, and if the answer is 'yes,' carry it out without hesitation."

If you're just saying that being genocidally racist ("wants the worse for drow," really?) is incompatible with Good, you're absolutely right.

[Ionbound]

I am so glad I didn't play that Planescape game. So, so glad. I'm sure you wouldn't have approved of a half-fiend wizard. But, personal past between us out of the way, you are using Rule 0 in a way that utterly defeats the point. Rule 0 exists to ensure that everyone has fun. Not just the DM, and not just the player. But you use it, along with your magic rewrite (to anyone interested, it's more of the same DM being able to kill a player at a moment's notice), to direct your player's actions, in a way that they likely don't appreciate. If you want to have a good time, sit down with whoever you play with, and have a nice, calm conversation about how they view the game. Come back once you've done that. Because, until you do, you will never be able to play D&D like it should be played; A fun, oft-silly, fantasy adventure.

[Kantolin]

So the next time his character uses searing light after the cities 10 pm quiet time law, he might find the spell twisted into silence. A subtle reminder from Tyr to ''follow the local laws''.

What was he searing light /at/? I mean, if the party was attacked by brigands at 10:30pm and he aimed a searing light to get rid of one of them, I certainly hope it doesn't randomly get turned to silence until Tyr is actively trying to get his cleric killed for Tyr's own personal enjoyment.

Also uh... does searing light make a ton of noise or something? Presumably clerics of Tyr in that city would still be able to cast spells at night for reasons, if none other than the spell light.

Or is this 'Tyr', which is a jedipotter expy, and not 'Tyr', the Forgotten realms deity?


Is that taking control of the character? Really?

"I walk up"
"Instead, you walk south"

So yes, that is taking control over the character.


Well I'm the 13th guy that does not agree with you.

Welp, you heard him folks: Murder of a helpless prisoner is not evil in jedipotter's setting.

With statements like that, I must presume it is very difficult to figure out how you /are/ supposed to act. I return to my 'Oh great Corellon, please direct me on what to do' stance, as that seems to be the only way to stick to a given alignment.

Unless Corellon, like Tyr above, decides to get his clerics killed at random so he can joke about it in the deific locker room.


But in my game Tyr is simply not going to keep a cleric that just ''slaughters everything in sight''.

In /most/ games, a cleric that 'just slaughters everything in sight' will no longer have an alignment that is compatible with Tyr's (Meaning, they'll become evil).

Although I find that a little suspect; so it's not evil to murder a helpless prisoner, but it /is/ evil to murder a not helpless farmer? What if 'everything in sight' is a drow?


But that is exaclty right: the cleric of Torm is the personal representative of Torm, a ''mini torm'' if you will.

Every cleric of Torm should not, in fact, be Torm. Otherwise we do have samey issues.


All the spell twisting comes way before losing favor...

Man, so your spells randomly change into other things when your deity isn't even mad at you? O-o


No, and I never did. There are optimizers, I'd call myself one

I see.


Sure lots of DM's just say ''ok'' and let the artificer do whatever they want. I don't. I even have a house rule just for this.

This isn't 'let the artificer do whatever they want'. This is 'the artificer looks for spells'. You seem absolutely terrified that people will walk all over you if you allow them to do things.


See if a cleric of Tyr slaughter some helpless innocents I would start by ''when you attempt to cast flame strike on the farmers that are in your way, the spell fizzles to no effect'', not ''Tyr casts you out''.

I dunno, murdering helpless innocents is in fact evil, so uh...
...actually, earlier 'murdering helpless' is expressly not evil...
...hm.

I once again stand by my 'Oh great Corellon, please essentially play my character for me' idea, as it seems to be the primary workable option.

[Necroticplague]

Guess I should make another thread ''hot air: the false stormwind''.


Sure lots of DM's just say ''ok'' and let the artificer do whatever they want. I don't. I even have a house rule just for this.

An excellent way to avoid answering the questions. You still haven't answered the main points, you merely re-made an assertion, and commented on a side note.

1.Why do you think that good roleplaying does not require optimization, despite good roleplaying involving playing "to the fullest extent of their ability"? What about roleplaying makes it inversely proportional to power of the character?

2.How do you draw the line between using the rules and abusing them?

[Jeff the Green]

See if a cleric of Tyr slaughter some helpless innocents I would start by ''when you attempt to cast flame strike on the farmers that are in your way, the spell fizzles to no effect'', not ''Tyr casts you out''. I would not do that for just one action, unless it was a ''blow up the moon kind of action''.

First, you're going reductio ad absurdum when its not justified. The proper response to this is to smack the player on the head and tell him to roleplay his character consistently (or, if new, remind him that he's not playing Fable or Skyrim); someone who is devoted enough to Tyr to join his clergy is not the sort of person who will murder helpless innocents except in extraordinary circumstances. Not without falling first.

Second, if he tries to do something that is reasonably within character but also grossly violates their god's code, you first remind him of that (because his character, having spent his life training for the clergy, should know it), and then let him fall. For Tyr, this would probably be something like trying to cheat justice. Say, their party member is on trial for a breaking a law that isn't itself unjust they did commit and they use a spell to get them out of prison and flee. The god's job is not to hold the hand of his cleric and remind him by perverting his spells. His job is to let the cleric make his mistake and then punish him by stripping him of powers until he atones (which would probably involve turning oneself in for aiding a prisoner's escape). Otherwise there would basically be no fallen clerics (so a good rule isn't being used) and the god has a bunch of clerics who wanted to violate their code but only didn't do so because their god held them back. There aren't any gods that would actually want that kind of servant doing works in his name.

(Honestly, it feels a bit bizarre. In some instances you're callous and brutal to your players, and in others you feel the need to hold their hands. But in ways that also take what little control they have away from them.)

[ryu]

First, you're going reductio ad absurdum when its not justified. The proper response to this is to smack the player on the head and tell him to roleplay his character consistently (or, if new, remind him that he's not playing Fable or Skyrim); someone who is devoted enough to Tyr to join his clergy is not the sort of person who will murder helpless innocents except in extraordinary circumstances. Not without falling first.

Second, if he tries to do something that is reasonably within character but also grossly violates their god's code, you first remind him of that (because his character, having spent his life training for the clergy, should know it), and then let him fall. For Tyr, this would probably be something like trying to cheat justice. Say, their party member is on trial for a breaking a law that isn't itself unjust they did commit and they use a spell to get them out of prison and flee. The god's job is not to hold the hand of his cleric and remind him by perverting his spells. His job is to let the cleric make his mistake and then punish him by stripping him of powers until he atones (which would probably involve turning oneself in for aiding a prisoner's escape). Otherwise there would basically be no fallen clerics (so a good rule isn't being used) and the god has a bunch of clerics who wanted to violate their code but only didn't do so because their god held them back. There aren't any gods that would actually want that kind of servant doing works in his name.

(Honestly, it feels a bit bizarre. In some instances you're callous and brutal to your players, and in others you feel the need to hold their hands. But in ways that also take what little control they have away from them.)

Or just let the guy switch deities if he legitimately doesn't regret what he did to fall. Clerics can do that. Not to mention it's good character development.

[jedipotter]

I am so glad I didn't play that Planescape game. So, so glad. I'm sure you wouldn't have approved of a half-fiend wizard. But, personal past between us out of the way, you are using Rule 0 in a way that utterly defeats the point. Rule 0 exists to ensure that everyone has fun. Not just the DM, and not just the player. But you use it, along with your magic rewrite (to anyone interested, it's more of the same DM being able to kill a player at a moment's notice), to direct your player's actions, in a way that they likely don't appreciate. If you want to have a good time, sit down with whoever you play with, and have a nice, calm conversation about how they view the game. Come back once you've done that. Because, until you do, you will never be able to play D&D like it should be played; A fun, oft-silly, fantasy adventure.

Personal stuff: You seem like a good player, we might of had a good game. Oh well...

To be fair, firedaemon did not like this Houserule of mine: A summoning spell has a 1% chance per spell level of summoning something other than what the caster intended that is not under the control of the caster. It could be anything from a celestial rabbit to a demon or elemental. Firedaemon was worried that by casting summon monster ! that Orcus might appear and kill everyone.

I rule zero so everyone has fun, not just me. Most players, as i have said, are fine with my house rules, or they don't effect them, so they don't care. Tony's character Tron the fighter does not care about the summoning mischance.



Unless Corellon, like Tyr above, decides to get his clerics killed at random so he can joke about it in the deific locker room.

I'd see Corellon as the ''never let them see you sweat'' pretty boy, who always changes clothing far away from other people. Tyr is the hair older guy who walks around naked. Lathander likes to show off his body and often walks around in a tiny towel. Tempus is always trying to pick a friendly fight. Gond always has some crazy gadget he invented and trys to show it off ''look the socker machine folds my socks for me!''. Helm keeps watch on the door. And poor Orcus sits outside my the sign ''deities only past this point'' and fusses.

[Ionbound]

Personal stuff: You seem like a good player, we might of had a good game. Oh well...

To be fair, firedaemon did not like this Houserule of mine: A summoning spell has a 1% chance per spell level of summoning something other than what the caster intended that is not under the control of the caster. It could be anything from a celestial rabbit to a demon or elemental. Firedaemon was worried that by casting summon monster ! that Orcus might appear and kill everyone.

I rule zero so everyone has fun, not just me. Most players, as i have said, are fine with my house rules, or they don't effect them, so they don't care. Tony's character Tron the fighter does not care about the summoning mischance.

Uh-huh. But this Tron character would be effected by the summoning mischance because I never saw a table of any kind about what might be summoned. A Summon Monster I summoning any kind of demon, ever, is unacceptable, as even a Dretch is far out of range of the average person who would be using a spell like Summon Monster I: Specifically, a party with access to only low-level spells. And so it becomes that if you don't like what the monster is being summoned for, *blam*, a sudden encounter which is likely far, far above the party's abilities.

[Necroticplague]

Personal stuff: You seem like a good player, we might of had a good game. Oh well...

To be fair, firedaemon did not like this Houserule of mine: A summoning spell has a 1% chance per spell level of summoning something other than what the caster intended that is not under the control of the caster. It could be anything from a celestial rabbit to a demon or elemental. Firedaemon was worried that by casting summon monster ! that Orcus might appear and kill everyone.

Most players, as i have said, are fine with my house rules, or they don't effect them, so they don't care. Tony's character Tron the fighter does not care about the summoning mischance.

I can't really blame her, if she planned on being a summoner. While a 1-9% chance is very small, the chances of something occurring over the course of a characters career eventually is pretty close to guaranteed. And without any knowledge of how appropriate the summons are to the spell, that could, from her point of view, be "if you want to play this classic archetype, you will, without warning, suffer severely for it.". And the summon rule will effect her teamates, that fighters gonna have to deal with whatever comes out as a result of the miscast.

[Threadnaught]

See if a cleric of Tyr slaughter some helpless innocents I would start by ''when you attempt to cast flame strike on the farmers that are in your way, the spell fizzles to no effect'', not ''Tyr casts you out''. I would not do that for just one action, unless it was a ''blow up the moon kind of action''.

Umm, slaughtering a bunch of helpless innocents as a LG/NG/CG Cleric of a LG/NG/CG deity should force them to seek atonement. As well as make them take a step closer to Stupid Evil. Or Chaotic Evil, most important aspect is Evil.
Murder is an Evil act, even if it's a Drow wandering around the Underdark.


That character concept looks fine, he can play in my game any day. But I wonder what god he'd worship?

Made for an Eberron Campaign, no God, just the Ideal that everyone in civilized society be Lawful. Doing it for the benefit of all is how I hope to keep him Lawful Neutral like a true knight templar.
I can think of no Good Ideal that would grant both Domains, only Neutral and Evil.

Oh yes, if I'm going to optimize a build, I'm going to at least try to fluff a reason for those abilities and play it just like that. If I'm going to fluff a character, I'm going to at least try to optimize a build to back it up mechanically.


I'm not actually the best player as I have several shades of munchkin in my makeup, from years of being the DM with no games to take out my frustrations on. Though I am the best (debatable) and most experienced DM of my group.

A Pseudo Dragon that looked at one PC and kept at it's business, a Hullathoin claiming to be a Dragon surrounded by Vampires, they let it go and it agreed not to kill them, even giving them a free item in exchange for it's freedom. And Smug an Old Green Dragon, who they also freed and who promised them an army. Pseudo Dragon was a random encounter to kill one of them if they tried fighting, Hullathoin is my short term plan to screw them over and Smug is my long term plan to screw them over.
Completely avoidable if they'd just ignored the caged Dragons. They also released a Swarm Shifter Mummy and some Warforged with unusual anatomy.
At the end of the dungeon, they believe they'll find the Locate City Bomb.

[jedipotter]

An excellent way to avoid answering the questions. You still haven't answered the main points, you merely re-made an assertion, and commented on a side note.

1.Why do you think that good roleplaying does not require optimization, despite good roleplaying involving playing "to the fullest extent of their ability"? What about roleplaying makes it inversely proportional to power of the character?

2.How do you draw the line between using the rules and abusing them?


1.I don't see a connection. For most, he role play always takes a back seat to optimization. Few if they only had one feat to pick would pick ''skill focus:Farming'' even if their whole character was a farmer that got ''dragged into an adventure''. No, they will pick ''Improved Initiative'' as it makes sense that a character of a farmer being a Commoner level three would pick a feat that...um..let him go first in combat, and not farm.

Way to many builds need this feat or that feat....characters can't ''waste'' a feat slot for a feat not in their build plan. So the mechanics won't support the role play.


2.Well the line is different for everyone. My view of the line is all over the posts. For example it's abusing the rules for a stone age barbarian to have a steel greatsword, just as it does more damage then the 'primitive ' weapons.

[Boci]

2.Well the line is different for everyone. My view of the line is all over the posts. For example it's abusing the rules for a stone age barbarian to have a steel greatsword, just as it does more damage then the 'primitive ' weapons.

What if he killed a knight, picked up their sword and went "hey, this is a much better weapon than my stone club" and has loved the steel ever since?

[Juntao112]

1.I don't see a connection. For most, he role play always takes a back seat to optimization. Few if they only had one feat to pick would pick ''skill focus:Farming'' even if their whole character was a farmer that got ''dragged into an adventure''. No, they will pick ''Improved Initiative'' as it makes sense that a character of a farmer being a Commoner level three would pick a feat that...um..let him go first in combat, and not farm.

You know that farmers have to get up early in the morning, right?

[Amphetryon]

You know that farmers have to get up early in the morning, right?

To be fair, the mortality rates jedipotter says he shoots for in his campaigns would make picking Feats via dartboard as effective from an optimization standpoint as any other method.

[Flickerdart]

You know that farmers have to get up early in the morning, right?
Trying to think creatively about your character is cheating. Gods forbid that your farmer have any trait other than "he digs holes in the ground and puts plants into them."

[Svata]

I rule zero so everyone has fun, not just me. Most players, as i have said, are fine with my house rules, or they don't effect them, so they don't care. Tony's character Tron the fighter does not care about the summoning mischance.

Really? If I was the frontliner, I'd be worried. The caster has a(n admittedly small) chance of summoning a (potentially) hostile creature in behind me that I was expecting to be renforcements? Why wouldn't I be?

[NickChaisson]

1.I don't see a connection. For most, he role play always takes a back seat to optimization. Few if they only had one feat to pick would pick ''skill focus:Farming'' even if their whole character was a farmer that got ''dragged into an adventure''. No, they will pick ''Improved Initiative'' as it makes sense that a character of a farmer being a Commoner level three would pick a feat that...um..let him go first in combat, and not farm.

Way to many builds need this feat or that feat....characters can't ''waste'' a feat slot for a feat not in their build plan. So the mechanics won't support the role play.


I gotta agree here. I've seen plenty of players pick feats and such for optimization over backstory/rp. It would be nice to not have players weasel in reasons for having odd feats.


You know that farmers have to get up early in the morning, right?

Imp. Initiative has nothing to do with getting up early. It just says that you react quicker in combat.

[Alex12]

1.I don't see a connection. For most, he role play always takes a back seat to optimization. Few if they only had one feat to pick would pick ''skill focus:Farming'' even if their whole character was a farmer that got ''dragged into an adventure''. No, they will pick ''Improved Initiative'' as it makes sense that a character of a farmer being a Commoner level three would pick a feat that...um..let him go first in combat, and not farm.

First off, it would be Skill Focus (Profession (Farmer)). Second, what the heck kind of player would play a level 3 Commoner in a campaign when you're actually going off into adventuring? Commoner 1 is plausible if you're, say, using it to PrC into Survivor at level 2, or if your DM is for some reason allowing Chicken-Infested, but an adventurer with 3 levels of Commoner? Unless you're doing some kind of rebuild or retraining mechanic, that seems really unlikely for a player to do. How many people actually play a farmer who just got dragged along on an adventure without any appropriate skills?
For that matter, they might instead pick a feat that actually works for both. Power Attack, for example, seems like it would be useful for someone who spends time doing things like chopping wood or slaughtering docile animals. Similarly, a weapon proficiency feat (say with axes, or daggers, or a crossbow, all of which would actually be useful to a farmer)

Way to many builds need this feat or that feat....characters can't ''waste'' a feat slot for a feat not in their build plan. So the mechanics won't support the role play.
I guess if you want to go out of your way to RP a farmer with absolutely no adventuring skills, well...good for you, I guess. Even Joe Wood had some combat skills.



2.Well the line is different for everyone. My view of the line is all over the posts. For example it's abusing the rules for a stone age barbarian to have a steel greatsword, just as it does more damage then the 'primitive ' weapons.
If the stone-age barbarian has found a way to actually obtain a steel greatsword (say by trading the spoils of his hunt to the local dwarf tribe or something) and knows what it can do, he'd be pretty stupid to keep using his primitive crappy weapons. I guarantee you that if I had a time machine and went back in time to the actual stone age and offered higher-tech weapons to the hunter-gatherers, they'd be all over that stuff. Because, news flash: people who regularly experience life-or-death situations will take any advantage they can possibly get. After all, modern soldiers have guns and explosives and air support and radios and training on how to use all those things to maximum effect. I guess you think that means they're filthy optimizing cheaters.

[Necroticplague]

1.I don't see a connection. For most, he role play always takes a back seat to optimization. Few if they only had one feat to pick would pick ''skill focus:Farming'' even if their whole character was a farmer that got ''dragged into an adventure''. No, they will pick ''Improved Initiative'' as it makes sense that a character of a farmer being a Commoner level three would pick a feat that...um..let him go first in combat, and not farm.

Way to many builds need this feat or that feat....characters can't ''waste'' a feat slot for a feat not in their build plan. So the mechanics won't support the role play.
Or, you know, since he's a farmer in a world with a wide variety of dangerous creatures, he learned the best way to stay alive was to run like heck before they could get you?



2.Well the line is different for everyone. My view of the line is all over the posts. For example it's abusing the rules for a stone age barbarian to have a steel greatsword, just as it does more damage then the 'primitive ' weapons.

But the problem is that your line is continually shifting. The only solid thing I can grasp is that you consider crappy RPing to be cheating. Like take this example: owning a greatsword is cheating. Now, what if I was a more modern fighter? Would using a greatsword instead of a greataxe be cheating? If yes, you have a ridiculously low line. If no, then you essentially punish people for not playing certain concepts. Even if he was stone age, he may have picked up the sword of a dead soldier from a more civilized place.

[NickChaisson]

I may have missed this, but was any details to this stone age fighter given? Was it a stone age campaign with a player complaining about not having a metal great sword. Or a stone age character in a standard D&D setting? As in his tribe was stone age but not everyone else was? I feel the context would make some difference.

[Thurbane]

Off on a tangent, one of my most disliked forms of cheating (as in the "standard" definition of the word, not one used specifically for this thread) is players who read modules in advance, and use info their characters would have had no way of knowing to their advantage. Use to happen a bit with a couple of guys in our 1E/2E games. Well, I define that as cheating, anyway...

-----

And Skill Focus (Profession[Farming])? Really? Yes, it would be "in character" for a character with a farming background to have a feat like this, but with feats being a relatively precious commodity in 3.X D&D, forcing a feat like this on a PC who will reasonably be expecting to, you know, FIGHT MONSTERS, seems very draconian. Suddenly you would end up with a glut of PCs whose background was being raised as slaves in fighting pits, just so they can start with some decent feats. Crom!

Also, I'm going back to the old alignment deal - as in, behaviour determines alignment vs. alignment determines behaviour. One of my least favourite games, ever, was under a DM who had the latter idea, and would flat out tell you "No, your character doesn't do that, it's against his alignment.". So, so frustrating. It made me feel like the character wasn't even mine to control. No, I'm not talking about playing a Paladin who suddenly decides to torch an orphanage one day, but just simple day to day decisions that clashed with the DMs vision of how alignments should act. Game was several years ago now, so I can't give any specific examples.

IMHO, telling characters how they must play their characters is one of the worst things a DM can do. I don't mind a gentle nudge (i.e. "That action would cause problems in my campaign, can you please reconsider?" or "Are you sure you want to do that, I don't think Tyr would approve?"), but flat out "No, you wouldn't do that, do this instead!" type approach would pretty much drive me away from any game. And it's not like I am one of those players who randomly does things that seem totally at odds with a characters alignment and personality, I just want the freedom to run my character my way, even if he does do something a little odd now and then.

[Beans]

This thread is an adventure. We began with discussions on what cheating is. Then optimization. Then somehow talking about crime and punishment.
Then hypothetical models of DM dickery.
And we've landed in a sort of gulf of intensely screwed-up DM/player relationships.

[TiaC]

Jedipotter, while you may be staying within forum rules, you are debating in a way I feel is cheating. Therefore, all I can do is to look up to you on your high horse and beg that you change your wicked ways. I realize that you can say 'Ha ha, puny Thisisacat, why yes, sure I can debate the game and not be a jerk...but just remember I do so at my whim....so we both know I'm so awesome I could be impossible to reason with, but i'll agree not to do so for now.''

[Svata]

This thread is an adventure. We began with discussions on what cheating is. Then optimization. Then somehow talking about crime and punishment.
Then hypothetical models of DM dickery.
And we've landed in a sort of gulf of intensely screwed-up DM/player relationships.

"You're derailing the thread!"
"Rails? Where we're going, we don't need rails."

[torrasque666]

We had rails? I thought we were on a circular path.

[Doc_Maynot]

I was more under the impression that we were drowning in the middle of a decently sized body of water and only have 12 more seconds before we were considered dead.
Though I have to admit, the experience has helped the stab wound I suffered heal up nicely.

[Juntao112]

Imp. Initiative has nothing to do with getting up early. It just says that you react quicker in combat.

Well, it also allows you to wake up earlier in my games.

[Flickerdart]

If we're talking about roleplaying, a character with Improved Initiative would be exactly the kind of person to willingly go along with a monster-slaying adventure despite being an unqualified farmer, because they're always jumping into everything head-first, probably without thinking things through. While seasoned veteran warriors might be running combat scenarios in their heads, and temper their approach with caution, this guy only knows one way to fight - run at the enemy and hit him with the heaviest, pointiest thing you're carrying - and so doesn't need to ponder before making his move.

People also don't always have every single one of their traits perfectly align with their career. They have hobbies, past experiences that have shaped them into the people they are today. A farmer who's never held a sword in his life might still live in a very dangerous area, where small villages huddle together against threats like bandits or monsters, where thinking before acting gets you dead, where outsiders aren't welcome because it's the way of the village to send them packing before they can cause trouble. Maybe the farmer had to learn quick reflexes as a child, to beat feet when his drunken father came staggering through the door, or when the orchard's tender was making the rounds while he and his friends were stuffing their pockets with apples.

Maybe the farmer isn't a dirty cheating optimizer, and didn't pick Skill Focus (Profession: Farming) so that he could min-max his earnings.

You see what I did there? I looked at a character taking a feat and instead of trying to find reasons why the character shouldn't be allowed have the feat, I thought about why he should. The result is somebody who is much more interesting and colourful than "guy who is a farmer and took Skill Focus: Farming to be good at farming."

For all your boasts about being a master roleplayer, jedipotter, you haven't really shown us any compelling evidence of your virtuosity. I just turned "+4 to a single type of roll" into a background and personality.

Your move.

[TiaC]

Maybe he's just the town champion at Egyptian Ratscrew (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_Ratscrew) or the Slap Game (http://www.ehow.com/how_2489_play-slap-game.html).

[Flickerdart]

Maybe he's just the town champion at Egyptian Ratscrew (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_Ratscrew) or the Slap Game (http://www.ehow.com/how_2489_play-slap-game.html).
Don't be silly. Only optimizing scum have a feat that lets them be good at something fun.

[TiaC]

Don't be silly. Only optimizing scum have a feat that lets them be good at something fun.

Now I want to play a character that's an optimized card shark.

[Doc_Maynot]

Now I want to play a character that's an optimized card shark.

And oddly coincidental piece of advice for the build. Be a Bard, Sorc or Wiz and use the Cheat spell from Spell Compendium.

[Flickerdart]

Now I want to play a character that's an optimized card shark.
There's this guy (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?142080-3-5-The-Lightning-Thief-Epic-Sleight-of-Hand-Abuse) who could probably pickpocket an actual shark.

[Svata]

Bard. Definitely bard. Glibness for bluffing a bad to okay hand when you have a good one, and a good one when its bad.

[TiaC]

I would want him to be able win both by cheating and honestly though...

[Elderand]

I gotta agree here. I've seen plenty of players pick feats and such for optimization over backstory/rp. It would be nice to not have players weasel in reasons for having odd feats.

That is a load of bull. You know what backstories are ? Things that happened in the past, feats you get from leveling up is stuff that's going to be relevant to the present situation.

The only time feats should be aligned with backstory is when you start as a character.

If a guy whose backstory is farmer goes on an adventure and gain levels I damn well expect him to pick stuff usefull in adventuring rather than in farming. IE is current situation, not his past career he left behind.

[Boci]

I gotta agree here. I've seen plenty of players pick feats and such for optimization over backstory/rp. It would be nice to not have players weasel in reasons for having odd feats.

If I have retrained the level of commoner/expert I had as a farmer, isn't it just logical I also retrained skill focus (farming) into improved initiative? Assuming I even had of course. Maybe I was an at best average farmer. Maybe that contributed to me leaving the farm to become an adventurer.

[NickChaisson]

People also don't always have every single one of their traits perfectly align with their career. They have hobbies, past experiences that have shaped them into the people they are today. A farmer who's never held a sword in his life might still live in a very dangerous area, where small villages huddle together against threats like bandits or monsters, where thinking before acting gets you dead, where outsiders aren't welcome because it's the way of the village to send them packing before they can cause trouble. Maybe the farmer had to learn quick reflexes as a child, to beat feet when his drunken father came staggering through the door, or when the orchard's tender was making the rounds while he and his friends were stuffing their pockets with apples.
Your move.

That is something I've never even thought of. I suppose I'm being a little close minded when it comes to backstory stuff. Thanks for showing me a better way ^_^


That is a load of bull. You know what backstories are ? Things that happened in the past, feats you get from leveling up is stuff that's going to be relevant to the present situation.

The only time feats should be aligned with backstory is when you start as a character.

If a guy whose backstory is farmer goes on an adventure and gain levels I damn well expect him to pick stuff usefull in adventuring rather than in farming. IE is current situation, not his past career he left behind.

I was talking specifically about level one stuff. But, I've never restricted a player/ told them they couldn't have a feat because of backstory. I would just love to see my players have a little more dedication to roleplaying. Instead they make every choice they can to get more bonuses. It isin't the biggest problem, and I don't even talk to them about it. Its just my style of playing, Its how I would play my character. I wouldn't impose my style on them. I don't any of us are in the wrong for our own playstyle so long as we don't impose it on others.


If I have retrained the level of commoner/expert I had as a farmer, isn't it just logical I also retrained skill focus (farming) into improved initiative? Assuming I even had of course. Maybe I was an at best average farmer. Maybe that contributed to me leaving the farm to become an adventurer.

It would be. I allow feat retraining in my games. I would just like someone to have a feat the represented their backstory instead of feats that all gave bonuses. I don't force them to even take backstory related feats. It would just be a nice change.

[Kazudo]

The quote in the OP strikes me as, "I don't understand how you can cheat at D&D; I suppose you could cheat, but if you're not cheating, you're not cheating."


Yay I got quoted again for something!

Honestly the only reason I'm checking this thread is because it really reminds me of some kind of inverted twist on the SUE Files thread that was up for a few iterations not too long ago.

[georgie_leech]

Yay I got quoted again for something!

Honestly the only reason I'm checking this thread is because it really reminds me of some kind of inverted twist on the SUE Files thread that was up for a few iterations not too long ago.

Hey, be fair, these posts haven't had a single mention of katana in them, or retroactive changes to the entire world structure! :smallbiggrin:

[Grod_The_Giant]

I would just like someone to have a feat the represented their backstory instead of feats that all gave bonuses. I don't force them to even take backstory related feats. It would just be a nice change.
How 'bout giving them a bonus feat and/or skill points, to be used exclusively for backstory-y things? That way they can get some mechanical representation of their history without losing "real" combat power.

[Raimun]

So... is system mastery cheating?

I would agree that using the rules for infinity loopholes (Pun-Pun, Wish-spamming, etc., 9th level spells at 1st level) would be cheating, even if technically RAW and most GMs should stop stuff like that.

However, it should be okay if you use the rules to build a character who is, let's say... hands down the best warrior, for his level, in the entire campaign. That is, the character does insane (but finite) damage and encountered monsters have a hard time even scratching him... and he has also extra tricks under his sleeve for variety.

Or lets say there's a wizard who can mind control pretty much anyone who is not a divine caster or a construct and thus end many encounters with one spell.

Or the player finds some other clever way to build an unique build, with an interesting and powerful trick that lets him break the tedious "attack roll & damage"-game, with mediocre abilities, until one side is dead.

What I'm trying to say is that you should imagine D&D as a one giant game of rock-paper-sciccors. If the proverbial sciccors beats the proverbial paper, you shouldn't complain about the proverbial sciccors being OP but instead find the proverbial rock.

Remember, everything has weaknesses.

[Vedhin]

How 'bout giving them a bonus feat and/or skill points, to be used exclusively for backstory-y things? That way they can get some mechanical representation of their history without losing "real" combat power.

Say, a free Skill Focus (Craft/Profession), and free max points in one Craft/Profession?

[NickChaisson]

How 'bout giving them a bonus feat and/or skill points, to be used exclusively for backstory-y things? That way they can get some mechanical representation of their history without losing "real" combat power.

That's an awesome idea, thank you. I'll start doing that for my games ^_^


Say, a free Skill Focus (Craft/Profession), and free max points in one Craft/Profession?

Yeah, probably something like that ^_^

[Flickerdart]

Say, a free Skill Focus (Craft/Profession), and free max points in one Craft/Profession?
These are things that will literally never come up as a check in-game. I recommend something where characters can actually say "hey, I used to be a ______ so I totally got this". One of the knowledge skills not used for identifying monsters would be perfect for this, since it lets the DM organically inject information into the game.

[Vedhin]

These are things that will literally never come up as a check in-game. I recommend something where characters can actually say "hey, I used to be a ______ so I totally got this". One of the knowledge skills not used for identifying monsters would be perfect for this, since it lets the DM organically inject information into the game.

That's half the point-- there's so little potential for mechanical benefit, nobody feels like they "wasting" a feat by picking something that won't help them.

[Haluesen]

If we're talking about roleplaying, a character with Improved Initiative would be exactly the kind of person to willingly go along with a monster-slaying adventure despite being an unqualified farmer, because they're always jumping into everything head-first, probably without thinking things through. While seasoned veteran warriors might be running combat scenarios in their heads, and temper their approach with caution, this guy only knows one way to fight - run at the enemy and hit him with the heaviest, pointiest thing you're carrying - and so doesn't need to ponder before making his move.

People also don't always have every single one of their traits perfectly align with their career. They have hobbies, past experiences that have shaped them into the people they are today. A farmer who's never held a sword in his life might still live in a very dangerous area, where small villages huddle together against threats like bandits or monsters, where thinking before acting gets you dead, where outsiders aren't welcome because it's the way of the village to send them packing before they can cause trouble. Maybe the farmer had to learn quick reflexes as a child, to beat feet when his drunken father came staggering through the door, or when the orchard's tender was making the rounds while he and his friends were stuffing their pockets with apples.

Maybe the farmer isn't a dirty cheating optimizer, and didn't pick Skill Focus (Profession: Farming) so that he could min-max his earnings.

You see what I did there? I looked at a character taking a feat and instead of trying to find reasons why the character shouldn't be allowed have the feat, I thought about why he should. The result is somebody who is much more interesting and colourful than "guy who is a farmer and took Skill Focus: Farming to be good at farming."

For all your boasts about being a master roleplayer, jedipotter, you haven't really shown us any compelling evidence of your virtuosity. I just turned "+4 to a single type of roll" into a background and personality.

Your move.

Wow that was rather intense to read. And it has given me some great ideas. :smallbiggrin: Out of everything I have read on this thread so far, I thank you for this FLickerdart. It is rather enlightening.


That is something I've never even thought of. I suppose I'm being a little close minded when it comes to backstory stuff. Thanks for showing me a better way ^_^



I was talking specifically about level one stuff. But, I've never restricted a player/ told them they couldn't have a feat because of backstory. I would just love to see my players have a little more dedication to roleplaying. Instead they make every choice they can to get more bonuses. It isin't the biggest problem, and I don't even talk to them about it. Its just my style of playing, Its how I would play my character. I wouldn't impose my style on them. I don't any of us are in the wrong for our own playstyle so long as we don't impose it on others.



It would be. I allow feat retraining in my games. I would just like someone to have a feat the represented their backstory instead of feats that all gave bonuses. I don't force them to even take backstory related feats. It would just be a nice change.

I love seeing people on this forum talk about things reasonably. :smallsmile: I'm much the same, wanting the feats that make sense for my character's story rather than their power, though I do try to balance the two. I am more often a DM than a player though, so I try to show this to the new players to the game I have trained. Sometimes it sorta sticks, but that's okay if it doesn't quite. :smalltongue:


Say, a free Skill Focus (Craft/Profession), and free max points in one Craft/Profession?

I think this is a rule I might start adding to games I run from now on. Would certainly make rp more in-depth.

[3WhiteFox3]

It would be. I allow feat retraining in my games. I would just like someone to have a feat the represented their backstory instead of feats that all gave bonuses. I don't force them to even take backstory related feats. It would just be a nice change.

You want to encourage background feats? Give every character a bonus skill focus feat for something relevant to their backstory. To keep them from only choosing skills like perception or UMD, I would probably limit it to craft, profession or knowledge. I also like to give everyone free ranks in a profession skill of their choice.

[Kazudo]

Hey, be fair, these posts haven't had a single mention of katana in them, or retroactive changes to the entire world structure! :smallbiggrin:

There has been mention, IIRC, of tempering cheese however.

In the meantime, I think personally that this thread has about jumped the shark, as have the other Jedipotter threads, because they've really just turned into "Jedipotter says something the board finds shocking and incorrect, board attempts to change Jedipotter's mind, Jedipotter misses the point and/or evades it (because most flame spells save for half and somehow he has Evasion) and retorts with more shocking things and/or some grade of rhetoric or other, and suddenly the cycle begins again" threads.

The original question has been explored several different ways. The answer is that Jedipotter's definition of cheating at his table is different than many/most of the people who have posted, and that's ok. If he gets players, he gets players and that's that.

There are two sides to this argument arising, and honestly all it takes is for one side to just say "whatever" and stomp out. No one is going to change Jedipotter's mind, no one is going to change the Playground's mind, it should be wrapped up before it starts getting people being MORE inflammatory and, worse, banned.

[Brookshw]

So... is system mastery cheating?

I would agree that using the rules for infinity loopholes (Pun-Pun, Wish-spamming, etc., 9th level spells at 1st level) would be cheating, even if technically RAW and most GMs should stop stuff like that.

However, it should be okay if you use the rules to build a character who is, let's say... hands down the best warrior, for his level, in the entire campaign. That is, the character does insane (but finite) damage and encountered monsters have a hard time even scratching him... and he has also extra tricks under his sleeve for variety.

Or lets say there's a wizard who can mind control pretty much anyone who is not a divine caster or a construct and thus end many encounters with one spell.

Or the player finds some other clever way to build an unique build, with an interesting and powerful trick that lets him break the tedious "attack roll & damage"-game, with mediocre abilities, until one side is dead.

What I'm trying to say is that you should imagine D&D as a one giant game of rock-paper-sciccors. If the proverbial sciccors beats the proverbial paper, you shouldn't complain about the proverbial sciccors being OP but instead find the proverbial rock.

Remember, everything has weaknesses.

While that's certainly valid bear in mind it can have certain undersirable effects. An arms war mentality is one potential outcome and in most instances doesn't produce a more enjoyable game. Another element is that it both reduces the players ability to use their abilities if some counter is already in place which can be frustrating for them and feels a bit vindictive as if you're targeting them. These problems can be overcome but they aren't always a great option to turn to. If you did go this route I'd encourage only sparse application.

[Flickerdart]

That's half the point-- there's so little potential for mechanical benefit, nobody feels like they "wasting" a feat by picking something that won't help them.
No, no. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that unless another PC or an NPC literally looks at your character sheet, they won't know that you were a farmer or an accountant or whatever, because there will never be an opportunity for you to demonstrate it. Effectively, it would be the same as not having the feat and skill at all, in which case what was the point of making the houserule?

[Amphetryon]

While that's certainly valid bear in mind it can have certain undersirable effects. An arms war mentality is one potential outcome and in most instances doesn't produce a more enjoyable game. Another element is that it both reduces the players ability to use their abilities if some counter is already in place which can be frustrating for them and feels a bit vindictive as if you're targeting them. These problems can be overcome but they aren't always a great option to turn to. If you did go this route I'd encourage only sparse application.

In my experience, a game where a given Character's "I Win" combo or tactic doesn't have a counter used by the enemy at least some of the time feels at least as artificial as a game where the "I Win" combo or tactic is always countered.

[Brookshw]

In my experience, a game where a given Character's "I Win" combo or tactic doesn't have a counter used by the enemy at least some of the time feels at least as artificial as a game where the "I Win" combo or tactic is always countered.

Agreed, hence sparse application.

[Amphetryon]

Agreed, hence sparse application.

We may be defining "sparse" differently, here. What approximate frequency qualifies as "sparse"?

[Brookshw]

We may be defining "sparse" differently, here. What approximate frequency qualifies as "sparse"?

Probably a level where a player doesn't feel routinely gimped which also can be dependant upon the party and their team play. I should think the best would be gauging the player's reaction and if its one of being challenged vs one of frustration. Maybe that's one or two encounters a session, maybe one every two sessions, maybe a whole session a month (assuming weekly play). Don't think I could give you a solid metric with the variables of player, party, trick, but if you wanted a rule of thumb I've found between 10-20% (usually on the lower end) tends to work well for my players.

[jedipotter]

For all your boasts about being a master roleplayer, jedipotter, you haven't really shown us any compelling evidence of your virtuosity. I just turned "+4 to a single type of roll" into a background and personality.

Your move.

Guess it would be an ipod stuck on replay to say ''that would be cheating in my game''.

Improved Initiative gives a +4 to initiative, that is it. It helps a character go first in combat, that is it. It does not help a character move faster, have or agility or wake up sooner. There are feats that do that sort of thing, but farmer Jim-Bob's player Zeno just cares about combat.

And in Jim-bob was a ''always jumping into everything head-first, probably without thinking things through'' type, that would be low Wisdom, right? Like less then average...like less then 10 maybe? But few optimizers would have a score that low unless it is a dump stat. And no optimizer divine caster that needed wisdom would have a colorful back story of ''always jumping into everything head-first, probably without thinking things through'' and the low Wisdom mechanic to match the role-play.

And maybe Jim-Bob did develop ''quick reflexes'', but that would be more the feat Improved Reflexs, Dodge, or even Alertness. But it's a stretch to say ''quick reflexes'' equals ''just going first in a fight''. And if Jim-Bob ran from the bullies would not the Run feat make more sense? Or Alterness? Or Dodge?

Sure you can shoe horn any feat into any story, but it will just be so silly. ''Bob is paranoid so he..er..acts first in combat?'' or ''Fred is always alert for danger....so he acts first in combat'' are silly.




In the meantime, I think personally that this thread has about jumped the shark, as have the other Jedipotter threads, because they've really just turned into "Jedipotter says something the board finds shocking and incorrect, board attempts to change Jedipotter's mind, Jedipotter misses the point and/or evades it (because most flame spells save for half and somehow he has Evasion) and retorts with more shocking things and/or some grade of rhetoric or other, and suddenly the cycle begins again" threads.


Yea, too bad it can't be more ''Jedipotter says something that most other posters don't like. The other posters attempt to change Jedipotters mind and have him fall in line with the rest of them. Jedipotter sees no reason to change his mind just as some posters don't like what he has said. So Jedipotter and the posters just agree to disagree.

[Kazudo]

Yea, too bad it can't be more ''Jedipotter says something that most other posters don't like. The other posters attempt to change Jedipotters mind and have him fall in line with the rest of them. Jedipotter sees no reason to change his mind just as some posters don't like what he has said. So Jedipotter and the posters just agree to disagree.

But they won't just agree to disagree because you want them to. Expecting them to treat YOU one way while failing to treat THEM a similar way is wrong. As long as you continue posting your opinions, they will continue posting theirs. That's how a forum works.

[Necroticplague]

Guess it would be an ipod stuck on replay to say ''that would be cheating in my game''.
Except that doesn't seem to fall under either the normal definition of cheating (breaking the rules), nor the definition of cheating that you have provided for us earlier (abusing a rule to gain an advantage). So you keep using the same phrase, buts its impossible to know what is actually means. That might be a response that gets more attention if you have a consistent meaning, even if it is nonstandard.


And if Jim-Bob ran from the bullies would not the Run feat make more sense? Or Alterness? Or Dodge?

No, for the following reasons:
1.Doesn't help you actually get away from them before. It helps you get away after they go. In which case, their already upon you.
2.it depends on how they are about the running away. If the did it with by being quicker, they might have improved initiative. if they did it by keeping a careful watch, they might have alertness. Could go either way.(coincedentally, both are pretty decent feats)
3.That only helps you not get hit, doesn't actually help with running away. Especially if he actually Runs, which would cause him to lose the dodge bonus.

And that all is assuming a very bland background with absolutely no character development planned. If someone takes something odd, it could just be something they use to plan character development. Like this farmer example might have intended for him to find he's better at combat than he thought he would be, and then deal with the implications that he may be a natural-born killer, and wonder what that speaks of his other traits. Not gonna be in the background because it hasn't happened yet, but still a valid part of their character arc.

[Juntao112]

I think this is a rule I might start adding to games I run from now on. Would certainly make rp more in-depth.

A DM who works with the players to bring their character concepts to life? This thread has no place for the likes of you, knave! Get you out, sir! Get you out!

[Threadnaught]

Guess it would be an ipod stuck on replay to say ''that would be cheating in my game''.

Improved Initiative gives a +4 to initiative, that is it. It helps a character go first in combat, that is it. It does not help a character move faster, have or agility or wake up sooner. There are feats that do that sort of thing, but farmer Jim-Bob's player Zeno just cares about combat.

Okay, maybe he kept Chickens that were always escaping and developed faster reflexes in the form of Improved Initiative to improve his reaction time to the Chickens' attempts to escape? I've found a legitimate reason for a no name farmer to improve their reaction times outside of being an adventurer. Could even earn a character the nickname Poultry Pursuer, the destroyer of worlds.

[TheIronGolem]

Improved Initiative gives a +4 to initiative, that is it. It helps a character go first in combat, that is it. It does not help a character move faster, have or agility or wake up sooner. There are feats that do that sort of thing, but farmer Jim-Bob's player Zeno just cares about combat.


You could say the same thing about Dodge or Lightning Reflexes, which you suggested as alternatives. They only provide an in-combat bonus too. There's no Ref Save Vs. Angry Orchid Farmer.

And if Farmer Jim-Bob's player Zeno really "only cares about combat", he's not going to go with a farming background to begin with; he'll say he was a soldier or assassin or gladiator or some such. You're not foiling some dirty cheater's evil plot here, you're just reinforcing the false dichotomy of "be weak or you're bad at RP" that, whether you like it or not, is the Stormwind Fallacy.

[jedipotter]

But they won't just agree to disagree because you want them to. Expecting them to treat YOU one way while failing to treat THEM a similar way is wrong. As long as you continue posting your opinions, they will continue posting theirs. That's how a forum works.

So your saying everyone on the forum won't agree? And me expecting them to agree to disagree will not happen as they don't think I'll agree to disagree with them? Is that how it works?


Except that doesn't seem to fall under either the normal definition of cheating (breaking the rules), nor the definition of cheating that you have provided for us earlier (abusing a rule to gain an advantage). So you keep using the same phrase, buts its impossible to know what is actually means. That might be a response that gets more attention if you have a consistent meaning, even if it is nonstandard.

To have a character take a feat that they would not have reasonably taken, just so the players optimized build works out, is that. If your making a 5th level homebody fighter who has never seen combat, he just worked as a guard, then they would not have Improved Initiative, Exotic Weapon(katana) and Weapon Focus(katna). A homebody cleric that had never been in a fight would have more non combative feats. But, an optimizer would never want to play a weak character with a feat like Negotiator, as then they could not be the crazy kanta hack and slasher. They would try some crazy backstory....''oh, um, my dad bought the kanta on a trip and my character learned how to use it to make his dad proud. I'm sure it even sounds creative to some...

[Boci]

To have a character take a feat that they would not have reasonably taken, just so the players optimized build works out, is that. If your making a 5th level homebody fighter who has never seen combat, he just worked as a guard, then they would not have Improved Initiative, Exotic Weapon(katana) and Weapon Focus(katna). A homebody cleric that had never been in a fight would have more non combative feats. But, an optimizer would never want to play a weak character with a feat like Negotiator, as then they could not be the crazy kanta hack and slasher. They would try some crazy backstory....''oh, um, my dad bought the kanta on a trip and my character learned how to use it to make his dad proud. I'm sure it even sounds creative to some...

How is the katana backstory any worse than "I was a guard and never saw combat"? Both are pretty dull and uninspired, so why not take the one that at least gives him the exotic weapon, and potential daddy issues?

[Kazudo]

So your saying everyone on the forum won't agree? And me expecting them to agree to disagree will not happen as they don't think I'll agree to disagree with them? Is that how it works?

That's how social interactions tend to work. The forum is made of too many people in too many walks of life with too many differences and too many experiences in too many places with too many problems and ideals and concepts of how things should be to expect them to all agree with any singular member. It is unrealistic for any one singular member to have expectations of the behavior of the other members as long as all parties involved meet the expected behaviors of the forum set forth by its moderators and creators. You can NOT expect the forum to agree to disagree with you. If you post an opinion in a public forum like this one or countless others, you cannot expect that it will be treated with respect if you yourself do not respect the opinions of others.

The moment that you said the word "Cheating" in tandem with the word "optimizer" you disrespected the opinions of many forum members who say otherwise. To expect respect of them when you have disrespected others is unfair to everyone. That's how it works, at least as I understand it.

You may expect to be allowed to have your own opinion. You may not expect to be allowed to force others to agree with it, and that goes for more than just Jedi.

[jedipotter]

How is the katana backstory any worse than "I was a guard and never saw combat"? Both are pretty dull and uninspired, so why not take the one that at least gives him the exotic weapon, and potential daddy issues?

I like dull backstories. I see way too many ''my mom was bitten by a vampire as i was born so I'm half-undead and at age five my dad sold me to illithids and they made me half-illithid and then a ran away and lived with some trolls so I got half-troll too...and....


And I'd be fine if daddy give his son any weapon other then a Red Flag Optimizer Weapon.

[Necroticplague]

To have a character take a feat that they would not have reasonably taken, just so the players optimized build works out, is that. If your making a 5th level homebody fighter who has never seen combat, he just worked as a guard, then they would not have Improved Initiative, Exotic Weapon(katana) and Weapon Focus(katana). A homebody cleric that had never been in a fight would have more non combative feats. But, an optimizer would never want to play a weak character with a feat like Negotiator, as then they could not be the crazy kanta hack and slasher. They would try some crazy backstory....''oh, um, my dad bought the kanta on a trip and my character learned how to use it to make his dad proud. I'm sure it even sounds creative to some...

Umm, for that fighter, it actually sounds like a highly reasonable feat selection, given the description. He's a guard, to he has to at least train to be quick to react to possible threats before they harm his charge, but lack of actual combat means he's too focused on using an impractical weapon (a katana is a masterwork bastard sword. Exotic profeciency in it just allows you to use it 1-handed, which actually decreases damage. And as always, weapon focus is crap).

[Juntao112]

I like dull backstories. I see way too many ''my mom was bitten by a vampire as i was born so I'm half-undead and at age five my dad sold me to illithids and they made me half-illithid and then a ran away and lived with some trolls so I got half-troll too...and....
Once again, it seems like there is no middle ground between painfully dull dirt farming and the implausibly ludicrous.

What about a nice compromise, like "I was a farmer and served in the local militia"?


And I'd be fine if daddy give his son any weapon other then a Red Flag Optimizer Weapon.
How is a katana, the mechanical equivalent of a bastard sword, more of a red flag than, say, a bastard sword?

[Boci]

I like dull backstories. I see way too many ''my mom was bitten by a vampire as i was born so I'm half-undead and at age five my dad sold me to illithids and they made me half-illithid and then a ran away and lived with some trolls so I got half-troll too...and....

Its useless me pointing out that there is a line beyween "I was a guard and never saw actual combat" and "''my mom was bitten by a vampire as i was born so I'm half-undead and at age five my dad sold me to illithids and they made me half-illithid and then a ran away and lived with some trolls so I got half-troll too...and...." right? Yeah, just checking. Honestly why even bother with background stories if you aren't going to use them for anything?


And I'd be fine if daddy give his son any weapon other then a Red Flag Optimizer Weapon.

A katana is a not an optimization weapon. You spend a feed in order to deal 1 more damage than a longsword, which is a poor return on a feat. Furthermore, if the weapon exists in game, aren't the players allowed to wield them?

[Trundlebug]

I like dull backstories. I see way too many ''my mom was bitten by a vampire as i was born so I'm half-undead and at age five my dad sold me to illithids and they made me half-illithid and then a ran away and lived with some trolls so I got half-troll too...and....


And I'd be fine if daddy give his son any weapon other then a Red Flag Optimizer Weapon.

I don't believe your stories. Plz post proof of gaming group. I consider you a troll. GiTP has very specific rules on that. Plz post proof. TY.

[jedipotter]

The moment that you said the word "Cheating" in tandem with the word "optimizer" you disrespected the opinions of many forum members who say otherwise. To expect respect of them when you have disrespected others is unfair to everyone. That's how it works, at least as I understand it.

Right, as soon as I said Cheating Optimizers everyone twisted that into ''all optimizers'' or worse ''if your reading this I'm talking directly about you personally.'' And even once a say Optimizers and Cheating Optimizers are different groups, everyone still sees it as ''them''.

I guess a lot of people call it ''cheese'' and not ''cheating'' for some reason, guess it makes them feel better?



You may expect to be allowed to have your own opinion. You may not expect to be allowed to force others to agree with it, and that goes for more than just Jedi.[/QUOTE]

[Brookshw]

And I'd be fine if daddy give his son any weapon other then a Red Flag Optimizer Weapon.

A katana and weapon focus is optimization? And I believe you mentioned for a guard? Cripes, I deal with contracts and licensing for a living but for the sake of my personal interests I went out and learned to use a three section staff....

[Friv]

Right, as soon as I said Cheating Optimizers everyone twisted that into ''all optimizers'' or worse ''if your reading this I'm talking directly about you personally.'' And even once a say Optimizers and Cheating Optimizers are different groups, everyone still sees it as ''them''.

Given that you declared "Improved Initiative" to be over the cheating line, yeah. You're pretty much going after everybody at this point.

[SiuiS]

First off everyone agrees that lying is cheating. If a character takes 20 damage, and the player does not subtract it from their characters hit points:Cheating. If a player just writes down a needed item on their character sheet when needed:Cheating. If a player adds in free damage from no game source:Cheating.


Then we are left with the other stuff. ...It would seem that most people say ''if you use the rules your never cheating.'' This is a bit of an odd statment as it lets a person ignore, bend or even break rules, but everyone will just say how ''clever'' they were to do that...

Now most of the world considers stacking the deck, that is ''following the rules'', but doing it in a way that makes the event unblanced in your favor to be cheating. For example if you were to have a football game with another group, it would be cheating for him to show up with NFL players. The same way it is cheating to have an adult compeat against a kid, as the kid will have not chance (depending on the event...)

I say that doing anything to ''make the game too easy for your character and invalidate any challange in the game is cheating.'' It does not matter if the rules ''let'' you do it or not. It is you as the player doing the act that is cheating. It's the players fault for not having the common sense to say ''well, I won't do that'' as it would be wrong and cheating.

Though it seems I'm the only one. Everyone else says ''anything goes''. You ''can't'' cheat at D&D. And all a poor DM can do is beg the players ''I know the rules are broken(all hail the rules), but can you pretty please with sugar on top not be a jerk?" and then the player, from up on his huge high horse can say, ''Ha ha, puny DM, why yes, sure I can play the game and not be a jerk...but just remember I do so at my whim....so we both know I'm so awesome I could break the game, but i'll agree not to do so for now.''

You can, indeed, cheat at D&D. It's about the social contract between all players (including DM). For some people the game is DM versus players, everything is in the table, let the dice lie as they roll. That's the game. The person who insists their PC is special and should survive is cheating if she forces it.

For some people, it's a story of epic tales and long-term stories of romance and danger and thunder and grace, and sometimes the dice or the rules get in the way of that. The person who says it's in the book so it's fair, she's cheating.

Dungeons and Dragons is a game of friends or acquaintances and that transcends the rules. The books. Editions. You play by the spirit of the game, even if the spirit of your game is the letter of the law rules.

[Kazudo]

I guess a lot of people call it ''cheese'' and not ''cheating'' for some reason, guess it makes them feel better?

Because cheating is a negative thing that involves lies and deceit while cheesing may not necessarily be negative nor based in negative connotations unless meant that way.

[Coidzor]

Right, as soon as I said Cheating Optimizers everyone twisted that into ''all optimizers'' or worse ''if your reading this I'm talking directly about you personally.'' And even once a say Optimizers and Cheating Optimizers are different groups, everyone still sees it as ''them''.

That's, in part, because it's an oxymoron. That's like saying virgin sluts or innocent murderers or fuel-efficient American automobiles. :smalltongue:

Edit: This is the internet, after all, and even if it wasn't such a sensitive subject matter due to the pernicious line of thinking that optimization is *wrong* that comes up every so often, there'd still be some flak for the contradiction in terms.


I guess a lot of people call it ''cheese'' and not ''cheating'' for some reason, guess it makes them feel better?

Because there's a qualitative difference between the two. :smalltongue: As said earlier, IIRC, it's the difference between theft and murder. Sexual harassment and bootlegging, even.

Apples and Oranges. Both are undesirable, but there are times and places where orange slices can be acceptable. Or fondue, generally nasty, but if you're actually in Switzerland or Sweden or wherever it comes from, it can be not half bad. :smallwink:

[eggynack]

And I'd be fine if daddy give his son any weapon other then a Red Flag Optimizer Weapon.
It really seems more like a red flag "guy with really low optimization ability" weapon, given how mediocre the katana is.

I guess a lot of people call it ''cheese'' and not ''cheating'' for some reason, guess it makes them feel better?
It likely has more to do with the fact that the definition of the word cheating has very little to do with most of the things you're describing, while the word cheese often fits very well.

[Kazudo]

If there were a weapon known as a red flag optimization weapon, it would probably be the quickrazor or spiked chain more than the katana. Katana takes up an EWP to wield one handed, and as a two-handed weapon (essentially a mwk bastard sword), it's subpar at best. The Greatsword is better if you don't want a reach weapon simply because of the better minimum damage.

[ryu]

That's, in part, because it's an oxymoron. That's like saying virgin sluts or innocent murderers or fuel-efficient American automobiles. :smalltongue:



Because there's a qualitative difference between the two. :smalltongue: As said, it's the difference between theft and murder. Sexual harassment and bootlegging.

Apples and Oranges. Both are undesirable, but there are times and places where orange slices can be acceptable. Or fondue, generally nasty, but if you're actually in Switzerland or Sweden or wherever it comes from, it can be not half bad. :smalltongue:

Hey it's entirely possible to make wonderful fondue if you get the right ingredients and know what you're doing. Are we talking chocolate based or cheese based?

[Kazudo]

For fondue, I believe you'd best chat with the French. However, it was first described in a Swiss journal by a German if I remember correctly.

So, you know, no one's sure who made it first but it's really cheesy and full of whine.

[Juntao112]

Right, as soon as I said Cheating Optimizers everyone twisted that into ''all optimizers'' or worse ''if your reading this I'm talking directly about you personally.'' And even once a say Optimizers and Cheating Optimizers are different groups, everyone still sees it as ''them''.


Praytell, what is an example of optimization that doesn't count as cheating?

[WesleyVos]

Praytell, what is an example of optimization that doesn't count as cheating?

I would like to see an example of this as well, since it seems like every attempt in this thread to optimize and justify the optimization with RP has been called cheating.

[Flickerdart]

Improved Initiative gives a +4 to initiative, that is it. It helps a character go first in combat, that is it. It does not help a character move faster, have or agility or wake up sooner. There are feats that do that sort of thing, but farmer Jim-Bob's player Zeno just cares about combat.
Improved Initiative means you start running before the other guy, or clock the other guy upside the head before he does you in. You're not moving faster, but the end result is the same.


And in Jim-bob was a ''always jumping into everything head-first, probably without thinking things through'' type, that would be low Wisdom, right? Like less then average...like less then 10 maybe?
It could be. But it could also be that he has enough Wisdom - folksy gut feel - to have things come out alright even without having to pause and think, which would actually be a high Wisdom.


And maybe Jim-Bob did develop ''quick reflexes'', but that would be more the feat Improved Reflexs, Dodge, or even Alertness. But it's a stretch to say ''quick reflexes'' equals ''just going first in a fight''. And if Jim-Bob ran from the bullies would not the Run feat make more sense? Or Alterness? Or Dodge?
Improved Reflexes does nothing whatsoever against bullies, or for running away. Alertness is perception-based. Dodge is exactly the sort of combat-only feat you keep on harping against, since AC only comes into play during battle.


Sure you can shoe horn any feat into any story, but it will just be so silly. ''Bob is paranoid so he..er..acts first in combat?'' or ''Fred is always alert for danger....so he acts first in combat'' are silly.
Saying "it's possible to give a bad explanation for a feat" isn't actually making an argument. We already know that you have the creativity of a log. Stop badmouthing people with nothing to back up your ridiculous claims and prove that you've got an ounce of roleplaying skill to make up for your irrational hatred of mechanical optimization. Show us one of your creative and original "good roleplay" characters who are pleasant and enjoyable to have in a game. Justify a single thing you've said with concrete examples and not limp-wristed hypotheticals.

[Kantolin]

Like less then average...like less then 10 maybe? But few optimizers would have a score that low unless it is a dump stat. And no optimizer divine caster that needed wisdom would have a colorful back story of ''always jumping into everything head-first, probably without thinking things through'' and the low Wisdom mechanic to match the role-play.

We've had multiple challenges along the lines of 'Optimize this character who has /no stat/ higher than 10?'

I've totally played a half-orc cleric who had a wisdom of 10, and thus could only cast orisons. He wasn't a very good cleric at all and knew this, but he wanted to do everything he could to help out Pelor anyway, so he mostly swept the floors and cleaned the pews.

The church he was at was destroyed by demons, however. Knowing he had no real method of helping, he took the sacred holy book that they kept at the church and booked it for the high temple to tell people what was going on.

Now, I haven't mentioned what his feats are yet, but I find myself doubting that this character does not match the 'I am a crappy, crappy cleric but I'm gonna try my best anyway' roleplay. :P Unless you think this character concept would totally be ruined if I didn't homebrew up a 'sweep floors' feat.

(...on that note, what is your opinion on homebrew in general? I presume poor unless you've made it yourself)


And maybe Jim-Bob did develop ''quick reflexes'', but that would be more the feat Improved Reflexs, Dodge, or even Alertness. But it's a stretch to say ''quick reflexes'' equals ''just going first in a fight''. And if Jim-Bob ran from the bullies would not the Run feat make more sense? Or Alterness? Or Dodge?

Interesting - you actually are supporting the idea that 'multiple things can help represent the same concept'. That's great!

Would it become cheating optimization if dodge was later used for a prestige class that required dodge? Or if they instead went with lightning reflexes as part of having an alarmingly high reflex save? Plus, which one is more 'cheating' and less 'roleplay', Alertness, Dodge, Lightning Reflexes, an 'I am skittish' flaw, Improved Initiative, or mobility? They all can represent the same concept (or slight variations thereof) by your own assertion.


To have a character take a feat that they would not have reasonably taken, just so the players optimized build works out, is that.

I suppose. But that has nothing to do with optimization by itself. Your specific example, in fact, is 'I wanna use a katana lol', and taking exotic weapon proficiency katana is pretty lousy optimization. This is once again totally not an optimizer idea, this is 'I think these are cool, so I'm gonna roleplay using a katana despite it being poor optimization'.

I mean sure, you can make a character whos feats have nothing to do with their backstory. This character may or may not be optimized. You can also make a character whos feats have everything to do with their backstory. This character may or may not be optimized.


If your making a 5th level homebody fighter who has never seen combat, he just worked as a guard,

O_o Geez, 5th level and he's never seen combat? What kind of challenges /did/ he go through that got him past level 1?


A homebody cleric that had never been in a fight would have more non combative feats.

I dunno - remember, clerics have weapon proficiencies. Clerics who stay at home and copy their holy texts still are trained in the use of a wide array of lethal weapons. If the cleric is an elf, has the war domain, or is just interested in weapon use in general...

And if they're not, but they take combattive feats anyway, they're just as likely to be an optimizer as not. I mean that 'combat feat' could be weapon focus (Kama).


But, an optimizer would never want to play a weak character with a feat like Negotiator, as then they could not be the crazy kanta hack and slasher.

Lots of people say, "I want my cleric to have bluff, can someone help me accomplish this?" Negotiator could show up there.


'oh, um, my dad bought the kanta on a trip and my character learned how to use it to make his dad proud. I'm sure it even sounds creative to some...

But then you said:


I like dull backstories.

So... I dunno. Katana suck. So you're fine if the daddy gave his son a more useful weapon like a greatsword (which would take zero feats to accomplish), but you're not okay if daddy gives his son a less useful weapon (that does take a feat to accomplish)?

And why would it be so horrible if the person is actually skilled at combat? Is 'my character does not suck at combat' a horrible thing? If I'm playing a guard who occasionally has to deal with bandits, I sure hope my guard is more skilled at combat than a toddler! I mean, if a katana /was/ better than a greatsword (it isn't), then the cost requirement to get the better weapon is that you're spending a feat, which could go towards power attack or something. Or skill focus(Does Nothing).


I see way too many ''my mom was bitten by a vampire as i was born so I'm half-undead and at age five my dad sold me to illithids and they made me half-illithid and then a ran away and lived with some trolls so I got half-troll too...and....

I don't think how complicated your backstory is has anything to do with... uh, much. Length might, but if you are demanding to know how each and every feat and skill point was spent in a character's backstory then they're always going to have a lengthy backstory regardless of optimization. If nothing else, one fighter might have intimidate while the other has handle animal.

I mean, compare:
'I was a halfling guard who hits hard and saw combat so I took power attack with my greatsword'

To:
'I was a half-troll guard who hits hard and saw combat so I took power attack with my greatsword'.

Not to mention, like...

A:
"My character is named Joe. His mother was a human who left him when he was young. His father was an elf who was really hurt by this and neglected Joe. Still, Joe always loved to watch his father practice <blacksmithing>. His father served in the militia, but he could never could get the hang of <power attack>, though, because he wasn't <strong> enough, so Joe clearly got all his <strength> from his mother. When he turned 12, his father began teaching him how to use the <greatsword> as a weapon, the way his own father had."

Compare to:

B:
"My character is named Joe. His mother was a human who left him when he was young. His father was an elf who was really hurt by this and neglected Joe. Still, Joe always loved to watch his father practice <weaving>. His father served in the militia, but he could never could get the hang of <weapon finesse>, though, because he wasn't <dexterous> enough, so Joe clearly got all his <dexterity> from his mother. When he turned 12, his father began teaching him how to use the <tonfa> as a weapon, the way his own father had."

I /presume/ you'd find B to be more 'cheating optimizer' than A, since Tonfa are (generally) less common weapons than Greatswords? As A is optimization (Power attack and greatswords are great) while B is much less so (Weapon finesse and Tonfa are notably weaker).

So I dunno. Man, now apparently length of backstory makes you unable to roleplay, according to jedipotter. There seems to be so many detriments in D&D that make you not want to roleplay.

[Juntao112]

Saying "it's possible to give a bad explanation for a feat" isn't actually making an argument. We already know that you have the creativity of a log. Stop badmouthing people with nothing to back up your ridiculous claims and prove that you've got an ounce of roleplaying skill to make up for your irrational hatred of mechanical optimization. Show us one of your creative and original "good roleplay" characters who are pleasant and enjoyable to have in a game. Justify a single thing you've said with concrete examples and not limp-wristed hypotheticals.

Shouldn't be too hard. Apparently his good players have folders full of 'em.

[jedipotter]

That's, in part, because it's an oxymoron. That's like saying virgin sluts or innocent murderers or fuel-efficient American automobiles. :smalltongue:

Edit: This is the internet, after all, and even if it wasn't such a sensitive subject matter due to the pernicious line of thinking that optimization is *wrong* that comes up every so often, there'd still be some flak for the contradiction in terms.


I see, it because the optimizers are too sensitive. Maybe they even ''protest too much''......

I say a good half of the optimizers are cheaters that exploit the rules for their own personal benefit. And I have met tons of them. Everyone else says that all optimizers are angles and as pure as the wind driven snow. And I guess everyone else plays with saints.

[Kazudo]

Everyone else says that all optimizers are angles and as pure as the wind driven snow. And I guess everyone else plays with saints.

I want to see a quote from everyone's account currently registered on this forum alone with that exact phrasing or similar or I won't believe you.

Let's make this a more possible scenario. Maybe YOU just play with people who are subpar or maybe YOU are subpar. It is easier to assume that one thing has messed up on its own than a thousand things messed up in tandem by coincidence.