Dead horses: stuff that's been debated all across the playground

[Jowgen]

In what is probably just begging for horrendous thread-derailing, I thought it would be a nice idea to dedicate a thread to the dead horses of topics. The kind of things that come up over and over again, get debated for page upon page, and more often then not everyone just kinda walks away disgruntled. Stuff that even makes the toughest rule-lawyers consider taking a live-and-let-live approach to rule-reading.

I'm thinking of a nice simple format of: "This be my favorite dead horse, and I'mma tell you why." :smallcool:

To start off, my favorite dead horse is the Dragonwrought Kobold. There are lots of things to like about that dead horse (e.g. deli-loads of cheese), but the reasons it's my favorite is how incredibly hair/scale-splitting talks about it can get. It is the only dead horse I know where the exact release dates, table-compositions, wordings and so on and so forth of all the relevant materials are argued about in such interconnected detail, all to answer the simple question as to whether is counts as a True Dragon or not. :smallbiggrin:

[atemu1234]

Monk debates. Monk debates suck to the point we need one thread to be stickied to be looked at prior to posting a thread on how monks totally don't suck guys, look at all those attacks.

[AmberVael]

Bloodlines. The rules are written with contradictions and confusion, there are popular interpretations based in pure speculation and houserules, and there's really nothing that can ever make the debate conclusive one way or another. Its not as thread devouring as some other arguments, but its basically impossible to lock down a 'correct' answer.

[ben-zayb]

I'm gonna go with Tumble vs Thicket of Blades, simply because it's the one that I often come across in actual games, where each DM had their different calls and RAW support for calling so.

[AvatarVecna]

Alignment.

[Kurald Galain]

In what is probably just begging for horrendous thread-derailing, I thought it would be a nice idea to dedicate a thread to the dead horses of topics. The kind of things that come up over and over again, get debated for page upon page, and more often then not everyone just kinda walks away disgruntled. Stuff that even makes the toughest rule-lawyers consider taking a live-and-let-live approach to rule-reading.

"My edition is better than your edition!"

"My friend doesn't believe that wizards are the best class ever, so we're going to have a duel that I'm sure will settle the issue forever, could somebody please make me a 1st level wizard that can beat a 20th level fighter?"

"Monks."

[Psyren]

"FAQ vs. RAW vs. RAI vs. RACSD vs. insert-abbreviation-that-proves-me-right-here."

[Marlowe]

I suppose my nemesis dead horse would be Point Buy vs Rolling for Stats, and whether one or the other favours certain classes, what level of point-buy is "fair", or whether rolling for stats even happens.

[Inevitability]

"Hey guys, I know class X is tier Y, but what if we did thing Z?"

[eggynack]

"Is the FAQ RAW?" It's just a thoroughly boring argument, with little in the way of nuance, and it's especially horrible because its answer serves as the underpinnings for a number of rule struggles. Basically, any time there's an argument, and an FAQ entry can serve as a reference, you can spontaneously mutate that normal argument into an FAQ argument if you're losing. And it just goes nowhere.

[frogglesmash]

I've seen a fair number of threads get derailed discussions concerning the exact level of godly power wizards possess. That and posts that reiterate multiple times the steps one should take when dealing with a bad Player/DM.

[Thurbane]

http://archive.wizards.com/dnd/images/ghostwalk_gallery/88566_620_10.jpg

[Marlowe]

A horse is a horse
of course of course
and a horse can be a curse, of course
especially when that cursed horse
Is among the walking dead.

[Larkas]

"My game sucks because of [insert motivation here]. What should I do?" Really, you can't put yourself in anyone's shoes, let alone someone you just barely know from an online board. How the heck should you know what to do? Besides, frequently you post a reaction you find reasonable, only to be thoroughly ignored by the OP. If all you really wanted was to unburden yourself from a recent negative experience, I'm sure there are better ways around it.

[Seto]

Alignment.

"Should this Paladin fall ?"

[Elandris Kajar]

This martial build has a chance against a level 20 Wizard, while they depend on a dozen spells to get close to wizard level.

[Brookshw]

ToB, Fumbles, Diplomacy, Genesis, Fighters. VoP, dark chaos shuffle.

Ice Assassin & Mind Rape. I'm just sick of hearing about the last two as a solution to everything rather than it being something that can be argued about.

[Urpriest]

Warbeasts. I've had the same argument "no, you can't just turn your animal companion into a warbeast, warbeasts are bred, read the handle animal rules from 3.0" dozens of times, and pretty much every time it comes up I have to start over again.

[Umbranar]

For me the "GitP Regulars as [Insert concept]" thread are the the ones I just leave aside and dont even look into anymore. The first two were funny but know its like trying to perform CPR on the dead horse over and over and over again...

[Psyren]

Ice Assassin & Mind Rape. I'm just sick of hearing about the last two as a solution to everything rather than it being something that can be argued about.

This was one of the more minor reasons I switched to PF but it was definitely a reason. Though I still maintain that Ice Assassin is not quite as all-purpose as many seem to think it is.


For me the "GitP Regulars as [Insert concept]" thread are the the ones I just leave aside and dont even look into anymore. The first two were funny but know its like trying to perform CPR on the dead horse over and over and over again...

+1

[Rakoa]

ToB, Fumbles, Diplomacy, Genesis, Fighters. VoP, dark chaos shuffle.

Ice Assassin & Mind Rape. I'm just sick of hearing about the last two as a solution to everything rather than it being something that can be argued about.

Let me just change your tune regarding Mind Rape with a nice dose of MIND RAPE!

[ben-zayb]

Let me just change your tune regarding Mind Rape with a nice dose of MIND RAPE!No need, I already made an Ice Assassin to hunt and replace Psyren.

[AvatarVecna]

Pun-Pun says "knock it off and get back on topic".

Incidentally, that's another thing I'm kinda really tired of: Pun-Pun.

*Promptly implodes for some reason*

[Psyren]

No need, I already made an Ice Assassin to hunt and replace Psyren.

You can't afford me, honey (which incidentally means there are no parts of me in your spell component pouch.)

*z-snaps*

[A Tad Insane]

Trying to make a sorcerer beat the "batman wizard"

The only way to do it is turn your sorcerer into a charisma wizard, or not let anyone be a "batman wizard" to begin with

[Werephilosopher]

What happens when you persist time stop?

[Kurald Galain]

{scrubbed}

[Gabrosin]

{scrubbed}

Can't tell if this got scrubbed or is just meta.

[Amphetryon]

"[Thing] isn't as broken as the community says because [reason]," where [reason] is based on incomplete understanding of the RAW or specific house-rules in play. The regulars know what the Oberoni Fallacy is, but I think 3 - 5 threads a week could be prevented by having a definition of this and the other commonly known RPG-related fallacies stickied prominently.

[atemu1234]

Trying to make a sorcerer beat the "batman wizard"

The only way to do it is turn your sorcerer into a charisma wizard, or not let anyone be a "batman wizard" to begin with

To be fair, I wouldn't really call this a dead horse. I've only ever seen one real forum debate over it.

[Deadline]

"[Thing] isn't as broken as the community says because [reason]," where [reason] is based on incomplete understanding of the RAW or specific house-rules in play. The regulars know what the Oberoni Fallacy is, but I think 3 - 5 threads a week could be prevented by having a definition of this and the other commonly known RPG-related fallacies stickied prominently.

Oh come now, since when has freely available, accurate information ever stopped anyone from making an argument? :smallbiggrin:

[Amphetryon]

Oh come now, since when has freely available, accurate information ever stopped anyone from making an argument? :smallbiggrin:

I'm allowed one moment of optimism per year; I've checked.

[Dondasch]

ToB: Too anime, or the only thing that makes martials viable?

[Snowbluff]

"Is the FAQ RAW?" It's just a thoroughly boring argument, with little in the way of nuance, and it's especially horrible because its answer serves as the underpinnings for a number of rule struggles. Basically, any time there's an argument, and an FAQ entry can serve as a reference, you can spontaneously mutate that normal argument into an FAQ argument if you're losing. And it just goes nowhere.

Yeah, in and of itself was a dull argument, but I keep running into problems with it trying to change the rules rather than help answer questions, like Strongheart Vest and Hellfire Warlock.

The primary argument against is a FAQ... which was obviously written by someone with a third grade reading level. On the other hand, in favor of Hellfire Warlock being allowed to use the Vest:

1) You have the actually RAW, which states it works in plain text.
2) It's not an overpowered combo, but rather a nice bonus to an underpowered class, so it falls within acceptable play.
3) It does have a cost, so you aren't getting something for nothing.
4) The Fluff fits nicely.
5) Using a hellfire blast is still actually an attack, so if you treat the FAQ as RAW, the FAQ is still wrong.

I don't know why anyone would put their trust in the FAQ after a gaffe like that. I'm pretty sure it was all recently deleted, so good riddance to bad rubbish.

[YossarianLives]

Whether "monstrous races" are people and one extremely loaded topic, whether all issues should be solved by "talking to the other person OOC".

I won't share my opinion but the endless discussion over those two topics really rustles my jimmies.

[dascarletm]

This used to be in the forum more frequently... oh, about 1-2 years ago, but, "Why every universe should turn into Tippyverse, and any other universe doesn't make sense because..."

[Brova]

Yeah, in and of itself was a dull argument, but I keep running into problems with it trying to change the rules rather than help answer questions, like Strongheart Vest and Hellfire Warlock.

The primary argument against is a FAQ... which was obviously written by someone with a third grade reading level. On the other hand, in favor of Hellfire Warlock being allowed to use the Vest:

1) You have the actually RAW, which states it works in plain text.
2) It's not an overpowered combo, but rather a nice bonus to an underpowered class, so it falls within acceptable play.
3) It does have a cost, so you aren't getting something for nothing.
4) The Fluff fits nicely.
5) Using a hellfire blast is still actually an attack, so if you treat the FAQ as RAW, the FAQ is still wrong.

I don't know why anyone would put their trust in the FAQ after a gaffe like that. I'm pretty sure it was all recently deleted, so good riddance to bad rubbish.

Honestly, the fact that FAQ and errata change cool but not broken stuff like that (and arguably extra spell) but not (to my knowledge) stupid broken things like ice assassin, wish for items, or shapechange is kind of stupid. If you're going to have something like that, it should be reserved for stuff that is actually broken, not just "very good".

[danzibr]

VoP sucking/not sucking.

What's needed to nerf casters or buff martials.

Complaining of DM's/players (admittedly these can get really funny).

Weather or not Manticore Belt is a natural weapon (I'm doing something here).

[Extra Anchovies]

Honestly, the fact that FAQ and errata change cool but not broken stuff like that (and arguably extra spell) but not (to my knowledge) stupid broken things like ice assassin, wish for items, or shapechange is kind of stupid. If you're going to have something like that, it should be reserved for stuff that is actually broken, not just "very good".

The thing is, Ice Assassin, Wish, and Shapechange are all perfectly clear in their effects (except maybe IA and acquiring the material components), and the role of the FAQ was to clarify stuff, not to change the rules. They weighed in on Strongheart Vest/HFW because someone thought it was unclear, even though it really isn't (HFW uses the wording "you take 1 point of Constitution damage", Strongheart Vest uses the wording "any time you would take ability damage", and there's no rules text in HFW that says that you need to actually receive the negative effects of the Con damage for hellfire to work). They had no reason to weigh in on Shapechange, because it does exactly what it's supposed to.

[Kurald Galain]

Honestly, the fact that FAQ and errata change cool but not broken stuff like that (and arguably extra spell) but not (to my knowledge) stupid broken things like ice assassin, wish for items, or shapechange is kind of stupid. If you're going to have something like that, it should be reserved for stuff that is actually broken, not just "very good".

Rather, if you're going to have errata, it should focus on issues that come up in actual campaigns, not tricks that are technically legal but vetoed by almost all DMs, nor tricks that require a level well above what almost all campaigns play at.

There's no priority to errata healing-by-drowning or any ninth-level spells. Why? Because they don't come up in actual gameplay much.

[nedz]

Spirit Shaman is Tier 1 // Spirit Shaman is Tier 2
Occasionally someone will claim some other tier, but these are the usual positions.
(I used the gestalt symbol deliberately)

...

JaronK was wrong: Class X should be assigned a different tier.
Usually the argument is for a +1 tier assignment; made by fan-boys of Class X.

...

I've had this argument before but I always run into the Forum Groupthink.
TL;DR: You were proved wrong last time too, only you didn't accept it then either.

[unseenmage]

Shapesand. That the Magic Item creation 'rules' are really guidelines for the DM.

And my least favorite useless answer of all, "Ask your DM."

Wouldn't bother me half as much if it wasn't spouted at so many DMs asking questions or at folks who've included their DM's thoughts on the matter in their question.

not that I'm innocent just that these are definitely dead horses

[Amphetryon]

And my least favorite useless answer of all, "Ask your DM."

Wouldn't bother me half as much if it wasn't spouted at so many DMs asking questions or at folks who've included their DM's thoughts on the matter in their question.

not that I'm innocent just that these are definitely dead horses
What answer would you prefer the forum to give to rules questions that fall distinctly outside the purview of the RAW, in some instances far enough outside to barely reference the RAI/RACSD?

[Snowbluff]

For me the "GitP Regulars as " thread are the the ones I just leave aside and dont even look into anymore. The first two were funny but know its like trying to perform CPR on the dead horse over and over and over again...
You wanna mess?!

I do them as a popular request. The regulars really like them.

Honestly, the fact that FAQ and errata change cool but not broken stuff like that (and arguably extra spell) but not (to my knowledge) stupid broken things like [I]ice assassin, wish for items, or shapechange is kind of stupid. If you're going to have something like that, it should be reserved for stuff that is actually broken, not just "very good".Yeah, messing with fun stuff is no good.


The thing is, Ice Assassin, Wish, and Shapechange are all perfectly clear in their effects (except maybe IA and acquiring the material components), and the role of the FAQ was to clarify stuff, not to change the rules. They weighed in on Strongheart Vest/HFW because someone thought it was unclear, even though it really isn't (HFW uses the wording "you take 1 point of Constitution damage", Strongheart Vest uses the wording "any time you would take ability damage", and there's no rules text in HFW that says that you need to actually receive the negative effects of the Con damage for hellfire to work). They had no reason to weigh in on Shapechange, because it does exactly what it's supposed to.

On the other hand I agree with this. Something like drowning is something really messed up and needed clarification, IMO.

[unseenmage]

What answer would you prefer the forum to give to rules questions that fall distinctly outside the purview of the RAW, in some instances far enough outside to barely reference the RAI/RACSD?

Any answer that's not a non-answer?

Some direction or guide in the right direction to maybe find where the closest thing to a RAW answer is?

It ("Ask your DM.") can be an appropriate response, yes. But not over and over and over. IMHO after a point it reads as a lazy attempt to partake in the conversation without actually adding anything to that conversation.

If the nebulous DM in question could answer the question wouldn't they have already?

And it does help when posters declare in advance that they are in fact the DM or that the discussion is Theoretical. But there is a difference between a hard question with subtle RAW/RAI and a question that is wholly inappropriate to it's venue and potentially unanswerable.

Just feels to me that "Ask your DM." gets dropped more often than there are unanswerable/wholly inappropriate questions.


EDIT: Oh and another favorite dead horse, that Dragon/Dungeon/PF content is dirty homebrew and should be hated.
Yes stuff that's unbalanced gets published we get it. Chill.

[Arutema]

It's a relatively fresh horse in this "race", but "Paizo errata sucks" is already dead.

[Snowbluff]

It's a relatively fresh horse in this "race", but "Paizo errata sucks" is already dead.

Well, technically speaking, that being ongoing is valid, since it's still coming out. I think 2 weeks ago we got new errata and a new thread for it. It's not a dead horse if that particular errata hasn't been gone over yet.

[A_S]

"I don't like the tier system because I see it as a thing munchkins use to 'win' at D&D rather than a descriptive tool to help DM's and players address balance issues."

Although it's refreshing when it occasionally turns out unexpectedly well (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?298958-Tiers).

[Anlashok]

This is more a pet peeve than a dead horse, but other people have been posting 'em so whatever.

"This will never come up in regular play" and "This isn't suited for a regular game" to dismiss someone else's opinion or a whole discussion in general. As if some random guy on the forums can just unilaterally declare himself the sole arbiter of what a "regular" game (which, incidentally, is never defined in the first place) is supposed to look like.

Very closely related to "No sane DM would allow that" which has all of the same problems.

[Hrugner]

I've had this argument before but I always run into the Forum Groupthink.
TL;DR: You were proved wrong last time too, only you didn't accept it then either.

GitP is pretty well stuck somewhere past level 10 for most advice, and with standard wealth levels. I've seen a few people try to get responses for things that don't fall into both categories and they usually get "why would anyone play like that" responses. Oh, and the hate for terrain and traps is also a little weird sometimes. It's silly to say there's no group think here.

Not that I've been here that long, maybe I've just got a poor representation in the last few months.

this is in the same line


Very closely related to "No sane DM would allow that" which has all of the same problems.

[Invader]

Dragonwrought Kobolds

[Molosse]

3.5>PF or 3.5<PF conversations of any stripe are always fun.

[Troacctid]

Any reference to Cancer Mage being overpowered because of Festering Anger. Has anyone actually read Festering Anger? The negative effects are laughably easy to negate with about 3000 gp's worth of magic items, or a single feat. Cancer Mage lets you negate the drawback at the cost of three feats and a class level. That's, like, actively poor optimization.

Also, Versatile Spellcaster doesn't let you cast spells from one class using a different class's slots. Multiclass casters don't work that way.

[dascarletm]

Another one similar to what others have said...

"My DM is a jerk because X. Help me break his game."

The thread continues as such:

A: Build a Wizard with Z, and Y prestige classes. <Insert strong build>
B: That's not the right way to handle it have you tried talking
C: I've tried this and it doesn't work, the DM will just say no.
D: WOW What a Jerk DM! I would walk from a game is a DM did X.
E: Z and Y won't work together in the same build it's illegal.
A: No it can work, I just used Z to fulfill the requirement.
E: That doesn't work it is illegal
A: No it does work look at the FAQ
E: FAQ isn't RAW
Curmudgeon: <Insert how the rules actually work>
A: *Ignores Curmudgeon* FAQ are rules. Wizards wrote them
Threadnaught: That's Rudisplorkery...
Loyal Paladin: you should champion good and just do <Insert something Torm would give a thumbs-up to>
Red Fel: You should do this... first get a 10ft. pole <Insert something deliciously evil... or evilly delicious>
A: you are all ******* idiots and should kill yourselves and go **** your **** mother with...
Haruki-kun: The Winged Mod: Thread locked for review.

[nedz]

GitP is pretty well stuck somewhere past level 10 for most advice, and with standard wealth levels. I've seen a few people try to get responses for things that don't fall into both categories and they usually get "why would anyone play like that" responses. Oh, and the hate for terrain and traps is also a little weird sometimes. It's silly to say there's no group think here.

Low wealth campaign advice is another Dead Horse. The normal response is that it skews game balance towards casters — which is exactly what 3.5 needs. Is this group think or simply true ?

I've not seen any Terrain hate — I usually recommend more use of terrain myself ?

Trap hate is directed towards poor use of traps — which is a complaint against unimaginative DMing.

Anyway: my point was directed against people who use a fallacy instead of an argument.

[Dondasch]

Spirit Shaman is Tier 1 // Spirit Shaman is Tier 2
Occasionally someone will claim some other tier, but these are the usual positions.
(I used the gestalt symbol deliberately)

High Tier 3 is the other common one I see, on the grounds of dual casting stats and the Druid list being the worst core full caster list.
The big variable is how gamebreaking the Druid list actually is (and how much of the Druid's T1 status comes from Wild Shape and the Animal Companion, as well as always having SNA avilable). The other big question is whether the versatility excludes it from Tier 2.
Then there's the fact that quite a bit of the Druid list is intended to buff animals/wildshape/other Druid-favoring things, so some of the better Druid stuff might be worthless to the Spirit Shaman.

[nedz]

High Tier 3 is the other common one I see, on the grounds of dual casting stats and the Druid list being the worst core full caster list.
The big variable is how gamebreaking the Druid list actually is (and how much of the Druid's T1 status comes from Wild Shape and the Animal Companion, as well as always having SNA avilable). The other big question is whether the versatility excludes it from Tier 2.
Then there's the fact that quite a bit of the Druid list is intended to buff animals/wildshape/other Druid-favoring things, so some of the better Druid stuff might be worthless to the Spirit Shaman.

I don't plan to re-hash the debate — I've seen at least 4 large threads on the subject, as well as twice that many derails. It's about {48% T1, 48% T2, 3% T3, 1% T4} — it's just that the 3% are very prolific posters.

I came to the view that it's T1//T2

[Kazyan]

As bad as Tier threads are, at least they're not X vs. Wizard threads, and heaven help you if the term "Schrodinger's Wizard" ever comes up. If it does, thread locking is more likely than not.

[emeraldstreak]

Monk debates. Monk debates suck to the point we need one thread to be stickied to be looked at prior to posting a thread on how monks totally don't suck guys, look at all those attacks.

Apparently, 99% of posters (including you) still don't know how to optimize the Monk, so the debates will continue.

[Snowbluff]

Apparently, 99% of posters (including you) still don't know how to optimize the Monk, so the debates will continue.

Nah, it's not that people don't know how to optimize monk, it's that monk is bad. The class doesn't let itself to any new active options or anything tactically involving. The fluff is equally trash tier. Just because it can be optimized, doesn't mean it's good.

[Larkas]

Ooooh, I thought of another one: "Vancian casting doesn't model any example of fantastic spellcasting at all".

I mean, I see this written so frequently that I don't think the people that write realize that D&D is/has a fantastic setting at all.

[Troacctid]

Oh, the first two levels of Monk are actually quite strong. Level 7 is pretty great too, and level 6 is solid. It's just the other 16 levels that suck.

[griffinpup]

It ("Ask your DM.") can be an appropriate response, yes. But not over and over and over. IMHO after a point it reads as a lazy attempt to partake in the conversation without actually adding anything to that conversation.

Better late then never...

You should probably ask your DM to see if you're allowed to have that opinion.
:smallbiggrin:

[emeraldstreak]

Nah, it's not that people don't know how to optimize monk, it's that monk is bad. The class doesn't let itself to any new active options or anything tactically involving.

Clueless words.



The fluff is equally trash tier. Just because it can be optimized, doesn't mean it's good.

There are no "good" non-ToB martials. This doesn't mean there is any significant difference between them when properly optimized.

[nedz]

Ooooh, I thought of another one: "Vancian casting doesn't model any example of fantastic spellcasting at all".

I mean, I see this written so frequently that I don't think the people that write realize that D&D is/has a fantastic setting at all.

Or that it's modelled on the Tales of the Dying Earth series — by Jack Vance. It only exists at all because that was the one setting Gary and Dave could use as an example to model — back in the day.

[Hrugner]

Low wealth campaign advice is another Dead Horse. The normal response is that it skews game balance towards casters — which is exactly what 3.5 needs. Is this group think or simply true ?

I've not seen any Terrain hate — I usually recommend more use of terrain myself ?

Trap hate is directed towards poor use of traps — which is a complaint against unimaginative DMing.

Anyway: my point was directed against people who use a fallacy instead of an argument.

The low wealth "group think" is that there appears to be intent to end discussion as soon as it is noted that casters benefit from less money rather continuing to work on the problem. "You can't do that, there's no way to make it work" isn't much of a solution, it's just trying to end a conversation.

Terrain hate is something I saw pop up a couple times, like I said, I've not been here long and my sample size is very small. Same with traps, and I honestly throw the two in the same bucket when designing encounters. Anyone who advocates better use of either or both is okay in my book, so glad to hear it.

I do agree that some people simply reengage a dead argument rather than examining the disagreement and looking for a clearer concern to discuss.

[Invader]

If (Gandalf, hellboy, batman, naruto, the hulk, president Obama, etc etc were characters what would their build be, what lvl would they be?

[Deadline]

Nah, it's not that people don't know how to optimize monk, it's that monk is bad. The class doesn't let itself to any new active options or anything tactically involving. The fluff is equally trash tier. Just because it can be optimized, doesn't mean it's good.

For reference, check out any of the Iron Chef Optimization challenges. The whole competition is about taking a crappy prestige class and trying to make something decent/good out of it.

But yeah, Monkday is a known phenomenon here, so it's a prime dead horse.

I'm fond of the "Why does everyone recommend banning Enchantment and Evocation for specialist wizards? Charm Person and Fireball are OP!" recycled appaloosa. It hasn't shown up for a while though.

[Kurald Galain]

If (Gandalf, hellboy, batman, naruto, the hulk, president Obama, etc etc were characters what would their build be, what lvl would they be?

Also, how many people on this forum / people in the whole world have an intelligence of 18+?

[Werephilosopher]

Just because it can be optimized, doesn't mean it's good.

Words to live by.


There are no "good" non-ToB martials. This doesn't mean there is any significant difference between them when properly optimized.

Yeah, but the point isn't that monks can't be optimized. The point is that monks are bad.

[mashlagoo1982]

Another one similar to what others have said...

"My DM is a jerk because X. Help me break his game."

The thread continues as such:

A: Build a Wizard with Z, and Y prestige classes. <Insert strong build>
B: That's not the right way to handle it have you tried talking
C: I've tried this and it doesn't work, the DM will just say no.
D: WOW What a Jerk DM! I would walk from a game is a DM did X.
E: Z and Y won't work together in the same build it's illegal.
A: No it can work, I just used Z to fulfill the requirement.
E: That doesn't work it is illegal
A: No it does work look at the FAQ
E: FAQ isn't RAW
Curmudgeon: <Insert how the rules actually work>
A: *Ignores Curmudgeon* FAQ are rules. Wizards wrote them
Threadnaught: That's Rudisplorkery...
Loyal Paladin: you should champion good and just do <Insert something Torm would give a thumbs-up to>
Red Fel: You should do this... first get a 10ft. pole <Insert something deliciously evil... or evilly delicious>
A: you are all ******* idiots and should kill yourselves and go **** your **** mother with...
Haruki-kun: The Winged Mod: Thread locked for review.

Almost spit took my drink.

Forgot to include the important step of people with no valid input voicing their input just to be seen.

[Dondasch]

Forgot to include the important step of people with no valid input voicing their input just to be seen.

I don't know anything about this process, but I think this step is the most important one!

[emeraldstreak]

Yeah, but the point isn't that monks can't be optimized. The point is that monks are bad.

The point is Monks aren't any worse than other non-ToB martials, so it's wrong to single them out. I didn't see "non-ToB martials suck", I saw "Monks suck", which is the tell-tale saying of the newbie.

[Brova]

Apparently, 99% of posters (including you) still don't know how to optimize the Monk, so the debates will continue.

Oh, I've got one. This sentiment. The thing where someone is goes "you just don't know how to optimize Monks/Truenamers/Sorcerers/Fighters, if you did you'd see that the real power is "not using equipment/boosting skill checks/being a level behind in casting/bonus feats".


I'm fond of the "Why does everyone recommend banning Enchantment and Evocation for specialist wizards? Charm Person and Fireball are OP!" recycled appaloosa. It hasn't shown up for a while though.

In fairness though, enchantment has the best effects in the game. dominate person is like if lesser planar binding had no HD cap and an option to literally capture enemy outsiders like pokemon. The downside is that it's kind of easy to shut down. Also, it's somewhat conceptually redundant with illusion (both cover the "nuke the will save" side of side of casting.

[nedz]

The low wealth "group think" is that there appears to be intent to end discussion as soon as it is noted that casters benefit from less money rather continuing to work on the problem. "You can't do that, there's no way to make it work" isn't much of a solution, it's just trying to end a conversation.

Having played in TWO such games, where the rationale was to reduce power levels, I can tell you that it doesn't have that effect — and this is the normal rationale presented. A better solution is to have the PCs all be of about the same tier — though given how often this comes up: this is not obvious.

The problem is that this issue comes up very often and people get fed up of flogging dead horse.

[emeraldstreak]

Oh, I've got one. This sentiment. The thing where someone is goes "you just don't know how to optimize Monks/Truenamers/Sorcerers/Fighters, if you did you'd see that the real power is not using equipment/boosting skill checks/being a level behind in casting/bonus feats".

Does it still hurt how badly you lost our last Monk v Fighter argument? Due to the Monk's core feature of highest base damage die in the game at 2d10. The very definition of a superior class feature over his fellow non-ToB the Fighter. It must be.

[Brova]

Does it still hurt how badly you lost our last Monk v Fighter argument? Due to the Monk's core feature of highest base damage die in the game at 2d10. The very definition of a superior class feature over his fellow non-ToB the Fighter. It must be.

Oh, I know this one. You dipped into Races of the Dragon, the Eberron Campaign Setting, and Dragon Magazine variant classes. Having done so, you failed to produce something as effective as a guy using power attack. And you'll recall that the debate wasn't "Monk v Fighter", it was "does the Monk suck". Seriously, you made something more optimized than an Incantatrix and less effective than a Core Only Wizard. You lost that debate super hard.

[A_S]

Is this group think or simply true ?
My impression of the GitP "groupthink" phenomenon isn't that we believe stuff about 3.5 that's factually incorrect. It's that we tend to assume that everybody plays the game like we do. This can lead us, as a group, to be less flexible than we should be when it comes to answering questions and providing advice for people who play a different style game than the one that's generally assumed around here, even when the OP provides all the info we need about the style of game they're playing and what they're looking for. Thus, I think a lot of people who come here with questions about games in which some combination of the following are true:

Book access is limited.
RAW isn't adhered to as strictly as normal.
Optimization levels are low and/or vary widely.
WBL isn't followed terribly closely and broad magic item access isn't a given.
The game isn't expected to extend beyond the lower end of mid levels.
The DM limits player agency in ways that we around here generally disapprove of.
...tend to get a lot of advice in the form of, "That doesn't sound like a game I'd like to play in, so let me ignore your restrictions and give you some advice about what I'd do in the kind of game I like to play in."

This isn't all of the advice they receive, of course, but it's enough of it that the thinner-skinned sometimes leave with the (not entirely unreasonable) impression that they tried to ask a simple question about how to [do X thing a bit better] and were basically told they're having Badwrongfun and should stop playing D&D wrong. This was pointed out (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?429253-Embarrassing-combos-you-thought-of-as-a-newbie&p=19565812&viewfull=1#post19565812) somewhat recently, and my first reaction was to want to dismiss it, but I've been seeing it in action pretty frequently since I read that post and started paying attention.

-----

In unrelated news, can this thread about complaining about Monkday threads please not become the Monkday thread?

[Deadline]

In fairness though, enchantment has the best effects in the game. dominate person is like if lesser planar binding had no HD cap and an option to literally capture enemy outsiders like pokemon. The downside is that it's kind of easy to shut down. Also, it's somewhat conceptually redundant with illusion (both cover the "nuke the will save" side of side of casting.

Sure, but the entire school doesn't work on something like 1/3rd of the monster manual as printed, and a single 1st level spell does a solid job of blocking all of it. And those Outsiders? Many of them have that spell as either a spell like ability (at-will), or as a constant effect (like the Aura of Menace for Archons). It's great when it works, but it doesn't work often enough to save it from being first on the chopping block when selecting a banned school.

It's kind of like the Monk, it doesn't work all that well as printed in the PHB. But you can optimize it into something at least useful by using ACFs from all over to replace much of it's base chassis. This adage seems apt. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiJ9fy1qSFI)

[eggynack]

The point is Monks aren't any worse than other non-ToB martials, so it's wrong to single them out. I didn't see "non-ToB martials suck", I saw "Monks suck", which is the tell-tale saying of the newbie.
It's complicated. Monk optimization tends to rely on stuff somewhat more obscure than what goes into, say, barbarian or fighter optimization, and this issue is exacerbated by the fact that a barbarian without optimization looks a lot like one with optimization, while a monk without is completely unlike one with. A core barbarian will rage, run up to someone, and hit them with their sword. A non-core and optimized barbarian will frenzy, charge up to someone, and hit them with their guisarme a bunch of times, tripping all the while. A core monk will run up to someone and fail to hit them, after which they fail to hit them a lot. A non-core and optimized monk will stealth about with invisibility and shadow blend, or make use of martial monk cheese, or make use of dubious readings of unarmed strike rules to combo together a massive number of crazy magic items to ridiculous results, or even use tashalatora for psionic power.

It's not that the results of this optimization are bad. Far from it. It's just that you wind up so divorced from what once constituted a monk that it's hard to reconcile what you wind up with with what you started with. The same issue exists for the paladin. Yes, you can build a paladin as a pseudo-bard, picking up inspire courage and solid arcane casting. Yes, said build will probably wind up high tier four or a low three, largely on the basis of said magic. But, at some point, you left what the paladin is, or at least how it's perceived, so far in the dust that the whole thing is meaningless. You may as well just build a bard, because it'll do the job a lot better. The best optimization is optimization that takes you further into the core of what the character really is, revealing their truest self. Fighter and barbarian optimization often do this, while monk optimization rarely does so.

[emeraldstreak]

Oh, I know this one. You dipped into Races of the Dragon, the Eberron Campaign Setting, and Dragon Magazine variant classes. Having done so, you failed to produce something as effective as a guy using power attack. And you'll recall that the debate wasn't "Monk v Fighter", it was "does the Monk suck". Seriously, you made something more optimized than an Incantatrix and less effective than a Core Only Wizard. You lost that debate super hard.

Uhh...Power Attack? You only posted the Incantatrix and the Artificer, then you realized you could never, ever, build a Fighter to match my Monk; so you ran away. It's not my fault the Fighter cannot benefit from damage size increases as much as the Monk, probably because the Fighter's base damage die is only 2d6 at best. Inferior class features and all.

But be my guest: Monk 20 v Fighter 20, anytime. I've never seen the Fighter win this one as long as at least one poster of decent optimization skill participated for the Monk, but I'm sure Brova can change that.

[Brova]

Sure, but the entire school doesn't work on something like 1/3rd of the monster manual as printed,

I never really got this argument. Sure, casting charm monster won't do anything to a Vampire. But having the guy you charmed or dominated a week ago beat him up totally will. Would a Conjurer who's only spells where lesser planar binding, planar binding, and greater planar binding be underpowered because he had to spend his time in combat commanding a couple dozen angels, demons, and other outsiders?


and a single 1st level spell does a solid job of blocking all of it.

It blocks it at combat time. But dispel magic exists, and you can totally wait for it to wear off. The charm and dominate lines aren't generally combat spells. You cast them on people you've captured (either with the sleep variants or nonlethal damage) to redeem them for full value. There's an upside in that if you happen to encounter a guy who isn't properly defended, you can nuke him with it as well, but it's not vital to the spells' function.


And those Outsiders? Many of them have that spell as either a spell like ability (at-will), or as a constant effect (like the Aura of Menace for Archons).

Those outsiders are also immune by virtue of not being humanoid. But yes, charm person won't work every time. But every time it works, you get a new permanent minion who is generally close to level appropriate. And those minions have no problems beating up people who would normally be immune to your trick.


It's great when it works, but it doesn't work often enough to save it from being first on the chopping block when selecting a banned school.

The first thing on the chopping block for banning is evocation. Because it specializes in direct damage, the shadow evocation spells exist, and the good spells it does have are obscure, high level, and/or generally only useful in high-OP campaigns. After that you drop either illusion or enchantment. They both get will-based save or dies, they both get some absurd value spells (charm person, shadow conjuration), and they both get shut down by fairly common defenses. It's a trade off of power when it works (enchantment) versus power when it doesn't (illusion).


It's complicated. Monk optimization tends to rely on stuff somewhat more obscure than what goes into, say, barbarian or fighter optimization, and this issue is exacerbated by the fact that a barbarian without optimization looks a lot like one with optimization, while a monk without is completely unlike one with. A core barbarian will rage, run up to someone, and hit them with their sword. A non-core and optimized barbarian will frenzy, charge up to someone, and hit them with their guisarme a bunch of times, tripping all the while. A core monk will run up to someone and fail to hit them, after which they fail to hit them a lot. A non-core and optimized monk will stealth about with invisibility and shadow blend, or make use of martial monk cheese, or make use of dubious readings of unarmed strike rules to combo together a massive number of crazy magic items to ridiculous results, or even use tashalatora for psionic power.

It's not that the results of this optimization are bad. Far from it. It's just that you wind up so divorced from what once constituted a monk that it's hard to reconcile what you wind up with with what you started with. The same issue exists for the paladin. Yes, you can build a paladin as a pseudo-bard, picking up inspire courage and solid arcane casting. Yes, said build will probably wind up high tier four or a low three, largely on the basis of said magic. But, at some point, you left what the paladin is, or at least how it's perceived, so far in the dust that the whole thing is meaningless. You may as well just build a bard, because it'll do the job a lot better. The best optimization is optimization that takes you further into the core of what the character really is, revealing their truest self. Fighter and barbarian optimization often do this, while monk optimization rarely does so.

I just want to upvote this before I reply to Monks Guy. Also, I'd point out that the core of the problem is that whatever constraints you set for the Monk, a better build (like a Barbarian/Fighter/Frenzied Berserker Ubercharger) will end up being better.


Uhh...Power Attack? You only posted the Incantatrix and the Artificer,

You mean, when trying to prove that the Monk couldn't compete with effective characters, I used effective characters? The horror. Seriously, an Incantatrix with Persist Spell is less books than the Monkstrosity you're on about, and is more effective.

And, yes, I didn't post a power attack build. But I did point out that it only takes a x4 modifier for an Ubercharger's minimum damage to compete with the Monk's average.


probably because the Fighter's base damage die is only 2d6 at best. Inferior class features and all.

It amuses me that you care this much about base damage die. There's never really a point where it matters, even for martials. Save or dies matter. Power attack matters. Number of attacks (sometimes) matters. But base damage die? Not so much.


But be my guest: Monk 20 v Fighter 20, anytime. I've never seen the Fighter win this one as long as at least one poster of decent optimization skill participated for the Monk, but I'm sure Brova can change that.

Of course you've never seen the Fighter people win - you don't admit defeat. But seriously, post your optimized Monk build so we can marvel at its power. Or just throw down a lower level character that is more powerful.

[emeraldstreak]

It's complicated. Monk optimization tends to rely on stuff somewhat more obscure than what goes into, say, barbarian or fighter optimization, and this issue is exacerbated by the fact that a barbarian without optimization looks a lot like one with optimization, while a monk without is completely unlike one with. A core barbarian will rage, run up to someone, and hit them with their sword. A non-core and optimized barbarian will frenzy, charge up to someone, and hit them with their guisarme a bunch of times, tripping all the while. A core monk will run up to someone and fail to hit them, after which they fail to hit them a lot. A non-core and optimized monk will stealth about with invisibility and shadow blend, or make use of martial monk cheese, or make use of dubious readings of unarmed strike rules to combo together a massive number of crazy magic items to ridiculous results, or even use tashalatora for psionic power.

I agree. In fact, when I first posted the size increase Monk on the old Wizards forum (the thread is gone but still referenced here and there) I pointed out these same reasons as to why the Monk's optimization is way more obscure. Still, a good optimizer in any game can recognize and optimization "seed" even before the conditions are right for its ripening. The Monk's 2d10 superior base damage die is such a thing since the Core.



It's not that the results of this optimization are bad. Far from it. It's just that you wind up so divorced from what once constituted a monk that it's hard to reconcile what you wind up with with what you started with. The same issue exists for the paladin. Yes, you can build a paladin as a pseudo-bard, picking up inspire courage and solid arcane casting. Yes, said build will probably wind up high tier four or a low three, largely on the basis of said magic. But, at some point, you left what the paladin is, or at least how it's perceived, so far in the dust that the whole thing is meaningless. You may as well just build a bard, because it'll do the job a lot better. The best optimization is optimization that takes you further into the core of what the character really is, revealing their truest self. Fighter and barbarian optimization often do this, while monk optimization rarely does so.

Also largely true. For instance, in the Core, the Paladin is also potentially stronger than expected, but only if it cheeses out the maximum of the DMG's alternative mounts' rules; at which point you're really playing, say, a Golden Dragon. Worded like this, the objections against the Monk make sense. However, they aren't often worded like this, or even understood like this: source, Atemu's comment that started this argument.

[dascarletm]

Almost spit took my drink.

Forgot to include the important step of people with no valid input voicing their input just to be seen.

well I usually fall in that category so I didn't really want to... well... address it... :smallredface:

[Hrugner]

Having played in TWO such games, where the rationale was to reduce power levels, I can tell you that it doesn't have that effect — and this is the normal rationale presented. A better solution is to have the PCs all be of about the same tier — though given how often this comes up: this is not obvious.

The problem is that this issue comes up very often and people get fed up of flogging dead horse.

Think of how often you see people asking what the "tiers" are, then not understanding that they aren't a versus arrangement with winners and losers but a classification for how much control a class has over their game world. The solution is simple, restrict the tiers to something lower (3ish I guess), but someone coming in and asking that question probably doesn't spend enough time here to be familiar with tiers in the first place.

Either way, I don't think it's too much of a problem, but "restrict class choices to tier 3-6 (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=11990.0)" is more helpful then "why would anyone play like that, it just makes power imbalances worse! It seems like less of a dead horse than debates about rules based morality or moving raid tiers since there's a good solid answer to the question. We certainly can't derail a thread with it.

[Deadline]

I never really got this argument. Sure, casting charm monster won't do anything to a Vampire. But having the guy you charmed or dominated a week ago beat him up totally will.

The problem is, most things that you can effectively Charm or Dominate are only really all that useful at the level you can acquire them, and not terribly useful later. That bugbear you charmed isn't terribly useful against that Vampire. And the time cost to the game for minionmancy is a problem no matter where you get your minions from.


Those outsiders are also immune by virtue of not being humanoid.

You mentioned outsiders in the post I responded to. My guess is you intended the use of Dominate Monster on them. There aren't many things that will be susceptible to that spell line by the time you start encountering the really useful outsiders (who, themselves, are mostly immune to said trick).


The first thing on the chopping block for banning is evocation. Because it specializes in direct damage, the shadow evocation spells exist, and the good spells it does have are obscure, high level, and/or generally only useful in high-OP campaigns. After that you drop either illusion or enchantment. They both get will-based save or dies, they both get some absurd value spells (charm person, shadow conjuration), and they both get shut down by fairly common defenses. It's a trade off of power when it works (enchantment) versus power when it doesn't (illusion).

Six of one ... :smallwink: Illusion is generally the favored school to keep because it is less susceptible to being shutdown, which makes it the more versatile. That said, I prefer options, so I don't specialize my wizards (I don't always specialize my wizards, but when I do I ban Enchantment and Evocation). :smalltongue: And if you can find a DM who will let you use Enchantment to it's full potential, go nuts.

[Werephilosopher]

The point is Monks aren't any worse than other non-ToB martials, so it's wrong to single them out.

That's your point, sure. But that's not the point of saying "monks suck." When people say "the [non-ToB martial] class doesn't really suck," more often than not, they're talking about the monk. Hence, the preponderance of "monks suck." It's not like a bunch of people just decided to hate on monks more than any other class for the heck of it, they're just responding to a misconception that's more widespread than "fighters are great" or "rangers are actually the best class" or what have you.

Sorry. Let's not turn this into a monkday thread.

[emeraldstreak]

I just want to upvote this before I reply to Monks Guy. Also, I'd point out that the core of the problem is that whatever constraints you set for the Monk, a better build (like a Barbarian/Fighter/Frenzied Berserker Ubercharger) will end up being better.

And, yes, I didn't post a power attack build. But I did point out that it only takes a x4 modifier for an Ubercharger's minimum damage to compete with the Monk's average.

I told you before, but you didn't seem to understand it; so try again. If we go into a Ubercharger that is powered by the PrC Frenzied Berserker, substituting Fighter levels for Chaos Monk with a Scorpion quarterstaff increases the overall damage. {scrubbed}





You mean, when trying to prove that the Monk couldn't compete with effective characters, I used effective characters? The horror. Seriously, an Incantatrix with Persist Spell is less books than the Monkstrosity you're on about, and is more effective.

Yes, the Monk is weaker than the Incantatrix. It's even weaker than the Wizard. Do you know how you know this? Because you read about it in the meta on the forums, which was created pre-2006 on the old Wizard general and CharOp boards; at a time most people were still grappling to understand how powerful casters are and we showed them.




It amuses me that you care this much about base damage die. There's never really a point where it matters, even for martials. Save or dies matter. Power attack matters. Number of attacks (sometimes) matters. But base damage die? Not so much.

{scrubbed}

The Monk's damage die is an outliner to the tune of 71% or 93% (depending on the step in the progression) over the 2d6. This is a synergy seed. Whether enough other elements for this synergy will arise in time or not was not known when the Core was published, but it was an easily recognizable seed.

Likewise, you know "Power Attack = stronk", but you cannot deconstruct its synergy seed (it's BAB), nor the synergy elements that could arise to improve it (surprise, Power Attack is such an element, not a seed in itself). Same goes for number of attacks or any other element you list.




Of course you've never seen the Fighter people win - you don't admit defeat.

I would, but I've been defeated in these arguments as many times as I've been defeated in arenas and gauntlets: oops, that's a zero.

But I really would if it comes to that. Being able to learn from defeat is integral to becoming the best. In fact, the best care less for victory and defeat than they care for perfection of execution.

[nedz]

My impression of the GitP "groupthink" phenomenon isn't that we believe stuff about 3.5 that's factually incorrect. It's that we tend to assume that everybody plays the game like we do. This can lead us, as a group, to be less flexible than we should be when it comes to answering questions and providing advice for people who play a different style game than the one that's generally assumed around here, even when the OP provides all the info we need about the style of game they're playing and what they're looking for. Thus, I think a lot of people who come here with questions about games in which some combination of the following are true:

Book access is limited.
RAW isn't adhered to as strictly as normal.
Optimization levels are low and/or vary widely.
WBL isn't followed terribly closely and broad magic item access isn't a given.
The game isn't expected to extend beyond the lower end of mid levels.
The DM limits player agency in ways that we around here generally disapprove of.
...tend to get a lot of advice in the form of, "That doesn't sound like a game I'd like to play in, so let me ignore your restrictions and give you some advice about what I'd do in the kind of game I like to play in."

This isn't all of the advice they receive, of course, but it's enough of it that the thinner-skinned sometimes leave with the (not entirely unreasonable) impression that they tried to ask a simple question about how to [do X thing a bit better] and were basically told they're having Badwrongfun and should stop playing D&D wrong. This was pointed out (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?429253-Embarrassing-combos-you-thought-of-as-a-newbie&p=19565812&viewfull=1#post19565812) somewhat recently, and my first reaction was to want to dismiss it, but I've been seeing it in action pretty frequently since I read that post and started paying attention.

So it's a communication problem perhaps ?

I have noted that people new to internet forums tend to have thinner skins and that online communities, like all communities, have a body of expectations/received wisdom. I first encountered this myself on Forums which weren't games related. I think that this is an aspect of internet forums relating to new users, this goes all the back to Use-Net, rather than GitP specifically.

[Brova]

Dear Monk Guy,

I don't care about Monk v Fighter. The fact that you insist the debate be "Monk v Fighter" only demonstrates that you can't win the actual argument. Namely, that there is any time when I care about the Monk (rather than the Wizard, or the Druid, or even the Rogue). If you'd like to demonstrate a set of conditions where the Monk is useful, do that. If you'd like to crap all over this thread about how you think damage dice are awesome, instead don't do that.

Regards,

Competent People


The problem is, most things that you can effectively Charm or Dominate are only really all that useful at the level you can acquire them, and not terribly useful later. That bugbear you charmed isn't terribly useful against that Vampire.

It depends on what you encounter. There are a few tough levels in the four to six range where you aren't going to be effective with Warrior 1s, but don't have charm monster - forcing you to rely on other schools, or hope to encounter classed humanoids. But charm monster never goes out of style.


You mentioned outsiders in the post I responded to. My guess is you intended the use of Dominate Monster on them. There aren't many things that will be susceptible to that spell line by the time you start encountering the really useful outsiders (who, themselves, are mostly immune to said trick).

No, I was mentioning outsiders as a comparison of dominate person to lesser planar binding. lesser planar binding is a downtime spell that gets you any outsider with six hit dice or less. dominate person is also a downtime spell (in that you use it on captured and debuffed enemies), and it gives you any humanoid period, with the caveat that you have to encounter it. When you realize that you can use it that way, it looks at lot better. The ability to use it as a save or die is basically gravy, so problems with that don't matter much.


And if you can find a DM who will let you use Enchantment to it's full potential, go nuts.

And the time cost to the game for minionmancy is a problem no matter where you get your minions from.

This is basically the problem. While enchantment is a very powerful school, it is also very annoying and very prone to being nerfed. I'd never tell anyone that being an Enchanter is a bad choice (well, Beguiler is better if you go that route, but that's a whole new can of worms), but it can get nerfed in some games.

[emeraldstreak]

So it's a communication problem perhaps ?

I have noted that people new to internet forums tend to have thinner skins and that online communities, like all communities, have a body of expectations/received wisdom. I first encountered this myself on Forums which weren't games related. I think that this is an aspect of internet forums relating to new users, this goes all the back to Use-Net, rather than GitP specifically.

It's part communication problem: after all, when different people from different backgrounds come together in a melting pot things get heated for a while. Especially when somebody comes from "on my table" position it's best to believe him as long as he understands that his table is not the worldwide reality.

The other is common on TTRPG forums (not only DnD) compared to gaming forums in general. For most games, meta is created and spread much more faster and easier than for tabletops. For certain games I've created way more meta than I ever did for DnD, yet it took less time for it to be widely accepted. Why? Because any doubts (I wouldn't even call it arguments) are speedily dispelled in the games themselves: it's just obvious and test games are quick to setup and finish.

And here, it's still Monkday. And if you think we have it bad, I wish I could show you the old DnD forums. Actually show you the legions of people who raged that the Fighter is better than the Wizard early in the edition. They weren't trolling, they really believed it.

[TheCrowing1432]

Has truenamer been talked about yet? Or CW Samurai?

[Brova]

Has truenamer been talked about yet? Or CW Samurai?

I'm sure Jormengand will bring every bit as much vitriol and condescension in defense of the Truenamer as Monk Guy brings for Monks. I don't think anyone defends the CW Samurai. My theory is that wannabe optimizers flock to things that are truly horrid to make a name for themselves proving they don't suck as much as they do. No one ever seems to have a passion for defending things that are merely bad.

[TheCrowing1432]

I'm sure Jormengand will bring every bit as much vitriol and condescension in defense of the Truenamer as Monk Guy brings for Monks. I don't think anyone defends the CW Samurai. My theory is that wannabe optimizers flock to things that are truly horrid to make a name for themselves proving they don't suck as much as they do. No one ever seems to have a passion for defending things that are merely bad.

PErsonally Id rather just play an unarmed sword sage then go through all the dipping shenanigans that monk guy is going through. If you need to hunt down every single ACF or Dragon Magazine Article to make your class halfway decent, thats certainly telling.

[nedz]

It's part communication problem: after all, when different people from different backgrounds come together in a melting pot things get heated for a while. Especially when somebody comes from "on my table" position it's best to believe him as long as he understands that his table is not the worldwide reality.

The other is common on TTRPG forums (not only DnD) compared to gaming forums in general. For most games, meta is created and spread much more faster and easier than for tabletops. For certain games I've created way more meta than I ever did for DnD, yet it took less time for it to be widely accepted. Why? Because any doubts (I wouldn't even call it arguments) are speedily dispelled in the games themselves: it's just obvious and test games are quick to setup and finish.

And here, it's still Monkday. And if you think we have it bad, I wish I could show you the old DnD forums. Actually show you the legions of people who raged that the Fighter is better than the Wizard early in the edition. They weren't trolling, they really believed it.

The problem is better termed Culturisation perhaps ?

The first Forum I was active on, some years ago now, was AHF — which is about WWII history, not gaming. This had all of the same issues as newbies adjusted to the culture of the board — or ran away screaming. I was quite insecure, and thus thin skinned, when I started out; but not these days.

Forums acquire a body of knowledge and form a culture: this is in fact their value. Some people use slightly pejorative terms such as group-think for this even though that is an entirely different thing. Maybe we need a sticky GitP handbook to cover this stuff ?

[Dondasch]

Or CW Samurai?


I don't think anyone defends the CW Samurai.

CW Samurai can actually be useful if you're building around Intimidate.

[Brova]

CW Samurai can actually be useful if you're building around Intimidate.

I've never actually looked at it very hard, but what does it have over a Dread Necromancer in that regard?

[Dondasch]

I've never actually looked at it very hard, but what does it have over a Dread Necromancer in that regard?

Mass Staredown+Imperious Command can potentially make everyone within 30ft cower, as a standard action.

[Brova]

Mass Staredown+Imperious Command can potentially make everyone within 30ft cower, as a standard action.

Not bad. I assume that's the capstone or something?

[TheCrowing1432]

Mass Staredown+Imperious Command can potentially make everyone within 30ft cower, as a standard action.

Now is there a way to make normally mind immune creatures able to be affected?

[Dondasch]

Not bad. I assume that's the capstone or something?

Actually, only 10th level. So you could take 9 levels of Zhentarim Fighter, and go around making things cower as a swift action.

Edit: And you could spend that last level on Barbarian for Pounce.

[Brookshw]

So....back to listing dead horses and leaving the beatings of them to other threads.

Killing deities, portfolio sense, bad stats vs. competently played/built, seems to crop up with some frequency.

[ben-zayb]

I'm sorta waiting for someone to !mention VoP...Anyone? At least the last one I read seemed more like a parody, what with the free relics and all.

[Invader]

I'm sorta waiting for someone to !mention VoP...Anyone? At least the last one I read seemed more like a parody, what with the free relics and all.

Brookshaw did on the first page, it's a pretty big one lol.

[Red Rubber Band]

Another one similar to what others have said...

"My DM is a jerk because X. Help me break his game."

The thread continues as such:

A: Build a Wizard with Z, and Y prestige classes. <Insert strong build>
B: That's not the right way to handle it have you tried talking
C: I've tried this and it doesn't work, the DM will just say no.
D: WOW What a Jerk DM! I would walk from a game is a DM did X.
E: Z and Y won't work together in the same build it's illegal.
A: No it can work, I just used Z to fulfill the requirement.
E: That doesn't work it is illegal
A: No it does work look at the FAQ
E: FAQ isn't RAW
Curmudgeon: <Insert how the rules actually work>
A: *Ignores Curmudgeon* FAQ are rules. Wizards wrote them
Threadnaught: That's Rudisplorkery...
Loyal Paladin: you should champion good and just do <Insert something Torm would give a thumbs-up to>
Red Fel: You should do this... first get a 10ft. pole <Insert something deliciously evil... or evilly delicious>
A: you are all ******* idiots and should kill yourselves and go **** your **** mother with...
Haruki-kun: The Winged Mod: Thread locked for review.

I love it. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSVCZIMVRiA)

No if only I could sig :smallfrown: Damn you size restrictions!

[Bronk]

So....back to listing dead horses and leaving the beatings of them to other threads.

Killing deities, portfolio sense, bad stats vs. competently played/built, seems to crop up with some frequency.

I'd say... one I've seen quite a few times are arguments about the relative safety, porousness and stealth aspects of the 'rope trick' spell. Is the window here? Is it there? Where is the rope? What aspect of 'dispel magic' is most pertinent? What if you have that one feat? Where is that pesky rope anyway? And so on.

The other is the Warbeast template. Some people point to a line in the description to say that it can only be used with finely crafted, pedigreed, artisanal critters, while others note that the rules for using it on any animal are included right there as well.

[Extra Anchovies]

Oh, I've got one. This sentiment. The thing where someone is goes "you just don't know how to optimize Monks/Truenamers/Sorcerers/Fighters, if you did you'd see that the real power is "not using equipment/boosting skill checks/being a level behind in casting/bonus feats".

It's all about those partially charged wands, man.

Really though, the only way for a truenamer to work (and by that I mean use utterances effectively, because that's how it's supposed to work) is with item familiar. If a class requires a specific item to function, it is a poorly designed class, and thus a bad class.

"Bad" doesn't have anything to do with power. It has everything to do with design. The latter has a very strong influence on the former, but you can have a bad class that is also a powerful class - Sorcerer is an example of this. They have two class features (familiar and spellcasting), and are very unforgiving (make a wrong spell choice and you have to wait two levels to fix it), but at the same time they can snap games over their knee if they want to.


Ooooh, I thought of another one: "Vancian casting doesn't model any example of fantastic spellcasting at all".

I mean, I see this written so frequently that I don't think the people that write realize that D&D is/has a fantastic setting at all.

I think implicit in that statement is that it doesn't model any example of fantasy spellcasting in a setting other than those created as D&D settings. D&D settings inherently have D&D style casting present in them, because they can't not have it.

Also, even in those settings (specifically, novels that take place in those settings) magic doesn't always work quite like it does in the rules system.

[The Viscount]

I'm going to say Dread Necromancer is/isn't a lich at level 20. It's been a while since I've seen the argument, but it's always ugly when I do. We probably wouldn't be having it if the class had been written by someone who understands game terminology.

Also going to say any debates on inherent evil of necromancy. Every time I hope it will be different, but every time I am wrong. It always rapidly turns into sectarian arguments.

[eggynack]

Really though, the only way for a truenamer to work (and by that I mean use utterances effectively, because that's how it's supposed to work) is with item familiar. If a class requires a specific item to function, it is a poorly designed class, and thus a bad class.
I don't think that's entirely true. I've seen a number of skill listings that seem to maintain rough parity with the listed CR's, and that can often take a good shot at quickening. If we're being really realistic, with decent optimization, the truenamer is basically a warlock. Maybe a bit worse, but there are some advantages too. Just a whole bunch of abilities that tend to be consistently overleveled, with the occasional gem and maybe a couple of overpowered tricks. The underlying mechanics are wonky, but it doesn't seem like they're wonky to an unmanageable degree. I agree that it's not a good class, and the fact that it seems like a really boring and one note class to build has kept most experienced optimizers away, but it's not an unplayable one.
Edit:

Also going to say any debates on inherent evil of necromancy. Every time I hope it will be different, but every time I am wrong.
My least favorite part about those is that someone always winds up treating an argument that a given thing shouldn't be evil as an argument that that thing isn't evil by the rules. I know that poison is frigging evil by the rules. It's right there in a weird location in a weird book. I just don't think it should be.

[Brova]

Really though, the only way for a truenamer to work (and by that I mean use utterances effectively, because that's how it's supposed to work) is with item familiar. If a class requires a specific item to function, it is a poorly designed class, and thus a bad class.

It's not even just that. If you're going to use Item Familiar to boost skill checks sky high, why are you doing that with truenaming (where you do a couple of d6s worth of damage) rather than abuse magic device (where you cast like a Cleric higher level than you are) or diplomacy (where you win the game)? That is, in my opinion, the problem with optimizing Monks or Truenamers or whatever. Any cool trick you think you've found (damage dice, Item Familar) can be used better by someone is who is simply using it on something good.

[Troacctid]

It's not even just that. If you're going to use Item Familiar to boost skill checks sky high, why are you doing that with truenaming (where you do a couple of d6s worth of damage) rather than abuse magic device (where you cast like a Cleric higher level than you are) or diplomacy (where you win the game)? That is, in my opinion, the problem with optimizing Monks or Truenamers or whatever. Any cool trick you think you've found (damage dice, Item Familar) can be used better by someone is who is simply using it on something good.

I'm adding "Referring to 'Use Magic Device' as 'Abuse Magic Device'" to my list of horses that need to die. How is it abuse if you're using the magic device for its exact intended purpose? "Oh boy, I can use this wand to cast the spell contained within it, at the cost of one of its charges, after paying full market price to get it! I sure am beating the system!"

And why would you need to boost UMD checks sky-high? The reward doesn't scale with your check result. You just need to hit a flat DC of 20 for wands or staves, or a little higher for scrolls. That's not even hard at mid to high levels. Truespeak DCs are easily pushing into the 50s and 60s and beyond.

[Douglas]

The Mod Radiant: Locked for review.