It Seemed Like A Good Idea At The Time!

[atemu1234]

What PrCs, classes, feats, etc. never work out well in building an optimized character? Ones that are useless, but look good, at first glance.

[Emperor Tippy]

Vow of Poverty?

To make that work effectively you really have to know what you are doing, and even then it just tops out at decent.

Fireball blasting?

It can be made moderately effective but it is absurdly difficult to do so and even then tops out at decently mid op.

Specialization on a Wizard?
Slightly more controversial but I've only rarely found it to actually make a more capable character (and never outside of relatively low level play).

[defiantdan]

could you elaborate more on Specialization on a wizard? I see people like treantmonk saying that it's usually a good option to take especially Focused Specialist.


Vow of Poverty?

To make that work effectively you really have to know what you are doing, and even then it just tops out at decent.

Fireball blasting?

It can be made moderately effective but it is absurdly difficult to do so and even then tops out at decently mid op.

Specialization on a Wizard?
Slightly more controversial but I've only rarely found it to actually make a more capable character (and never outside of relatively low level play).

[Amphetryon]

could you elaborate more on Specialization on a wizard? I see people like treantmonk saying that it's usually a good option to take especially Focused Specialist.

Between Domain Wizard and Elven Generalist, there are better options from a pure optimization perspective than most anything one can do with the vast majority of Specialist Wizards. This doesn't make Specialist Wizards bad in general, unless the game is extremely high-op.

[Abd al-Azrad]

Defensive specialization. I don't know how many times one of my fellow players has bragged about a 50+ AC. It is certainly impressive, it allows you to laugh at your foes... it accomplishes nothing and mostly puts your fellow PCs at risk.

[Seclora]

Defensive specialization. I don't know how many times one of my fellow players has bragged about a 50+ AC. It is certainly impressive, it allows you to laugh at your foes... it accomplishes nothing and mostly puts your fellow PCs at risk.

Fun story. I've got a player in my game that just cannot be persuaded that skyrocketing his AC and boosting his weapon size are not the absolute tops. Played a Half-Giant Dire Werewolf spellsword with monkey grip and the whole shebang. Set off a whole AC war that ended with all our enemies having ACs in the sixties and power attack not even being an option.
Ironically, the same campaign I played a Half-Celestial, Werebear(Legendary Bear, DM lets us ignore RHD), Hobgoblin Soulknife Saint, with VoP. Character was ridiculous, but somehow competitive in melee that campaign.
Don't overdo AC.

Actually brought up my main bad optimization(false optimization?) trick. Monkey Grip.
Nothing it does can't be reasonably done with an item, and most of the ways of boosting weapon size don't stack.

[Inevitability]

Most damage-dealing cantrips. It looks like a good way for wizards to remain useful in combat after having cast most spells, right? In the end, just using a sling will be better.

[cerin616]

Using monk levels.

It always seems like a good idea.
Then i remember I can just get monk stuff somewhere else.

But I try so hard to make it op...

[Chronos]

Y'know, I'm actually going to agree with Tippy about school specialization. Most "trap" options, like Vow of Poverty or monk levels, still have some niche use somewhere where they can shine. But even without Domain Wizard and/or Elven Generalist, I have a hard time thinking of any situation where one extra spellslot per level is worth giving up access to two schools of magic.

[eggynack]

Most damage-dealing cantrips. It looks like a good way for wizards to remain useful in combat after having cast most spells, right? In the end, just using a sling will be better.
Really, most cantrips that are supposed to be used in combat. It's just a generally action inefficient thing to do.

[ComaVision]

One that hasn't been mentioned yet: Healers

I think I have FINALLY got my party out of the mindset that they need a healer. Hopefully now I can stop throwing CLW and Lesser Vigor wands at them and they'll get their own.

[SiuiS]

Vow of Poverty?

To make that work effectively you really have to know what you are doing, and even then it just tops out at decent.

Fireball blasting?

It can be made moderately effective but it is absurdly difficult to do so and even then tops out at decently mid op.

Specialization on a Wizard?
Slightly more controversial but I've only rarely found it to actually make a more capable character (and never outside of relatively low level play).

This whole bit here is pretty ludicrous. It requires one to think playing at highest optimization is the goal of playing. All three of these work in many games.


You know what was a terrible idea but seemed okay in theory? Soulborn.

[Flickerdart]

The thing is, though: there is no such thing as an "optimized" character in the sense you're using the phrase. All characters are optimized towards something. Specialization can be a trap - unless you're optimizing to be the best damn shapeshifter there ever was, in which case Focused Transmuter is your #1 jam. Pumping AC is usually counter-productive - unless you're a "sticky" Crusader type who can make sure that enemies will be attacking him, or facing his wrath.

Granted, there are options like Monk or Fireball that are terrible in their category but that's a completely different ball game.


You know what was a terrible idea but seemed okay in theory? Soulborn.
There are loads of "Paladin but with Subsystem X instead" classes and they are all garbage. It was never okay in theory.

[Emperor Tippy]

This whole bit here is pretty ludicrous. It requires one to think playing at highest optimization is the goal of playing. All three of these work in many games.

At anything but the lowest of optimization levels and/or very specific games/character builds both Vow of Poverty and Fireball blaster casters are straight up bad choices that seem good at first glance.

VoP is strictly worse than just paying double an items cost to get it as a slotless ritual (and that is if you can't convince your DM that the downsides justify a lower price than that) and fluffing your wealth/items as your gods blessing for your devotion.

Fireball blasting sounds great in theory, until you run into the prevalence of Immunity to Fire, SR being a thing that pretty much every monster above about CR 5 has, that it allows a save that averages high for a given CR, that the amount of damage it deals on average is insufficient to really have an impact on most equal CR foes, that large mobs of lower CR creatures are generally far easier than they initially appear (which also being more uncommon), and that any decently played enemy group is going to make it hard to make AoE attacks really effective in the first place.

[Jeff the Green]

Most damage-dealing cantrips. It looks like a good way for wizards to remain useful in combat after having cast most spells, right? In the end, just using a sling will be better.

What, don't all wizards throw around invisible city sanctum energy substitution fell frighten fell weaken fell animate fell drain sonic snaps with Arcane Thesis?

[Necroticplague]

Shining Blade of Heironeous. How about next time, picking something that gets actual class features?

[eggynack]

This whole bit here is pretty ludicrous. It requires one to think playing at highest optimization is the goal of playing. All three of these work in many games.
The core conceit of this thread is options that appear good, but which are bad from an optimization perspective. It's very possible to create a very powerful specialist wizard, just as it's very possible to create a very powerful VoP character, or a very powerful character that happens to have monkey grip, but that game object itself, the so called trap option, is intrinsically suboptimal in spite of appearances to the contrary. Whether one thinks that the quest for highest optimization is one both just and right or not, it is within that heavy scrutiny optimization framework that this thread exists.

[Cyussu]

Using monk levels.

It always seems like a good idea.
Then i remember I can just get monk stuff somewhere else.

But I try so hard to make it op...

Mind you the following trick would only work in gestalt through theory: Monk10//Paladin10, Ascetic knight for Instant 20th level Unarmed Damage and Smite Evil casts.

[Flickerdart]

Mind you the following trick would only work in gestalt through theory: Monk10//Paladin10, Ascetic knight for Instant 20th level Unarmed Damage and Smite Evil casts.
Big deal - Smite Evil is crap, and 2d10 is only an average of 11 points of damage.

[Cyussu]

Big deal - Smite Evil is crap, and 2d10 is only an average of 11 points of damage.

Isn't that the point of this post? It seems good on paper, but whether it does well in practice or not is a different story. And I like Monks. :D

Edit: Misspelled word op

[cerin616]

Isn't that the point of this post? It seems good on paper, but whether it does well in practice or not is a different story. And I like Monks. :D

Edit: Misspelled word op

I think FlickerDarts point is that your post sounds like you are saying the combination would be really good, and that im wrong to say monk levels are bad.

As for the actual build, its an interesting concept, and similar to some of the builds I had tried to make work (which they usually dont, and would be drastically improved as a cleric with SuS and some other ability for smite)

I had always thought that when you gestalt that you couldn't stack both sides like that, and that instead would be considered a level 10 paladin on one side with no monk levels, and a level 10 monk on the other with no paladin levels, and then from there you pick the benefit of the better of the two.

[Abd al-Azrad]

Playing a high-DC enchanter. I thought it would be awesome to knock out foes on Round One. Turns out it's much less awesome for your mighty magics to crash uselessly against them.

[Cyussu]

I think FlickerDarts point is that your post sounds like you are saying the combination would be really good, and that im wrong to say monk levels are bad.

As for the actual build, its an interesting concept, and similar to some of the builds I had tried to make work (which they usually dont, and would be drastically improved as a cleric with SuS and some other ability for smite)

I had always thought that when you gestalt that you couldn't stack both sides like that, and that instead would be considered a level 10 paladin on one side with no monk levels, and a level 10 monk on the other with no paladin levels, and then from there you pick the benefit of the better of the two.

As how Gestalt classes are explained, at least from all I've read, it's Class Features while the combination of how I stated would be a Feat, Ascetic Knight. Not specifically a Class' Ability, like Uncanny Dodge on a Rogue//Barbarian.

[Flickerdart]

Playing a high-DC enchanter. I thought it would be awesome to knock out foes on Round One. Turns out it's much less awesome for your mighty magics to crash uselessly against them.
This is why it's equally important that you have Enchantments that bolster your allies and/or ways of breaking immunity.

[Petrocorus]

There are loads of "Paladin but with Subsystem X instead" classes and they are all garbage. It was never okay in theory.
"Loads"? In WotC materials? Can you be more specific?

Do you include the Crusader in this garbage?


Y'know, I'm actually going to agree with Tippy about school specialization. Most "trap" options, like Vow of Poverty or monk levels, still have some niche use somewhere where they can shine. But even without Domain Wizard and/or Elven Generalist, I have a hard time thinking of any situation where one extra spellslot per level is worth giving up access to two schools of magic.

Specialisation and Focused Specialisation can be good, because one school is already almost useless at high level, out-of-the-box, thanks to immunity to mind-affecting effect, so you sacrifice only one actually. And because 3 schools are so good you can do 90% of your god-wizard stuff with them only. A Focused Transmuter or Conjurer doesn't lack that much in term of versatility.

[eggynack]

Specialisation and Focused Specialisation can be good, because one school is already almost useless at high level, out-of-the-box, thanks to immunity to mind-affecting effect, so you sacrifice only one actually. And because 3 schools are so good you can do 90% of your god-wizard stuff with them only. A Focused Transmuter or Conjurer doesn't lack that much in term of versatility.
Enchantment has its uses in out of combat scenarios, if you can disable your opponents before tearing through their defenses at your leisure, and I know Tippy is always rather partial to mind rape. Beyond that, it's rather difficult to construct a way to ban one or two other schools without losing significant versatility somewhere, and between domain wizard and elven generalist, you're not getting much of a slot edge.

[Burley]

My friend once made a vow of poverty wizard. He thought he was so clever, when he took eschew materials to get around the cost of his spell pouch.

Then, on the first night of the campaign, we reminded him of the value of his spell book.

[SiuiS]

There are loads of "Paladin but with Subsystem X instead" classes and they are all garbage. It was never okay in theory.

It worked for paladin and ranger!

... And that's it. Yeah.


The core conceit of this thread is options that appear good, but which are bad from an optimization perspective. It's very possible to create a very powerful specialist wizard, just as it's very possible to create a very powerful VoP character, or a very powerful character that happens to have monkey grip, but that game object itself, the so called trap option, is intrinsically suboptimal in spite of appearances to the contrary.

You know, I have a long and valid argument but you're right; when I read the OP I missed him saying "optimized character" somehow. Sorry, Tippy. In that framework you are absolutely correct and both blasting and VoP are a waste – especially since Sculpt Soul exists and outclasses VoP at 3rd level with minimal effort.



Fireball blasting sounds great in theory, until you run into the prevalence of Immunity to Fire, SR being a thing that pretty much every monster above about CR 5 has, that it allows a save that averages high for a given CR, that the amount of damage it deals on average is insufficient to really have an impact on most equal CR foes, that large mobs of lower CR creatures are generally far easier than they initially appear (which also being more uncommon), and that any decently played enemy group is going to make it hard to make AoE attacks really effective in the first place.

Wait, you meant literally just fireball? No comes of cold, no substitutions, no lightning bolts, no delayed blasts, no meteor swarms, no flame strikes, just 3rd level fireball all the live long day?

That's beyond suboptimal.

[Flickerdart]

"Loads"? In WotC materials? Can you be more specific?

Do you include the Crusader in this garbage?
Crusader doesn't count because it's a full participant in an excellent subsystem. A paladin-type class is a dabbler crippled by the "but if it's full BAB then it should be crap at everything else!" mentality that pervades 3.5.

Paladin: Paladin with Divine magic
Soulborn: Paladin with Incarnum
Divine Mind: Paladin with Psionics
Hexblade: Anti-paladin with Arcane magic

I believe that covers all the major subsystems (I'm not counting ToM subsystems here because they all have only one base class, nor PrCs, though there are loads of paladin-types there).

[Telonius]

Reaping Mauler. It looks great at first glance - hooray, something that would actually benefit a Grapple-based character! But then, you look at the prereqs ... and realize the bit about size ... and are a very sad gamer.

Master of Masks, for anything more than a one- or two-level dip. This one's more a case of diminishing returns hitting you like a brick wall at level 3. For levels 1 and 2, it looks awesome. An actor who can pretend to be everything, and holy cow, he's proficient in any weapon he picks up! But then you start comparing what you could have done if you'd just stayed in Rogue or Bard, and you look at your skill points and the class skill list, and it's suddenly a lot less awesome.

[(Un)Inspired]

Sculpt Soul exists.

What book is Sculpt Soul in? It sounds awesome.


Crusader doesn't count because it's a full participant in an excellent subsystem. A paladin-type class is a dabbler crippled by the "but if it's full BAB then it should be crap at everything else!" mentality that pervades 3.5.

Paladin: Paladin with Divine magic
Soulborn: Paladin with Incarnum
Divine Mind: Paladin with Psionics
Hexblade: Anti-paladin with Arcane magic


I have a soft spot in my heart of the Hexblade. Of course, that spot is probably so soft because its so low op.

[SiuiS]

Reaping Mauler. It looks great at first glance - hooray, something that would actually benefit a Grapple-based character! But then, you look at the prereqs ... and realize the bit about size ... and are a very sad gamer.

Jotunbrud. "You count as large when it's beneficial", means if you can get it onto a halfling you have the best of both worlds. :D


What book is Sculpt Soul in? It sounds awesome.


It's dragon magazine, I want to say 343 but I don't know why.

It basically lets you spend XP instead of GP to turn yourself into a slot less item at the rate of 1:5. I have a level 4 focused specialist necromancer who is also basically a suel lich because of magic jar as a spell like (and soon to be supernatural) ability.

[(Un)Inspired]

Jotunbrud.
It's dragon magazine, I want to say 343 but I don't know why.

It basically lets you spend XP instead of GP to turn yourself into a slot less item at the rate of 1:5. I have a level 4 focused specialist necromancer who is also basically a suel lich because of magic jar as a spell like (and soon to be supernatural) ability.

Wow that sounds cool I'm gonna try to track that down.

[Petrocorus]

My friend once made a vow of poverty wizard. He thought he was so clever, when he took eschew materials to get around the cost of his spell pouch.

Then, on the first night of the campaign, we reminded him of the value of his spell book.
Tatooed Wizard!
With a Geometer dip.


Crusader doesn't count because it's a full participant in an excellent subsystem. A paladin-type class is a dabbler crippled by the "but if it's full BAB then it should be crap at everything else!" mentality that pervades 3.5.

Paladin: Paladin with Divine magic
Soulborn: Paladin with Incarnum
Divine Mind: Paladin with Psionics
Hexblade: Anti-paladin with Arcane magic

I believe that covers all the major subsystems (I'm not counting ToM subsystems here because they all have only one base class, nor PrCs, though there are loads of paladin-types there).
OK, i understand your point better. IMHO, this classes are good concept poorly executed.


Enchantment has its uses in out of combat scenarios, if you can disable your opponents before tearing through their defenses at your leisure, and I know Tippy is always rather partial to mind rape. Beyond that, it's rather difficult to construct a way to ban one or two other schools without losing significant versatility somewhere, and between domain wizard and elven generalist, you're not getting much of a slot edge.
This is true, i just think that specialist, while inferior to Elven Generalist Domain Wizard are not that inferior.
Let's say the other side has arguments (http://community.wizards.com/forum/previous-editions-character-optimization/threads/1145491).

[cerin616]

As how Gestalt classes are explained, at least from all I've read, it's Class Features while the combination of how I stated would be a Feat, Ascetic Knight. Not specifically a Class' Ability, like Uncanny Dodge on a Rogue//Barbarian.

Thats fair, I could see it working both ways, and there are pros and cons to both interpretations. DM ruling is what it comes down to IMO.

[eggynack]

This is true, i just think that specialist, while inferior to Elven Generalist Domain Wizard are not that inferior.
Let's say the other side has arguments (http://community.wizards.com/forum/previous-editions-character-optimization/threads/1145491).
The other side definitely does have arguments. Specialist wizards are probably the thing in this thread that the other side has the most good points on. They're not the best arguments though. Treantmonk just kinda glosses over the actual spells you get out of evocation, and some of them aren't all that easy to replace, and he similarly ignores the versatility provided by swapping out spells in response to particular issues, and the utility of non-combat effects. There's nothing potential about the versatility provided by creating undead days before an adventure.

It also doesn't help that he seems to assume particular parties that will just make up the difference for you. If you just happen to have another wizard there to cast mind rape and similar spells for you, then sure, I guess you can ban enchantment. Just doesn't seem like the best thing to assume, in the same way you can't assume a particular stack of buffs in monk optimization.

[Petrocorus]

The other side definitely does have arguments. Specialist wizards are probably the thing in this thread that the other side has the most good points on. They're not the best arguments though. Treantmonk just kinda glosses over the actual spells you get out of evocation, and some of them aren't all that easy to replace, and he similarly ignores the versatility provided by swapping out spells in response to particular issues, and the utility of non-combat effects. There's nothing potential about the versatility provided by creating undead days before an adventure.

It also doesn't help that he seems to assume particular parties that will just make up the difference for you. If you just happen to have another wizard there to cast mind rape and similar spells for you, then sure, I guess you can ban enchantment. Just doesn't seem like the best thing to assume, in the same way you can't assume a particular stack of buffs in monk optimization.

I agree with all this. Personally, i would even ban Necromancy over Evocation, for personal taste mostly, and for Contingency, Wall of Force, and some other stuffs. The problem comes from Shadow Evocation that make Illusion able to replace a part of the school.
Necromancy also has the undead as you said and also other utility spells (clone, gentle repose, spectral hand...).

[aleucard]

The thing about Specialization is that it's not the spell slots that are really important. If you're that worried about being able to cast a large number of spells, get Sorcerer and take (at least) one of the many PrC's that add spells to your Spells Known list, assuming you're not using some method to shuffle your list (Tippy could probably name 5 separate ones off the top of his head, but I don't enjoy the thought of playing at that level quite yet, for I am delicious nubcake in comparison). Where it gets the real benefits is from things like Abrupt Jaunt (which is one of the few things needed to be able to refluff your Wizard into a Naruto Ninja and get away with it, on top of being very damn good defense) and the various forms of Specialist PrC. While you might not get access to your entire class list anymore, you are able to put (at least some of) those design resources towards benefiting things you're actually interested in. It's a case of versatility versus end power, which is complicated by some things being easier to replicate than others on both sides.

For something more directly related to the OP question (heh, I made a funny), I'd have to say Sneak Attack. It's very hard to be able to compete in damage with some of the monstrosities that occupy this end of the optimization spectrum, and that's without being completely shut down by somewhere around (though likely larger than) a fifth of the entire monster manual library on race alone. Workarounds exist, but then you're devoting build resources that can be better spent by classes that don't rely on sneak attack to rip things in half. A stealth-oriented caster can probably find some good use for it, but SA is just a bonus at this end and most casters have enough build resources that they could cover entire parties on their own.

[Necroticplague]

Jotunbrud. "You count as large when it's beneficial", means if you can get it onto a halfling you have the best of both worlds. :D



It's dragon magazine, I want to say 343 but I don't know why.

It basically lets you spend XP instead of GP to turn yourself into a slot less item at the rate of 1:5. I have a level 4 focused specialist necromancer who is also basically a suel lich because of magic jar as a spell like (and soon to be supernatural) ability.
Pretty sure jutonbrud is human-only.

As for sculpt soul, that's only if your allowed to make your own. If your DM decides you have to stick with the premade ones, its pretty crappy. If he lets you use custom magic items as a basic for custom sculpting, its pretty nice, though.

[Flickerdart]

Jotunbrud. "You count as large when it's beneficial", means if you can get it onto a halfling you have the best of both worlds. :D
Sadly you must be human (or any half-race with Human Heritage) to take it.


I have a soft spot in my heart of the Hexblade. Of course, that spot is probably so soft because its so low op.
Hexblades are a really cool concept (sinister knights that fight alongside a beefed up familiar) that took a nosedive because they came so early in the game's development. You think that -saves thing is for your own crappy spells and curse? No, it's so your Pseudodragon can knock enemies down with its poison left and right.





OK, i understand your point better. IMHO, this classes are good concept poorly executed.
For sure. There's a pretty large niche for people who want to check out a new subsystem without totally committing to it, or wanting a martial alternative for when their voodoo is powerless. WotC just forgot that full BAB isn't a superpower.

[(Un)Inspired]

Hexblades are a really cool concept (sinister knights that fight alongside a beefed up familiar) that took a nosedive because they came so early in the game's development. You think that -saves thing is for your own crappy spells and curse? No, it's so your Pseudodragon can knock enemies down with its poison left and right..

I'm a pretty huge fan of taking 4 levels of hexblade to get dark companion then taking binder till I can bind both focalor and chupoclops. With that huge of a saves minus it's pretty easy to land a curse and in one round you got a enemy that might as well have a target painted on their for casters.

[Flickerdart]

I'm a pretty huge fan of taking 4 levels of hexblade to get dark companion then taking binder till I can bind both focalor and chupoclops. With that huge of a saves minus it's pretty easy to land a curse and in one round you got a enemy that might as well have a target painted on their for casters.
Don't forget those Paladin of Tyranny or Blackguard dips, and of course Unseelie Fey.

Such a character is great when disguised as one of a bunch of mook casters fighting the PCs. They run up to him to murder him...and feel a dark influence as they suddenly fail save after save against low-level spells they should have easily beaten.

[(Un)Inspired]

Don't forget those Paladin of Tyranny or Blackguard dips, and of course Unseelie Fey.

Such a character is great when disguised as one of a bunch of mook casters fighting the PCs. They run up to him to murder him...and feel a dark influence as they suddenly fail save after save against low-level spells they should have easily beaten.

ahh yes I always forget about the Blackguard's aura of despair and unseelie fey. I always feel like I'm doing something wrong if I include paladin of tyranny and blackguard on the same build though.

It is pretty great to dump like a -20 to saves on an enemy without even spending a standard action.

[SiuiS]

l
OK, i understand your point better. IMHO, this classes are good concept poorly executed.

I think the specific execution is the concept in this case.


Pretty sure jutonbrud is human-only.

It might be human only, but from memory it's human only because of a specific locale – which doesn't exist outside of forgotten realms. Which means it's not about the human, it's about the locale, which isn't a factor when the locale doesn't exist.

I usually just get reincarnated to get past that though.


As for sculpt soul, that's only if your allowed to make your own. If your DM decides you have to stick with the premade ones, its pretty crappy. If he lets you use custom magic items as a basic for custom sculpting, its pretty nice, though.

Mm, is it worded as a "DM allowance" thing? Can't you very specifically design your own, they just have firm guidelines?

[Emperor Tippy]

Wait, you meant literally just fireball? No comes of cold, no substitutions, no lightning bolts, no delayed blasts, no meteor swarms, no flame strikes, just 3rd level fireball all the live long day?

That's beyond suboptimal.

Evocation Blasting in general. It all suffers from the same problems.


Specialisation and Focused Specialisation can be good, because one school is already almost useless at high level, out-of-the-box, thanks to immunity to mind-affecting effect, so you sacrifice only one actually. And because 3 schools are so good you can do 90% of your god-wizard stuff with them only. A Focused Transmuter or Conjurer doesn't lack that much in term of versatility.
Enchantment isn't useless at high level. What it is useless for is combat situations. If you think that Enchantment is bad then you have never seen a well played Enchanter. At high levels, anything that you can restrain or capture can be made your utter slave in about three rounds (Disjunction to strip all magical defenses, Polymorph Any Object to turn it into a human and thus strip type immunities, Mind Rape to rebuild its entire psyche however your desire).

Sure, Enchantment is generally the first school on the chopping block if you have to give one up but it is still a painful school to loose.

[(Un)Inspired]

Enchantment isn't useless at high level. What it is useful for is combat situations. If you think that Enchantment is bad then you have never seen a well played Enchanter. At high levels, anything that you can restrain or capture can be made your utter slave in about three rounds (Disjunction to strip all magical defenses, Polymorph Any Object to turn it into a human and thus strip type immunities, Mind Rape to rebuild its entire psyche however your desire).


Have you seen the Pedro Almodovar film The Skin I Live In?

[Emperor Tippy]

Have you seen the Pedro Almodovar film The Skin I Live In?

Nope, why?

[(Un)Inspired]

Nope, why?

It's a pretty great movie and the plot is basically your disjunction, polymorph, mindrape plan only without magic.

[Petrocorus]

For sure. There's a pretty large niche for people who want to check out a new subsystem without totally committing to it, or wanting a martial alternative for when their voodoo is powerless. WotC just forgot that full BAB isn't a superpower.
Yeah, they apparently believed that just having Full BAB was a big deal and was worth several CL, and should be considered as the main feature of some classes.



Enchantment isn't useless at high level. What it is useful for is combat situations. If you think that Enchantment is bad then you have never seen a well played Enchanter. At high levels, anything that you can restrain or capture can be made your utter slave in about three rounds (Disjunction to strip all magical defenses, Polymorph Any Object to turn it into a human and thus strip type immunities, Mind Rape to rebuild its entire psyche however your desire).
I indeed never saw big Enchantment-fu in game.

[Mystia]

Hmm, as for prestige classes that look good at first, but really aren't so... I think that I should make an obligatory mention to True Necromancer and Yathrinshee. While technically not useless, they are very suboptimal choices.

[Calimehter]

It's a pretty great movie and the plot is basically your disjunction, polymorph, mindrape plan only without magic.

Now I need to see this just to know what a non-magical Disjunction looks like. :D

[(Un)Inspired]

Now I need to see this just to know what a non-magical Disjunction looks like. :D

Heh well... It's basically holding someone in isolation for years while you're modifying there body and mind to be unrecognizable to the point that their psychological defenses are basically shattered because they can no longer associate with what was previously their self-identity.

[Necroticplague]

It might be human only, but from memory it's human only because of a specific locale – which doesn't exist outside of forgotten realms. Which means it's not about the human, it's about the locale, which isn't a factor when the locale doesn't exist.

I usually just get reincarnated to get past that though.
Nope, it specifically says "Damaran or Illuskan human". So you do have to be human.

[nedz]

For something more directly related to the OP question (heh, I made a funny), I'd have to say Sneak Attack. It's very hard to be able to compete in damage with some of the monstrosities that occupy this end of the optimization spectrum, and that's without being completely shut down by somewhere around (though likely larger than) a fifth of the entire monster manual library on race alone. Workarounds exist, but then you're devoting build resources that can be better spent by classes that don't rely on sneak attack to rip things in half. A stealth-oriented caster can probably find some good use for it, but SA is just a bonus at this end and most casters have enough build resources that they could cover entire parties on their own.

Ray-Sorcerors with sneak attack. There are plenty of nice builds out there, unfortunately the best rays aren't the ones which do damage.

[SiuiS]

Nope, it specifically says "Damaran or Illuskan human". So you do have to be human.

Mm. And reincarnate would probably trigger the 'you don't qualify for your feat' clause, needing some savage species shenanigans.

[torrasque666]

Reforged 2 on a Juggernaut. Looks fine at first glance, almost seems like you'll be able to be this tanky mofo and still be healed. But all it does is let you take 100% of the healing instead of 50%. And 100% of 0 is.....?

[Flickerdart]

ahh yes I always forget about the Blackguard's aura of despair and unseelie fey. I always feel like I'm doing something wrong if I include paladin of tyranny and blackguard on the same build though.

It is pretty great to dump like a -20 to saves on an enemy without even spending a standard action.
That's because the debuffs don't stack - both abilities are called Aura of Despair and do the same thing.

Now Paladin of Slaughter 10/Blackguard 10 works - you get all the bonus goodies of a fallen Paladin without losing any of your old abilities. Sure, Debilitating Aura kind of sucks, but it's better than literally nothing.

[DarkSonic1337]

VoP is strictly worse than just paying double an items cost to get it as a slotless ritual (and that is if you can't convince your DM that the downsides justify a lower price than that) .

You can do this? I had assumed that when making a slotless magic item that was...well still an item and had to be worn somewhere on your person to take effect. Things like Ion stones or tattoos or something.

I really wanna do this now for my next character.

[Cyussu]

Thats fair, I could see it working both ways, and there are pros and cons to both interpretations. DM ruling is what it comes down to IMO.

Yeah, that seems to be the end all to a lot of things though. DM = God of Gods, End all Say all. But I really like the concept to combine the 2 with that feat. My issue is, I dislike running Lawful Good, far too many things holding me back. Closest I can get to what I prefer is CG using Paladin of Freedom with Chaos Monk. (Speaking to my DM to see what his interpretation of Battle Dancer toward Monk Classes due to the sheer lack there of non-Lawful Monk Variants.) Because I can see BtlDnc/PoF being a lot of fun.

[Auron3991]

Arcane Archer. Hey, I get all these awesome arrows. Cool, I get full BAB and good fort/ref saves. Awesome, I get a death effect arrow.

Then realize that the enhancement only works on non-magic arrows, the death arrow has a fixed Fort DC of 20, and that you probably would have been further ahead if you had been an eldritch knight so you could have caster progression and simply focused on archery.

[Pex]

Y'know, I'm actually going to agree with Tippy about school specialization. Most "trap" options, like Vow of Poverty or monk levels, still have some niche use somewhere where they can shine. But even without Domain Wizard and/or Elven Generalist, I have a hard time thinking of any situation where one extra spellslot per level is worth giving up access to two schools of magic.

If you're never going to cast the spells anyway might as well. Personally I'd never cast Necromancy as a wizard so it's an easy opposition school for me. I don't care how awesome other people find Enervation or Vampiric Touch. I had never cast them, don't miss them, and never need them. The second school is problematic and would depend on my mood. It could be Illusion. I'd only be disappointed in losing Invisibility and Displacement. It could be Evocation, but sometimes direct damage is the best option. I'd have to go with character personality along with what I specialize in, which could be Illusion or Evocation themselves. I'd never specialize Necromancy so that's not an issue.

[SiuiS]

Arcane Archer. Hey, I get all these awesome arrows. Cool, I get full BAB and good fort/ref saves. Awesome, I get a death effect arrow.

Then realize that the enhancement only works on non-magic arrows, the death arrow has a fixed Fort DC of 20, and that you probably would have been further ahead if you had been an eldritch knight so you could have caster progression and simply focused on archery.

I may have to do that. I've wanted to play an arcane archer since 3e came out, and there's never been a group that was cohesive enough that played at low enough optimization to make it not a crap option.


If you're never going to cast the spells anyway might as well. Personally I'd never cast Necromancy as a wizard so it's an easy opposition school for me. I don't care how awesome other people find Enervation or Vampiric Touch. I had never cast them, don't miss them, and never need them. The second school is problematic and would depend on my mood. It could be Illusion. I'd only be disappointed in losing Invisibility and Displacement. It could be Evocation, but sometimes direct damage is the best option. I'd have to go with character personality along with what I specialize in, which could be Illusion or Evocation themselves. I'd never specialize Necromancy so that's not an issue.

Why? My necromancer is a priest and gourmand, who studies the emotional relationships between life and death and embraces the good, transient things because their transience gives them worth.

Needn't always be the morbid skulking cowled figure, y'know?

[Kurald Galain]

Most damage-dealing cantrips. It looks like a good way for wizards to remain useful in combat after having cast most spells, right? In the end, just using a sling will be better.
Yes, or just grab a cheap Wand of Magic Missiles or something. I've seen so many caster characters (not just wizards) think they were being productive by pinging with Acid Splash for 1-3 damage per round...

Aside from that: Arcane Trickster. The whole concept of sneak attacking with your spells sounds pretty cool. But in terms of damage either a dual wielding rogue or a straight caster just does it better.

Also, seconding the parts about Hexblade. I think they basically printed Duskblade to replace the whole of the Hexblade class.

[Pex]

I may have to do that. I've wanted to play an arcane archer since 3e came out, and there's never been a group that was cohesive enough that played at low enough optimization to make it not a crap option.



Why? My necromancer is a priest and gourmand, who studies the emotional relationships between life and death and embraces the good, transient things because their transience gives them worth.

Needn't always be the morbid skulking cowled figure, y'know?


Personal taste. Necromancy spells don't appeal to me, so I don't use them. One player's "it sucks! it's a trap!" is another player's "awesome idea! perfect strategy!". The problem with the OP's premise is an individual's subjectiveness. From personal experience and witness I have seen great value with healing in combat and Evocation damage spells. That some people here think they are abominations of awful play is worthless to me. Their opinions do not change my observable reality for the games I'm in.

[Petrocorus]

Also, seconding the parts about Hexblade. I think they basically printed Duskblade to replace the whole of the Hexblade class.

Which qualify on its own as "a good idea at the times". The class look awesome, a gish-in-a-can with synergizing class features, until you read the spell list and see it lacks most of the obvious buffs, a lot of BFC and has almost no utility spells. And you end up being a two or three tricks pony.

[nedz]

Personal taste. Necromancy spells don't appeal to me, so I don't use them. One player's "it sucks! it's a trap!" is another player's "awesome idea! perfect strategy!". The problem with the OP's premise is an individual's subjectiveness. From personal experience and witness I have seen great value with healing in combat and Evocation damage spells. That some people here think they are abominations of awful play is worthless to me. Their opinions do not change my observable reality for the games I'm in.

Different groups, actually different DMs, run very different games. I have seen blasting work, but only against low OP opponents run badly. Against opponents who are aware of the possibility, at least if they are run competently, blasting fails. Also it's an example of casters stepping on the toes of melee.

In combat healing can be the right thing to do in some situations, but there are usually better options — almost always really.

[Pex]

Different groups, actually different DMs, run very different games. I have seen blasting work, but only against low OP opponents run badly. Against opponents who are aware of the possibility, at least if they are run competently, blasting fails. Also it's an example of casters stepping on the toes of melee.

In combat healing can be the right thing to do in some situations, but there are usually better options — almost always really.

Case in point.

I differ in opinion on the worth of healing in combat and Evocation damage; therefore, the only possible explanation is everyone I play with since 3E came out plays the game wrong and/or stupidly. Yeah, that must be it.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Case in point.

I differ in opinion on the worth of healing in combat and Evocation damage; therefore, the only possible explanation is everyone I play with since 3E came out plays the game wrong and/or stupidly. Yeah, that must be it.

I didn't see a value judgement in his statement. Low op is not wrong but it is low op.

[Pex]

Different groups, actually different DMs, run very different games. I have seen blasting work, but only against low OP opponents run badly. Against opponents who are aware of the possibility, at least if they are run competently, blasting fails. Also it's an example of casters stepping on the toes of melee.

In combat healing can be the right thing to do in some situations, but there are usually better options — almost always really.


I didn't see a value judgement in his statement. Low op is not wrong but it is low op.

Highlighted.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Highlighted.

I see "poorly" not "wrong," "well' not "right," and a piece of tactical advice without context.

Deliberately playing a creature that is poorly optimized and uses poor tactics isn't "wrong" but it -is-, in an absolute sense, a much less threatening challenge than the very same creature with more optimal feat choices and better tactics.

Neither choice is inherently better than the other because of the subjective nature of gaming groups. The "poorly" played version can very easily be the correct choice for a DM to make if his players tend toward low-op character building or are unwilling/unable to deal with complex tactics.

[Pex]

I see "poorly" not "wrong," "well' not "right," and a piece of tactical advice without context.

Deliberately playing a creature that is poorly optimized and uses poor tactics isn't "wrong" but it -is-, in an absolute sense, a much less threatening challenge than the very same creature with more optimal feat choices and better tactics.

Neither choice is inherently better than the other because of the subjective nature of gaming groups. The "poorly" played version can very easily be the correct choice for a DM to make if his players tend toward low-op character building or are unwilling/unable to deal with complex tactics.

But the assumption was evocation damage spells only worked because the bad guys were poorly optimized or played wrong.

Still doesn't change my observable reality that evocation damage spells worked with the bad guys optimized and played smartly. Also doesn't change my observable reality that healing in combat as a particular tactic worked, being essential in defeating the bad guys as a more contributory factor than doing something else. Which goes back to my original point. What some people think as "it sucks! it's a trap!" others find as "awesome idea! perfect strategy!". It's a matter of one's personal taste, but one's disagreement should not insist those of the opposing view are playing incompetently.

[nedz]

Actually I was thinking more about my own experience with several DMs. There is no right or wrong way to play this game, but some people are better at tactics than others. A large part of this game is combat.

[eggynack]

But the assumption was evocation damage spells only worked because the bad guys were poorly optimized or played wrong.
Yes, it is. Without more evidence, it seems like a fair assumption to make. That is doubly true for the healing. It's possible that the suboptimal actions were buoyed up by the more optimal actions from other party members, and that could also account for it, but if everyone was at that general power level, then low power on the villain side is the best explanation.


Still doesn't change my observable reality that evocation damage spells worked with the bad guys optimized and played smartly. Also doesn't change my observable reality that healing in combat as a particular tactic worked, being essential in defeating the bad guys as a more contributory factor than doing something else. Which goes back to my original point. What some people think as "it sucks! it's a trap!" others find as "awesome idea! perfect strategy!". It's a matter of one's personal taste, but one's disagreement should not insist those of the opposing view are playing incompetently.
But, if you think that evocation blasting and healing is optimal, then it is highly likely that your opinion of the optimization level of your foes is similarly off. After all, were you faced by some evocation blasters and healers, then you would likely consider that a reasonably well optimized foe. It's also possible that these assessments that optimization folk here would consider incorrect spread into other sectors of the game. And no, this isn't a matter of personal taste. Certain options are just objectively better than others, and while there's a good amount of wiggle room there, this isn't just people stating a preference and claiming it as optimization.

[Threadnaught]

But the assumption was evocation damage spells only worked because the bad guys were poorly optimized or played wrong.

Still doesn't change my observable reality that evocation damage spells worked with the bad guys optimized and played smartly. Also doesn't change my observable reality that healing in combat as a particular tactic worked, being essential in defeating the bad guys as a more contributory factor than doing something else. Which goes back to my original point. What some people think as "it sucks! it's a trap!" others find as "awesome idea! perfect strategy!". It's a matter of one's personal taste, but one's disagreement should not insist those of the opposing view are playing incompetently.

Umm Pex, you seem to be building quite the Strawman.

I don't see nedz make any statement about how people should play the game, just a statement about how different people and groups play differently and that his personal experience of blasters showed they only worked when the DM wasn't using the most powerful enemies available or making the best choices for those creatures' actions. Nothing about how people should play in order to enjoy themselves.

In my personal experience, Mount is the most powerful Spell at level 1. That angry Horse really did help against those Rats. Not that this makes Mount powerful, it's just the most useful Summon at 1st level for me. For me. For me. I just want to make sure it's clear that this is my personal experience, if I have to (figuratively) bludgeon you with it and be a condescending jerk to avoid you building a Strawman of me, then so be it.

[Pex]

Yes, it is. Without more evidence, it seems like a fair assumption to make. That is doubly true for the healing. It's possible that the suboptimal actions were buoyed up by the more optimal actions from other party members, and that could also account for it, but if everyone was at that general power level, then low power on the villain side is the best explanation.


But, if you think that evocation blasting and healing is optimal, then it is highly likely that your opinion of the optimization level of your foes is similarly off. After all, were you faced by some evocation blasters and healers, then you would likely consider that a reasonably well optimized foe. It's also possible that these assessments that optimization folk here would consider incorrect spread into other sectors of the game. And no, this isn't a matter of personal taste. Certain options are just objectively better than others, and while there's a good amount of wiggle room there, this isn't just people stating a preference and claiming it as optimization.

What is objectively clear is I don't need your approval.

[eggynack]

What is objectively clear is I don't need your approval.
And that is entirely your prerogative. However, if you actually want to defend your position, that your foes were played in a competent or optimal manner, and by extension, that these strategies have a place in reasonably optimal play, then you're going to need more than just claiming that both things are the case. No one needs my approval in order to progress through their lives in a fulfilled manner, but you seem to want it, given how staunchly you're defending the optimized nature of your game as a whole.

[Threadnaught]

What is objectively clear is I don't need your approval.

You don't need anyone's approval to play the game the way you want to, besides the group of people you play with.

You do, however, require a little more than "it's my opinion therefore it's fact" to back up your current argument. If your first response is to continue to claim that your opinions are fact, or to build more strawmen, then please, make your first words "Threadnaught, put me on Ignore" it would be doing me a massive favour.

Poorly played =/= played wrong.
Optimized =/= Played correctly.
Whole group having fun (for the most part) = Played correctly.

[atemu1234]

What is objectively clear is I don't need your approval.

What is objectively clear is that we don't need yours, either.

You can't just go on and complain about something, then when people argue back just say you're going to ignore them.

[Amphetryon]

What is objectively clear is that we don't need yours, either.

You can't just go on and complain about something, then when people argue back just say you're going to ignore them.

I'm pretty sure he can, actually.

[Necroticplague]

I'm pretty sure he can, actually.

He can, but whether it does anything but make him look like a moron is questionable at best. It certainly doesn't help his point of 'evocation blasting and healing in combat can be optimal in games that aren't low-op' remotely, for certainty.

[PsyBomb]

ANYWAY...

Back on topic, several of the Sneak Attack feats fall under this category. Sure, the idea of setting up crippling status effects is awesome, but none of the ones available are really in the Suck or Lose categories for many opponents, and you give up a lot of your damage to use them.

[Threadnaught]

Item Familiar is quickly becoming this for me. I created a Bloodline with Item Familiar, a whole bunch of X to Int stuff and the broken part of Initiate of Mystra for Elves, which I'm using for a Wizard (I know, I'm dastardly).
Then it recently began to dawn on me that I have no idea how to use Item Familiars to their full potential.

[Necroticplague]

Lycanthropy is a bit one of these. Cool flavor, and a quick route to being really strong (physically, if you get bit by the right thing), but the RHD and that LA are pretty crippling on their own. Combined, and its just too much of your ECL being eaten up to be worth it.

[aleucard]

Item Familiar being allowed at all shows either exactly how little the DM read the listing or how little the DM understood it. Broken doesn't even begin to describe that monstrosity.

[eggynack]

Lycanthropy is a bit one of these. Cool flavor, and a quick route to being really strong (physically, if you get bit by the right thing), but the RHD and that LA are pretty crippling on their own. Combined, and its just too much of your ECL being eaten up to be worth it.
Yeah, seems true of most cool things with LA and/or RHD, really. Monster abilities just don't typically keep up with class abilities.

[nedz]

I had a new player join an existing mid level group. He created a Scout, which was fine, and took the Quick Reconnoitre feat which allowed him to make spot and listen checks as a free action.

Upon considering this it appeared that I had inadvertently been running with a house rule which allowed every one to do this anyway — just our misunderstanding of the rules. In order to avoid invalidating his feat choice I then had to play closer to RAW and force everyone else to spend actions to do these things.

So his feat choice gave no actual advantage to him, but imposed a disadvantage on everyone else.

[SangoProduction]

Vow of Poverty?

To make that work effectively you really have to know what you are doing, and even then it just tops out at decent.



VoP is actually really damned powerful. (I accidentally deleted the sheet during the great character sheet incineration of 2014, but...) I was able to make a character at level 18 with more than 55 AC with it (which beats a good number of gods). I could have pushed it higher if I hadn't chosen to be human, but I always do crazy **** (rarely OP, just crazy), so my group banned me from playing anything but human, lol.

VoP gives bonus feats for absolute free. The chart and the text differ on this point, because the graph says they gained one at level 1, and the text doesn't. Meaning, if you are human, you can get two additional feats from it (because you can actually take both VoP and SV at level 1 so you get the bonus feat at level 1, and 2). Granted, these are limited to exalted feats so they aren't the most general, nor build-defining feats out there, but they are essentially for free, but Vow of Nonviolence/peace are great kickers if you're just going full defensive (that chance to break enemy weapons lol), but aren't exceptionally viable with normal groups.

Then just took a venerable monk (granting me bonuses to intelligence stat), and took 4 or 5 different feats that added my intelligence to my AC while unencumbered and not wearing armor. These were unnamed bonuses, so they stacked. Then leveled into duelist, who gains bonus to AC up to intelligence bonus, based on its level while not wearing armor. [There's another prestige class that gave AC bonus, I can't really remember what though) That +10 armor bonus to AC from VoP that is impossible to get without armor is useful for this build. The deflection and stats and other bonuses might be replicatable with magic items, but that really can't, as far as I've seen.

the maximum saves progression from monk was also quite handy. Admittedly, I didn't deal near as much damage as the rest of my party, or, god forbid, those shoe-horned charge builds, but I was never hit, so even if I'm only dealing 1 damage per turn, I'm still going to win.
(Do note, the campaign I used this in was an "uber" power level campaign...mostly because the DM just kept giving everyone -enemies included- better and better magic gear....and some characters fused with gods. I don't normally make OP builds but it was fun to see that even without any of those stupid benefits that I was competitive with god-people.)

As a side note, because of all the intelligence, you would have extra skills. Pick up Perform (Poetry) to mock your foes with how they can't ever touch you.

[eggynack]

VoP is actually really damned powerful.
There are two ways this thing can go. First way is, folks break your claims down on a line by line basis, pointing out all of the ways it's wrong, and all the ways items would serve your character far better, and all of the ways your character is weak (on a basis relative to possible power levels in the game). That way might go ahead no matter what, cause folks, including myself on occasion, like doing that.

Second way is, you can just accept that your listed reasons are basically just a big summary of why people think VoP is a good idea, when in fact it's a terrible idea. Because, seriously, it's just not. Reasonable on a druid, passable on something like a psion or incarnum class, but terrible on a monk. I could always just do a summary, I suppose. Items are really good. There ya go.

[SiuiS]

Personal taste. Necromancy spells don't appeal to me, so I don't use them. One player's "it sucks! it's a trap!" is another player's "awesome idea! perfect strategy!". The problem with the OP's premise is an individual's subjectiveness. From personal experience and witness I have seen great value with healing in combat and Evocation damage spells. That some people here think they are abominations of awful play is worthless to me. Their opinions do not change my observable reality for the games I'm in.

Oh okay. I thought it was the necromancer you didn't like, not the actual game specifics of necromancy spells.


I didn't see a value judgement in his statement. Low op is not wrong but it is low op.

Optimized means used optimally. Optimal in common parlance means best. Best way means the right way. The writing style also conveys a sense of disdain.

We aren't contract lawyers. The letter of a thing is not the end all be all. Emotional context, both sending and recieving, is important.

[torrasque666]

Watch as the cries of "At Level 18 AC is worthless" come rolling in.

[eggynack]

Optimized means used optimally. Optimal in common parlance means best. Best way means the right way. The writing style also conveys a sense of disdain.

It means best in terms of power level, or at least it usually does. It definitely means that in this context. Not everyone has to care about power. If Pex doesn't appreciate that characterization of his game, then I guess he can either defend the power level of his game, or up his game's optimization level. People not saying his game isn't optimized doesn't change his game's optimization level.

Watch as the cries of "At Level 18 AC is worthless" come rolling in.
Such is indeed the way of things.

[Sewercop]

VoP is actually really damned powerful. (I accidentally deleted the sheet during the great character sheet incineration of 2014, but...) I was able to make a character at level 18 with more than 55 AC with it (which beats a good number of gods). I could have pushed it higher if I hadn't chosen to be human, but I always do crazy **** (rarely OP, just crazy), so my group banned me from playing anything but human, lol.

VoP gives bonus feats for absolute free. The chart and the text differ on this point, because the graph says they gained one at level 1, and the text doesn't. Meaning, if you are human, you can get two additional feats from it (because you can actually take both VoP and SV at level 1 so you get the bonus feat at level 1, and 2). Granted, these are limited to exalted feats, but Vow of Nonviolence/peace are great kickers if you're just going full defensive (that chance to break enemy weapons lol), but aren't exceptionally viable with normal groups.

Then just took a venerable monk (granting me bonuses to intelligence stat), and took 4 or 5 different feats that added my intelligence to my AC while unencumbered and not wearing armor. These were unnamed bonuses, so they stacked. Then leveled into duelist, who gains bonus to AC up to intelligence bonus, based on its level while not wearing armor. [There's another prestige class that gave AC bonus, I can't really remember what though) That +10 armor bonus to AC from VoP that is impossible to get without armor is useful for this build. The deflection and stats and other bonuses might be replicatable with magic items, but that really can't, as far as I've seen.

the maximum saves progression from monk was also quite handy. Admittedly, I didn't deal near as much damage as the rest of my party, or, god forbid, those shoe-horned charge builds, but I was never hit, so even if I'm only dealing 1 damage per turn, I'm still going to win.
(Do note, the campaign I used this in was an "uber" power level campaign...mostly because the DM just kept giving everyone -enemies included- better and better magic gear....and some characters fused with gods. I don't normally make OP builds but it was fun to see that even without any of those stupid benefits that I was competitive with god-people.)

I am not sure but
http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2010/189/d/f/trollface_by_deniskaPWNZ.png

9\10 i fell for it

[atemu1234]

I am not sure but
http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2010/189/d/f/trollface_by_deniskaPWNZ.png

9\10 i fell for it

Why, just why?

[Kelb_Panthera]

Optimized means used optimally. Optimal in common parlance means best. Best way means the right way. The writing style also conveys a sense of disdain.

I'll give you that he may have interpreted a sense of disdain but "best" does not mean "the right way" by any metric I've ever been familiar with. They often correlate but they are different things.


We aren't contract lawyers. The letter of a thing is not the end all be all. Emotional context, both sending and recieving, is important.

Emotional response run-rampant is a major cause of miscommunication and general strife. Particularly in a medium that can't convey tone it's usually better to assume that the other person meant exactly what they said; nothing more, nothing less.

[SangoProduction]

Watch as the cries of "At Level 18 AC is worthless" come rolling in.

That's just what it ended up being. It wasn't too much lower at level 13, when I made the character. But, considering I never got hit...it's not completely worthless.

[Flickerdart]

I had a new player join an existing mid level group. He created a Scout, which was fine, and took the Quick Reconnoitre feat which allowed him to make spot and listen checks as a free action.

Upon considering this it appeared that I had inadvertently been running with a house rule which allowed every one to do this anyway — just our misunderstanding of the rules. In order to avoid invalidating his feat choice I then had to play closer to RAW and force everyone else to spend actions to do these things.

So his feat choice gave no actual advantage to him, but imposed a disadvantage on everyone else.
Ehhh not quite. Spot and Listen checks made reactively are free actions. It just costs an action when you want to actively listen/spot (such as to try Listening or Spotting something you didn't notice), which is what Quick Reconnoiter lets you skip.

[eggynack]

That's just what it ended up being. It wasn't too much lower at level 13, when I made the character. But, considering I never got hit...it's not completely worthless.
It may have not been completely useless for you, but in any kind of serious optimization context, it is in fact pretty worthless. More to the point, it's worth far far less than items.

[Threadnaught]

Optimized means used optimally. Optimal in common parlance means best. Best way means the right way. The writing style also conveys a sense of disdain.

Sometimes the best way to do something isn't the right way as it tends to upset some people. Sometimes it saves time and effort to not do things the best way possible.

The right way is what works, the best way is more effectively than anything else.


Without emotional context, the best way of doing things is the right way. With emotional context, the best way isn't necessarily the right way and vice versa. And when it comes to playing a game or diferent people preferring different things, there is emotional context.


Sorry for joining the doggy pile, I wanted to respond to this before being distracted and am late to the party.

[nedz]

Ehhh not quite. Spot and Listen checks made reactively are free actions. It just costs an action when you want to actively listen/spot (such as to try Listening or Spotting something you didn't notice), which is what Quick Reconnoiter lets you skip.

Yes I know, but from a DMing PoV it's quite a useful trick to dole out free spots and listens to move things along — which I could no longer do, except for the scout.

[SiuiS]

Watch as the cries of "At Level 18 AC is worthless" come rolling in.

That's a versus-system issue, really. If you play the game like you're "supposed" to, then at level 18 you should be fighting the occasional level 22 monster. That's +37 (Titan), +35 (solar), +47 (great wyrm black dragon) and +45 (very old gold dragon).

Average of those four is 41, which means you've got a 50% chance of avoiding getting hit with AC 52. Getting AC 52 isn't trivial. It requires caring. It also likely requires either being weaker elsewhere or so powerful it doesn't matter.


It means best in terms of power level, or at least it usually does. It definitely means that in this context. Not everyone has to care about power. If Pex doesn't appreciate that characterization of his game, then I guess he can either defend the power level of his game, or up his game's optimization level. People not saying his game isn't optimized doesn't change his game's optimization level.

Such is indeed the way of things.

Fair enough.



Emotional response run-rampant is a major cause of miscommunication and general strife. Particularly in a medium that can't convey tone it's usually better to assume that the other person meant exactly what they said; nothing more, nothing less.

This has less to do with emotional responses and more to do with the demonization thereof. Would you rather have a society of people who are so inexperienced they cannot process when emotion shows up and don't realize how much of their own "logical" responses are rationalizations of their emotional impetus, or would you rather people were actually informed that emotional inteligence exists and should be cultivated?

It's too broad a discussion for this thread, but that's my general stance. There's more to life than logic and it is inescapable. Learn to deal with it rather than pretending it doesn't exist.

[Kelb_Panthera]

This has less to do with emotional responses and more to do with the demonization thereof. Would you rather have a society of people who are so inexperienced they cannot process when emotion shows up and don't realize how much of their own "logical" responses are rationalizations of their emotional impetus, or would you rather people were actually informed that emotional inteligence exists and should be cultivated?

It's too broad a discussion for this thread, but that's my general stance. There's more to life than logic and it is inescapable. Learn to deal with it rather than pretending it doesn't exist.

See that's exactly what I'm talking about. "Demonization?" Really? Of course emotional response is natural and important in the greater context of a society but -reading- emotional response requires being able to see body language and hear tone. Things you can't do in a written medium. What you've done here is presumed my emotion and intention rather than reading them. That's no way to conduct a conversation. In the absence of the ability to properly infer emotion it is better to ignore it than to presume it. Either way you'll likely be wrong but you'll be a lot -less- wrong by assuming no emotion rather than the wrong one.

Savvy?

[SiuiS]

See that's exactly what I'm talking about. "Demonization?" Really?

Yes. There is a societal trend to demonize emotions as irrational and laud logic as the truest, purest form of... Something. It's hard to follow, it's frankly rather irrational.


What you've done here is presumed my emotion and intention rather than reading them.

I have presumed nothing. You said emotional responses run rampant (a presumption itself, "running rampant" being an unneccesarily qualifier) and I said the reason is because otherwise intelligent people carry along very dangerous misconceptions about how thinking works and how their own perspectives function. I then offered two concepts, one where the continued trend of excising emotional understanding from things continues to cause problems or one where people are taught the ability to empathize and seek non-binary solutions to things.

If you can show me where emotional presumption is in any of that, I'll reconsider. But I get the impression that because I advocate emotions inform if my decisions, you inferred I was doing so and responded to that rather than to what I actually said.

The irony of what I just wrote isn't lost in me, either. I'll have to reflect on that.

[eggynack]

That's a versus-system issue, really. If you play the game like you're "supposed" to, then at level 18 you should be fighting the occasional level 22 monster. That's +37 (Titan), +35 (solar), +47 (great wyrm black dragon) and +45 (very old gold dragon).

Average of those four is 41, which means you've got a 50% chance of avoiding getting hit with AC 52. Getting AC 52 isn't trivial. It requires caring. It also likely requires either being weaker elsewhere or so powerful it doesn't matter.
That's not really what the claim means. Titans and solars both have 9th level spells. Great wyrm black dragons and very old gold dragons have 8th and 7th level spells respectively. None of these creatures need to touch that AC. None of these creatures need to touch any of those listed defenses. The two that have the highest chance of going after those defenses, the dragons, have a decent chance of breaking through them, especially after spells. AC is troubled by how all or nothing it is, yes, but it is also troubled by how easy it is for enemies to just not care about it, especially at high levels.

[Flickerdart]

Yes I know, but from a DMing PoV it's quite a useful trick to dole out free spots and listens to move things along — which I could no longer do, except for the scout.
Here's the thing, though.

If the plot can't move on without it? Don't roll it. You should only ask for checks if failure is interesting, not as a barrier to further progress.

[Pex]

Umm Pex, you seem to be building quite the Strawman.

I don't see nedz make any statement about how people should play the game, just a statement about how different people and groups play differently and that his personal experience of blasters showed they only worked when the DM wasn't using the most powerful enemies available or making the best choices for those creatures' actions. Nothing about how people should play in order to enjoy themselves.

In my personal experience, Mount is the most powerful Spell at level 1. That angry Horse really did help against those Rats. Not that this makes Mount powerful, it's just the most useful Summon at 1st level for me. For me. For me. I just want to make sure it's clear that this is my personal experience, if I have to (figuratively) bludgeon you with it and be a condescending jerk to avoid you building a Strawman of me, then so be it.

Exactly. For you. For you it's "an awesome idea" "perfect strategy". For someone else "it sucks! it's a trap!" I have personally never, ever cast Mount. I would never prepare it. I would never take it as a spell known. That you enjoy the spell and can make great use out it should not and does not cause me to question your judgment. Nedz clarified he meant his personal experiences specifically for his not caring for Evocation damage. Fair enough, I'll take him at his word. Eggynack picks up the slack to question my gaming patriotism, so to speak. Apparently it's not enough for some people that we just disagree on the worth of Evocation damage and healing in combat.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Yes. There is a societal trend to demonize emotions as irrational and laud logic as the truest, purest form of... Something. It's hard to follow, it's frankly rather irrational.



I have presumed nothing. You said emotional responses run rampant (a presumption itself, "running rampant" being an unneccesarily qualifier) and I said the reason is because otherwise intelligent people carry along very dangerous misconceptions about how thinking works and how their own perspectives function. I then offered two concepts, one where the continued trend of excising emotional understanding from things continues to cause problems or one where people are taught the ability to empathize and seek non-binary solutions to things.

If you can show me where emotional presumption is in any of that, I'll reconsider. But I get the impression that because I advocate emotions inform if my decisions, you inferred I was doing so and responded to that rather than to what I actually said.

The irony of what I just wrote isn't lost in me, either. I'll have to reflect on that.

Bah. We're talking past each other. I, indeed, misunderstood you to be saying that -I- was demonizing emotional response and it seems that you thought I was saying that emotional response -was- running rampant.

What I meant by "emotional response run ramapnt" is that "when emotional response does run rampant" it causes no end to miscommunication.

Neither emotion nor logic, by themselves, is enough. Each must be tempered with the other for good communication to be possible. However, it's very difficult to properly gage emotional response in text, as we've just amply demonstrated, and so it's best, IMO, to presume it isn't present as much as possible.

[Brookshw]

There are two ways this thing can go. First way is, folks break your claims down on a line by line basis, pointing out all of the ways it's wrong, and all the ways items would serve your character far better, and all of the ways your character is weak (on a basis relative to possible power levels in the game). That way might go ahead no matter what, cause folks, including myself on occasion, like doing that.

Second way is, you can just accept that your listed reasons are basically just a big summary of why people think VoP ivs a good idea, when in fact it's a terrible idea. Because, seriously, it's just not. Reasonable on a druid, passable on something like a psion or incarnum class, but terrible on a monk. I could always just do a summary, I suppose. Items are really good. There ya go.

Edited and redacted.

[SiuiS]

That's not really what the claim means. Titans and solars both have 9th level spells. Great wyrm black dragons and very old gold dragons have 8th and 7th level spells respectively. None of these creatures need to touch that AC. None of these creatures need to touch any of those listed defenses. The two that have the highest chance of going after those defenses, the dragons, have a decent chance of breaking through them, especially after spells. AC is troubled by how all or nothing it is, yes, but it is also troubled by how easy it is for enemies to just not care about it, especially at high levels.

My leaving out the fact that any of these monsters could use magic was intentional. A Titan could do terrible things just with melee buffs, let alone implosions and worse. It emphasizes that if they decide to play your ame, they'll still beat you of you're a threat enough to matter.


Here's the thing, though.

If the plot can't move on without it? Don't roll it. You should only ask for checks if failure is interesting, not as a barrier to further progress.

Indeed.


Bah. We're talking past each other. I, indeed, misunderstood you to be saying that -I- was demonizing emotional response and it seems that you thought I was saying that emotional response -was- running rampant.

What I meant by "emotional response run ramapnt" is that "when emotional response does run rampant" it causes no end to miscommunication.

Neither emotion nor logic, by themselves, is enough. Each must be tempered with the other for good communication to be possible. However, it's very difficult to properly gage emotional response in text, as we've just amply demonstrated, and so it's best, IMO, to presume it isn't present as much as possible.

Then we are indeed in agreement, mostly. I feel it's better to be open about emotional responses that pretend otherwise, even though it takes sometimes excessive communication to calibrate things between two parties.


{scrubbed}

No, it's actually accurate. That's the benefit of having gone through all the scenarios repeatedly, you can preempt things when they repeat.

This is why many forums have a "read the backlogs before talking" policy.

[eggynack]

Exactly. For you. For you it's "an awesome idea" "perfect strategy". For someone else "it sucks! it's a trap!" I have personally never, ever cast Mount. I would never prepare it. I would never take it as a spell known. That you enjoy the spell and can make great use out it should not and does not cause me to question your judgment.
Not really. As I said, optimization isn't a personal thing, or at least not entirely. If you think mount is a bad move, then you can argue to that effect. Could even be a rather interesting stance. Sure, threadnaught stated it as personal opinion, as is his prerogative, and as could have been your prerogative relative to your preferred spells, but that doesn't mean they can't be assessed. It doesn't mean that it can't just be one out of trash or treasure, or even some place in between.


Eggynack picks up the slack to question my gaming patriotism, so to speak. Apparently it's not enough for some people that we just disagree on the worth of Evocation damage and healing in combat.
I'm not questioning patriotism of any kind. I'm saying that the strategies you endorse are suboptimal. They're suboptimal for the reasons they're always stated to be suboptimal. Healing, because it tends to lag behind damage and puts you at an action disadvantage, especially compared to the action advantage things you could be doing, and blasting because blasting spells lag behind enemy HP, and because an enemy half dead is the same as an enemy completely not dead. This isn't just me disagreeing on the worth, or having a personal opinion. This is me saying that a character who makes use of the resources you espouse will be less well equipped to deal with challenges than one that brings different tools, especially if said character is limiting themselves to these spells. A blast or a heal here and there isn't the absolute worst, but if you're packing a majority of those spells then you've got to be seriously optimizing to loop back around to anything like optimal, especially for healing.

Edit:
{scrub the post, scrub the quote}
It's not a position yet. I'd rather this not become just a ridiculous VoP thread, stretching over infinite pages with VoP juices getting all over everything. In your heart of hearts, I think you know the same. Point is, I could refute all of those things, over the course of many paragraphs that would then themselves be argued ad infinitum, or we could just end it here, and let things rest for once. So, it's not a position, but it could become one if it needs to.


My leaving out the fact that any of these monsters could use magic was intentional. A Titan could do terrible things just with melee buffs, let alone implosions and worse. It emphasizes that if they decide to play your ame, they'll still beat you of you're a threat enough to matter.

Fair enough. I'd assumed those numbers were somehow on the other side, for some reason. Makes more sense read the other way, looking back.

[nedz]

Here's the thing, though.

If the plot can't move on without it? Don't roll it. You should only ask for checks if failure is interesting, not as a barrier to further progress.

Well your solution still invalidates the Scout's feat choice. Really though what's interesting is having the player's work something out — sometimes though they get stuck and need a clue. I guess by prompting them I was invalidating their agency by avoiding them having to think to take the action, which I don't like either, but this is a lesser evil than everything grinding to a halt. Overall it didn't make a huge difference to the game, it just meant more face time for the scout as his spot and listen were pretty good anyway — which was probably a good thing as it got the new player more involved in the game. It was the side effect of other PCs suddenly becoming less aware of their surroundings which was unexpected.

[Brookshw]

Edit:
It's not a position yet. I'd rather this not become just a ridiculous VoP thread, stretching over infinite pages with VoP juices getting all over everything. In your heart of hearts, I think you know the same. Point is, I could refute all of those things, over the course of many paragraphs that would then themselves be argued ad infinitum, or we could just end it here, and let things rest for once. So, it's not a position, but it could become one if it needs to.

In my heart of hearts I see a collective of people who offended someone who engaged in honest conversation and can't admit to their own actions/statements. This thing is absurd and I can't see any value generating from it. It could be something, but qr this point, no......

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Please keep it civil in here and be mindful of our rules on Flaming, Trolling, threadcrapping, etc.

[eggynack]

In my heart of hearts I see a collective of people who offended someone who engaged in honest conversation and can't admit to their own actions/statements. This thing is absurd and I can't see any value generating from it. It could be something, but qr this point, no......
I didn't not admit to anything. If you really want a lengthy breakdown of the issues of VoP, particularly as shown in that post, I suppose I can give it to you, but you could always just do a google search. Hell, you could even do a combined eggynack+VoP search, and get the words straight from my mouth. I'm not trying to generate value here. I'm trying to stop the generation of negative value, which is what would happen if this became a VoP thread. So, this I ask: Is that what you want to do? Do you want to turn this perfectly reasonable thread into a VoP thread? You could make it happen. It could even be fun, I dunno. I sometimes enjoy a classic. Wouldn't be the most illogical thread derail, I guess. So yeah, I guess it's up to you at this point.

Edit: Might be best to start a new thread, if that's a thing you seek. Don't much see the point of such a new thread in the first place, but as is typical, it's your prerogative.

[Brookshw]

I didn't not admit to anything. If you really want a lengthy breakdown of the issues of VoP, particularly as shown in that post, I suppose I can give it to you, but you could always just do a google search. Hell, you could even do a combined eggynack+VoP search, and get the words straight from my mouth. I'm not trying to generate value here. I'm trying to stop the generation of negative value, which is what would happen if this became a VoP thread. So, this I ask: Is that what you want to do? Do you want to turn this perfectly reasonable thread into a VoP thread? You could make it happen. It could even be fun, I dunno. I sometimes enjoy a classic. Wouldn't be the most illogical thread derail, I guess. So yeah, I guess it's up to you at this point.



I see no reason to believe it would help anything. You've made your opinion clear, that doesn't excuse a dismissive and derisive opinion.

[eggynack]

I see no reason to believe it would help anything. You've made your opinion clear, that doesn't excuse a dismissive and derisive opinion.
I don't actually understand anymore. So, you just wanted to let the opposing opinion, that was itself in argument to a post made by another, rest completely? Yes, my opinion was dismissive, because I was trying to dismiss a thing. I don't think that's really a thing that needs excusing.

[Kelb_Panthera]

This is such crap tastic hyperbole I don't know where to begin. It's not a position, its an egotistical stroke job. Bah.

It was more than a little condescending but he's not entirely wrong. VoP seems really good, even over powered, in relatively low op groups. The abilities it gives you, however, can be easily replicated for notably less than the WBL a PC is supposed to get at the equivalent level.

For example, monk with AC 55 by level 18

+3 for being a monk.

+5 for wis (start at 14 wearing periapt +6) 36,000

+5 for dex (start at 14 wearing gloves +6) 36,000

+5 ring of protection 50,000

+5 necklace of natural armor (combined with periapt) 50,000

+8 bracers of armor 64,000

+1 monk's belt 13,000

+1 dusty rose ioun stone 5,000

That's 43 for 254,000 of the monk's 440,000 with just the really obvious stuff from the DMG.

44 if he's small.

Round it off with a pair of +5 defending daggers gets us the last 10 for our monk for another 144,000gp.

That's 398,000, leaving 42,000gp for other things and I kinda muscled that last 10 instead of finessing it. Let's just toss on a ring of sustenance, a necklace of adaption, and a cloak of resistance +5 and we're nearly there.




Just for completeness sake an armored warrior could do this:

+13 for full plate +5 26,650

+9 for tower shield +5 25,180

+1 dex

+5 NoNA 50,000

+5 RoP 50,000

+1 ioun stone 5,000

Hey, 44 again. Only this time it's just 156,830gp of 440,000.

Let's add a +5 defending weapon and combat expertise.

AC 54 for right at -half- of WBL.

[Pex]

Way back when 3.0 was new, 2E was still fresh in mind and two-weapon fighting was popular with those I played with, and Power Attack looked so Awesome!, I tried to play a character that had both Power Attack and Two-Weapon Fighting feats. (Let's pretend Ambidexterity didn't exist. :smallyuk:) Hooray for multiple attack with lots of extra damage! Yeah, no. Complete disaster in practice. Always missing when trying to use both, cool idea just never worked.

[Threadnaught]

Not really. As I said, optimization isn't a personal thing, or at least not entirely. If you think mount is a bad move, then you can argue to that effect. Could even be a rather interesting stance. Sure, threadnaught stated it as personal opinion, as is his prerogative, and as could have been your prerogative relative to your preferred spells, but that doesn't mean they can't be assessed. It doesn't mean that it can't just be one out of trash or treasure, or even some place in between.

Also since the party is currently 1st level, it's the only Spell available with a decent duration, of course once we reach level 2 and other Spells improve, it'll get shoved back like the suboptimal choice it is. Though it'll still be useful for transportation and I may still have use for it up until level 3 when Spells start to pick up a little more. For now it's like having the Druid's Animal Companion for 2 hours per day and I don't have to feed the damn thing.

I really don't think Mount is a fantastic Spell or the perfect Spell for any occasion, I think the Spell is useful for more than just transportation and largely under appreciated by the online community at large.


Exactly. For you. For you it's "an awesome idea" "perfect strategy".

That Strawman looks an awful lot like me, I said neither of those things.
I said that it has been useful and is possibly the best Summoning Spell at 1st level because of the duration compared to other Summoning Spells, which tend to catch up as Caster Level increases.
Using Candle of Invocation to cast Gate isn't Casting the Spell, it is using a Magic Item, so Pun Pun is out.


For someone else "it sucks! it's a trap!"

Or maybe they know something that I don't. Maybe they're able to use Grease and Colour Spray more efficiently than I can, I see they're the better options in combat, but they're risky at the moment with my 9HP so I stick to the safety of hiding behind a summoned horse.


I have personally never, ever cast Mount. I would never prepare it. I would never take it as a spell known. That you enjoy the spell and can make great use out it should not and does not cause me to question your judgment.

Thank you for your restraint and show of respect, I'll attempt to keep up my own.


Nedz clarified he meant his personal experiences specifically for his not caring for Evocation damage. Fair enough, I'll take him at his word.

Yes, some people like to play at different power levels and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, anyone who wants to play at a power level where too much damage/round becomes an actual problem is playing the game right as long as the group as a whole enjoy themselves, anyone who wants to play games where Pun Pun is a joke character is also playing the game right as long as the group as a whole is having fun.
There is no right or wrong way to play the game, but one power level is higher than the other, one set of actions is more successful than the other and some abilities are more powerful than others.

[eggynack]

I really don't think Mount is a fantastic Spell or the perfect Spell for any occasion, I think the Spell is useful for more than just transportation and largely under appreciated by the online community at large.

Seems about right, and if we're going by Treantmonk's guide, which gave it a thumbs up out of maniacal laughter, reasonably within the parameters of what optimization would claim.

[Flickerdart]

Well your solution still invalidates the Scout's feat choice.
Nnno. There are tons of situations (a monster stalking the party, a concealed secret passage, evidence that clues the party in on what's happened here or what's coming) where being able to reroll without needing to devote actions is super valuable, because a character who makes free-action Spot/Listen checks is basically constantly making them. This is a fantastic pipeline to feed the scout cool stuff that make him valuable to the party without making the party resent him because he's better at tripping your mandatory progress flags. Any "puzzle" where the PCs roll skill checks (apparently just two skill checks?) until they hit the right DC is not a puzzle you should include.

[Auron3991]

Wall of Iron, because it makes your DM flip the table when you break his economy.

On a more serious note, the Magic Weapon spell line. Great, I can apply enhancement bonuses to my fighter's weapons. Wait a minute, he already has a +x weapon.

Also, if we're talking higher op, Power Word Kill. Awesome, I can kill something with no saving throw as long as it has less than 100 hp. Oops, could do that anyways and could do it to undead and those immune to death effects to boot.

[DarkSonic1337]

Actually, greater magic weapon is great because it means your party DOESN'T have to buy +X weapons, and can instead by +1 weapons with cool things on them. Simply require that they get you a 3rd level pearl of power for each instance of greater magic weapon they want you to cast. And actually as long as they're pooling money together, might as well get one pearl of power and a lesser metamagic rod of chain spell instead (you'll chip in on the chaining rod of course).

[turbo164]

Ditto what Darksonic said. The fighter *could* buy a +5 Guisarme ("It seemed like a good idea at the time!") or he could buy a +1 Magebane Sonic Keen Doom Burst Guisarme + a Pearl, and end up with a +5 Magebane Sonic Keen Doom Burst Guisarme :) Plus there's flexibility for secondary weapons, in case you end up needing a bonus on your far-less-enchanted Silver/Cold Iron/Bludgeoning/Lawful/whatever weapon for damage reduction/regen. It's a useful spell for helping out the beatsticks.

On the Spot/Listen discussion, I don't like binary results ("You failed to see the smoke rising from the hermit's hut and walk past, you miss that quest"), but it is nice for determining distance and surprise of encounters. The Scout gets to feel special if they hear the orcs marching toward them from a hundred yards away and thus have time to hide, or spots the goblin archer's boot peeking out of a tree, etc.

As for one from my past, Spontaneous Healer. "Now my Druid can spam CMW out of combat if needed!" *cough cough Wand of Lesser Vigor...*

[SiuiS]

Well your solution still invalidates the Scout's feat choice. Really though what's interesting is having the player's work something out — sometimes though they get stuck and need a clue. I guess by prompting them I was invalidating their agency by avoiding them having to think to take the action, which I don't like either, but this is a lesser evil than everything grinding to a halt. Overall it didn't make a huge difference to the game, it just meant more face time for the scout as his spot and listen were pretty good anyway — which was probably a good thing as it got the new player more involved in the game. It was the side effect of other PCs suddenly becoming less aware of their surroundings which was unexpected.

In general, if there is a clue the party absolutely needs to find to succeed, they find it for searching, period. If they do a good job, then they get bonus clues to help them interpret what they found, but if the entire game falls apart if they miss a spot check somewhere, that's bad design and bad DMing.

[Threadnaught]

Seems about right, and if we're going by Treantmonk's guide, which gave it a thumbs up out of maniacal laughter, reasonably within the parameters of what optimization would claim.

Yeah, but he made the mistake of claiming that the Summoned Horse/Pony couldn't fight, even though the text makes no such distinction.

The Horse is just a regular Horse/Pony and can indeed fight, it can't fight well, but it is able to act as a meatshield that can defend itself.

With the correct commands it can also scout for the party. And it can carry or drag items around.

[nedz]

Nnno. There are tons of situations (a monster stalking the party, a concealed secret passage, evidence that clues the party in on what's happened here or what's coming) where being able to reroll without needing to devote actions is super valuable, because a character who makes free-action Spot/Listen checks is basically constantly making them. This is a fantastic pipeline to feed the scout cool stuff that make him valuable to the party without making the party resent him because he's better at tripping your mandatory progress flags. Any "puzzle" where the PCs roll skill checks (apparently just two skill checks?) until they hit the right DC is not a puzzle you should include.


In general, if there is a clue the party absolutely needs to find to succeed, they find it for searching, period. If they do a good job, then they get bonus clues to help them interpret what they found, but if the entire game falls apart if they miss a spot check somewhere, that's bad design and bad DMing.

You both seem to be making assumptions about my DMing style which are not true. I don't have mandatory progress flags and my games don't fall apart if someone misses a spot check. I do prefer a simulationist/sandboxey game over the scripted drama though — so it's really about what decisions they make on partial information and which path through the forest of options they take — which are player led decisions. By having the players auto succeed on information gathering you are invalidating their agency and character build decisions.

[Amphetryon]

Nnno. There are tons of situations (a monster stalking the party, a concealed secret passage, evidence that clues the party in on what's happened here or what's coming) where being able to reroll without needing to devote actions is super valuable, because a character who makes free-action Spot/Listen checks is basically constantly making them. This is a fantastic pipeline to feed the scout cool stuff that make him valuable to the party without making the party resent him because he's better at tripping your mandatory progress flags. Any "puzzle" where the PCs roll skill checks (apparently just two skill checks?) until they hit the right DC is not a puzzle you should include.

I hope nothing of value to the story was hiding down that (hypothetical) concealed secret passage, or else making it possible to miss the passage appears to hit your own metrics of 'not a puzzle you should include.'

[Flickerdart]

I hope nothing of value to the story was hiding down that (hypothetical) concealed secret passage, or else making it possible to miss the passage appears to hit your own metrics of 'not a puzzle you should include.'
Concealed passages are great places to hide bonus loot or vantage points from which to strike at the enemy. If there's plot-critical stuff then it's not a concealed passage so much as the rest of the corridor is a red herring.

And really, puzzles of the "can't proceed without the thing" variety really only work in situations without conservation of detail anyway.

You both seem to be making assumptions about my DMing style which are not true. I don't have mandatory progress flags and my games don't fall apart if someone misses a spot check. I do prefer a simulationist/sandboxey game over the scripted drama though — so it's really about what decisions they make on partial information and which path through the forest of options they take — which are player led decisions. By having the players auto succeed on information gathering you are invalidating their agency and character build decisions.
You can't have it both ways - either the players need to find things to continue the story, or it's a sandbox and every failure is acceptable.

[SiuiS]

You both seem to be making assumptions about my DMing style which are not true. I don't have mandatory progress flags and my games don't fall apart if someone misses a spot check. I do prefer a simulationist/sandboxey game over the scripted drama though — so it's really about what decisions they make on partial information and which path through the forest of options they take — which are player led decisions. By having the players auto succeed on information gathering you are invalidating their agency and character build decisions.

I make no assumption about your specific DM style. I made a response to a response which I stand by. If you absolutely must find somehing for the game to continue, then allowing players to miss it is folly. Did you do that? No idea. But if you did, I would not back down from the bad DMing charge. If there's more nuance to the thing then you're fine.

[Threadnaught]

Concealed passages are great places to hide bonus loot or vantage points from which to strike at the enemy. If there's plot-critical stuff then it's not a concealed passage so much as the rest of the corridor is a red herring.

Or an alternate way to advance plot?


And really, puzzles of the "can't proceed without the thing" variety really only work in situations without conservation of detail anyway.

What about "can't proceed that way without the thing" type stuff?


You can't have it both ways - either the players need to find things to continue the story, or it's a sandbox and every failure is acceptable.

I have it both ways. :smallwink:

Players are free to ignore the plot and if it's something that'll grow bigger, it'll do so until they definitely hear about it. Maybe someone else will deal with it, or maybe it'll be more entertaining to watch the players squirm each time it's brought up.


Players are trying to break into a building to stop an assassination by stealing payment, planting evidence or assassinating the would be employer of an assassin, after deciding not to act as a bodyguard. They come up to a door after evading guards who have the area under lockdown, the door is locked. They may unlock the door is they have the key, which the guard captain in the area has. They may pick the lock, but the locksmith is known for the excellent quality of their locks, so it's a Good Lock. They may kick the door open, but that would be noisy and alert anyone inside. A small window which is always left open because nobody's dumb enough to rob this place, but it's high up and there aren't any good footholds. They may go underground, but they risk getting lost in the depths and encountering creatures far deadlier than the guards, also if they can't find the underground entrance/exit, or lack the key, or are unable to pick the lock, they would need to bash the entrance/exit open or dig their way in, which requires specialist tools, could be noisy and could take a while.

If they miss a step on any of these, they can still get inside, they'd just have to try another way. The plot still moves forward, but differently. As for failure being acceptable, that depends on the players does it not? If the assassination took place then the players may lose a valuable (or potentially valuable) ally, while if the other person knows about them and already hates their guts, or learns of their noisy attempts to prevent the assassination of a rival, well that'll turn things against them quite considerably. Perhaps they'll benefit more from the target's plans than the person wanting the target dead, or perhaps they'll break in and introduce themselves to take the job of assassinating the target for money and the opportunity to show off to an NPC.

It's not a true sandbox scenario either, it is merely a single encounter with multiple angles to approach it from, and several methods to solve it. Who says we can't force players to pay attention and use Skill checks to resolve a plot?

[nedz]

You can't have it both ways - either the players need to find things to continue the story, or it's a sandbox and every failure is acceptable.

I can have it as many ways as I want.

I run games with variety. Overall it's a sandbox but it does contain plots, often player driven — always character driven, because the big danger with sandboxes is that they run into the sand. Even in a pure sandbox there will be things the player's want to accomplish and that means there will be obstacles for them to overcome. None of this means that there will be only one route to success — that would be a linear adventure — though I have had situations where the player's box themselves into a corner by shutting down options, usually inadvertently.

[Threadnaught]

I can have it as many ways as I want.

I have had situations where the player's box themselves into a corner by shutting down options, usually inadvertently.

This looks frighteningly like my locked door example.

[nedz]

This looks frighteningly like my locked door example.

Pretty much, which is good: I was tired of being a Windmill.

[SiuiS]

I am sorry you feel you have been tilted at unnecessarily. :(

[Zrak]

I hope nothing of value to the story was hiding down that (hypothetical) concealed secret passage, or else making it possible to miss the passage appears to hit your own metrics of 'not a puzzle you should include.'

I like to hide important but non-essential plot information in places players won't necessarily find, mostly because I have some odd affection for characters arriving at critical junctures in the plot not really knowing exactly what's going on. I think it's from watching The Big Sleep at a formative age. Anyway, I've gotten mostly positive feedback from players. I think it hits some sweet spot of being verisimilar enough for "serious" gamers to like it but also goofy enough for "silly" gamers to like it, at least when I do it right.

[Threadnaught]

After all this chat of hiding plot critical information that the players may or may not fail without, I'm considering having a relatively minor plot which players will fail if they miss even one detail. Some kind of mystery, in which missing information is a real risk and doing so leads to failure, with only minor effects if they fail.

I hope they don't mind too much. :smallamused:

[nedz]

I am sorry you feel you have been tilted at unnecessarily. :(

But it wasn't me who was being tilted at — it was all the scarecrows :smallamused:

[Auron3991]

Actually, greater magic weapon is great because it means your party DOESN'T have to buy +X weapons, and can instead by +1 weapons with cool things on them. Simply require that they get you a 3rd level pearl of power for each instance of greater magic weapon they want you to cast. And actually as long as they're pooling money together, might as well get one pearl of power and a lesser metamagic rod of chain spell instead (you'll chip in on the chaining rod of course).

Guess it's just the strange groups of people I tend to be stuck with then, because I rarely found a use past second or third level due to the exact situation I described.