On sanity and options

[ScionoftheVoid]

I would like to ask the Playground to stop writing things such as "no sane DM would allow..." and "any DM with half a brain would ban...". It is very frustrating being indirectly insulted whilst reading a thread. There are DM's who allow such things and implying that they are insane or stupid is discriminatory against them, whether this is intentional or not may vary.

This thread may be used for the discussion of such options and for the justification of the above implications if anyone cares to attempt it. Thank you.
If this thread falls under vigilante modding sorry, may it please be locked/deleted.

Edit: Removed "rude", that was uncalled for. This is not meant to seem "outraged" so much as "irked and posted whilst outraged for unrelated reasons".

[Ravens_cry]

Well, if you do though, you gotta be careful. Because of the complex interactions between rules, there are ways to get builds that prevent any form of challenge for the player, outside of the task of making these combinations. And with the Internet, even that challenge is gone. You're not a fool to allow them, but you are playing with fire.

[Flickerdart]

No sane DM would allow StP Erudite with the interpretation that grants unique powers/class level.

[ScionoftheVoid]

Well, if you do though, you gotta be careful. Because of the complex interactions between rules, there are ways to get builds that prevent any form of challenge for the player, outside of the task of making these combinations. And with the Internet, even that challenge is gone. You're not a fool to allow them, but you are playing with fire.

Thank you. This is a meaningful, helpful response.

No sane DM would allow StP Erudite with the interpretation that grants unique powers/class level.

This is not. A DM is not inherently insane for allowing this interpretation. Please do not insist without evidence or justification that it is so anyway.

I understand that some things are very difficult to deal with if allowed. Nevertheless the person who allows them retains their intelligence and sanity.

[The Demented One]

Hyperbole, dude. When people say "No sane DM," what they mean is "No sane DM who is well-versed in the system and has a good understanding of the mechanics at play would allow this, in my opinion." It's a convenient shorthand, not a personal attack.

[BRC]

I would like to ask the Playground to stop writing things such as "no sane DM would allow..." and "any DM with half a brain would ban...". It is very frustrating being indirectly insulted whilst reading a thread. There are DM's who allow such things and implying that they are insane or stupid is both discriminatory and generally rude.

This thread may be used for the discussion of such options and for the justification of the above implications if anyone cares to attempt it. Thank you.
If this thread falls under vigilante modding sorry, may it please be locked/deleted.

As somebody who has thrown these phrases around before, I feel obliged to defend them somewhat.

Is the phrase "no sane DM would allow" insulting to DM's that allow it, yes it is. Now, the point of the phrase isn't to say "DM's that allow this are insane", it's usually used to say "Though this is rules-legal, don't count on being able to use it", and we have to have some way of saying that, because it's an important fact of the game. It's hyperbole, but I don't know how much saying "We didn't mean it, we were just exaggerating" works as an excuse.

If we said "You're DM shouldn't let you use this build", is that any better? If we say "You're DM probably won't let you use the build", we're assuming we know more about the DM than the player does. If we say "Most DM's won't allow this build" we're implying that we've done research, also, if we say "Most DM's" the point isn't as strong, because the person may think "Well, Mine will".


Anyway, the term is not used to literally mean "If a DM allows this, they should be sent to a mental institution". Have you ever looked at something overpriced and said "We would have to be crazy to pay that much", and then when somebody buys it, call up the police and request that this person be forced to see a psychiatrist.

[Sinfire Titan]

No sane DM would allow StP Erudite with the interpretation that grants unique powers/class level.

Fixed. Hell, Erudite alone is pretty broken (especially the Mantled Erudite). If you want a modicum of balance in your campaign, force them to use the basic Psion instead.

[Flickerdart]

Fixed. Hell, Erudite alone is pretty broken (especially the Mantled Erudite). If you want a modicum of balance in your campaign, force them to use the basic Psion instead.

Yes, but it's not insanity broken. You have to have maximum outrageousness for insanity, which needs StP and the interpretation.

[Roland St. Jude]

Hyperbole, dude. When people say "No sane DM," what they mean is "No sane DM who is well-versed in the system and has a good understanding of the mechanics at play would allow this, in my opinion." It's a convenient shorthand, not a personal attack.

Sheriff: Unless someone already said that they do, in fact, allow X. Then it most certainly is a personal attack.

[The Demented One]

Sheriff: Unless someone already said that they do, in fact, allow X. Then it most certainly is a personal attack.

Oh. Um, right. Yeah.

[hamishspence]

aren't unique powers restricted by power points anyway?

Even if a 20th level erudite could manifest 11 9th level, + 11 8th level, + 11 7th level, and so on, powers per day, they still have to spend power points each time they manifest one.

My guess is, that hyperbole is overused- maybe the more common phrase should be:

"if you allow this, be warned that it is very powerful, and discuss it with the player beforehand so it doesn't overshadow everyone else"

Unless there's a variant of erudite that gets around this?

[ScionoftheVoid]

Hyperbole, dude. When people say "No sane DM," what they mean is "No sane DM who is well-versed in the system and has a good understanding of the mechanics at play would allow this, in my opinion." It's a convenient shorthand, not a personal attack.

"Such and such option is overpowered/broken, IMO" doesn't take much effort to write though, now does it? I realise that it is usually hyperbole but if they look over their posts (as many of the people I've seen using this seem to have done) would altering the statement to be less offensive be too much to ask? Unless the post is full of texting abbreviations I doubt that they don't have time to write a short sentence instead of an unqualified statement which is bound to cause offence to someone.

Also, a nice suggestion by Hamishspence. A variation to be used when addressing players would be good. "This option is very powerful (without much effort put into it), be careful not to upset your fellow players, including the DM" with the bracketed section only if appropriate would be good enough, though someone else can certainly put it in less words than I.

[Flickerdart]

You can get infinite power points even as a run of the mill Psion; as an StP Erudite, it's a joke.

[Sinfire Titan]

You can get infinite power points even as a run of the mill Psion; as an StP Erudite, it's a joke.

You at least have to jump through two hoops as a Psion. Erudite doesn't jump, he freaking waltzes.

[hamishspence]

I suppose if the class, or PRC, or other ability gets past a certain point, it becomes a case of the player needing to deliberately choose not to go overpowered.

Still- could be workable with the DM and the player working together.

[Brigham]

{Scrubbed}

[The Demented One]

"Such and such option is overpowered/broken, IMO" doesn't take much effort to write though, now does it? I realise that it is usually hyperbole but if they look over their posts (as many of the people I've seen using this seem to have done) would altering the statement to be less offensive be too much to ask? Unless the post is full of texting abbreviations I doubt that they don't have time to write a short sentence instead of an unqualified statement which is bound to cause offence to someone.

Even on as friendly a forum as this, people aren't always going to be thinking about making their posts completely and totally inoffensive and anodyne, and it's not really within the bounds of reason to expect them to. It'd be nice, but not likely.

[BRC]

"Such and such option is overpowered/broken, IMO" doesn't take much effort to write though, now does it? I realise that it is usually hyperbole but if they look over their posts (as many of the people I've seen using this seem to have done) would altering the statement to be less offensive be too much to ask? Unless the post is full of texting abbreviations I doubt that they don't have time to write a short sentence instead of an unqualified statement which is bound to cause offence to someone.

Overpowered/Broken dosn't necessarily get the message across that we don't think your DM will allow it.

For example, alot of people say that Wizards are overpowered, but they can still be in a game without breaking it.

Also, people have different methods of speaking/writing, different general types of diction.
"That build is overpowered", "I wouldn't count on your DM allowing that", "No sane DM is going to allow that build", "That build is ridiculously cheesy", "It's a neat trick, but don't try to use it in-game", "If you bring that character to the table expect to have the DMG hurled at your head".

All these are saying the same thing in different ways, it's just a matter of personal style and preference, and except in the case where the DM has been stated to already approve it, none are personal attacks.
If I say "I'm so hungry I could eat an entire cow", do I really mean that I want to eat an entire cow? If I say "the Professor assigns WAY too much reading" do you assume I am saying that I know better than my professor how much reading should be assigned, and that my professor is a bad teacher? Or am I complaining in the fine tradition of students everywhere. If I say "Sorry guys, I can't hang out tonight, this test is going to kill me if I don't study", do you assume that, if I do not study for the test, I will literally die? Or do you assume that I'm worried about the test and want to spend more time studying. If I am in an airport and my flight get's cancelled and I respond "Unbelievable", do you assume that I am literally unable to believe that my flight is canceled, or do you assume that I'm just upset.

[Optimystik]

Unless there's a variant of erudite that gets around this?

Spell to power gets around power points quite easily.

[hamishspence]

true- seems like the player has to actively choose not to make the character overpowered. Picking spells that are useful but not ovewhelming in that context, and so on.

[ScionoftheVoid]

Even on as friendly a forum as this, people aren't always going to be thinking about making their posts completely and totally inoffensive and anodyne, and it's not really within the bounds of reason to expect them to. It'd be nice, but not likely.

I couldn't complain much if I didn't try to at least raise awareness though. A thread is also less effort than trying to point it out whenever I see it. Hopefully this will remind people that exaggeration and statements without qualifiers are not as safe on the internet as they are IRL. In real conversation you may miss your opportunity if you don't get a point in, which leads to shortening your point and thinking it through less. On the internet time is not as much of an issue, a ninja edit may invalidate your argument but the edit button is there for such occasions. I know removing the occurance completely is unrealistic, but I can attempt to reduce it.

Thank you to anyone supporting me, in addition.

Overpowered/Broken dosn't necessarily get the message across that we don't think your DM will allow it.

For example, alot of people say that Wizards are overpowered, but they can still be in a game without breaking it.

Also, people have different methods of speaking/writing, different general types of diction.
"That build is overpowered", "I wouldn't count on your DM allowing that", "No sane DM is going to allow that build", "That build is ridiculously cheesy", "It's a neat trick, but don't try to use it in-game", "If you bring that character to the table expect to have the DMG hurled at your head".

All these are saying the same thing in different ways, it's just a matter of personal style and preference, and except in the case where the DM has been stated to already approve it, none are personal attacks.
If I say "I'm so hungry I could eat an entire cow", do I really mean that I want to eat an entire cow? If I say "the Professor assigns WAY too much reading" do you assume I am saying that I know better than my professor how much reading should be assigned, and that my professor is a bad teacher? Or am I complaining in the fine tradition of students everywhere. If I say "Sorry guys, I can't hang out tonight, this test is going to kill me if I don't study", do you assume that, if I do not study for the test, I will literally die? Or do you assume that I'm worried about the test and want to spend more time studying. If I am in an airport and my flight get's cancelled and I respond "Unbelievable", do you assume that I am literally unable to believe that my flight is canceled, or do you assume that I'm just upset.

In real life I would not assume any of those. On the internet I would be irritated that you had not stated them more clearly, and may assume you were serious with some of the less obvious statements (e.g. the complaint against the professor). Clarifications usually do not take very long, if they do your point was probably rather lengthy anyway and a few more minutes couldn't hurt. If someone clarifies some elements of their post (spelling, grammar) then why not others?

[kjones]

In real life I would not assume any of those. On the internet I would be irritated that you had not stated them more clearly, and may assume you were serious with some of the less obvious statements (e.g. the complaint against the professor). Clarifications usually do not take very long, if they do your point was probably rather lengthy anyway and a few more minutes couldn't hurt. If someone clarifies some elements of their post (spelling, grammar) then why not others?

Look, no sane DM would have any trouble interpreting that kind of statement...

Honestly, if you take oblique statements made to others on the internet as personal criticism, then consider yourself lucky to be on the GiantITP forums, possibly one of the nicest places on the Web.

If people are responding to decisions you make as a DM with "No sane DM..." then you have reason to complain, but is that really what's happening?

[Optimystik]

true- seems like the player has to actively choose not to make the character overpowered. Picking spells that are useful but not ovewhelming in that context, and so on.

Even without trying it's quite hard. StP Erudites get all the action abuse of psions and wilders, with a much better list.

What's worse - they can flat out ignore verbal, somatic and material components (even expensive ones!) for everything they do. It was just a crazy idea, no matter how much I love them.

[Boci]

I would like to ask the Playground to stop writing things such as "no sane DM would allow..." and "any DM with half a brain would ban...". It is very frustrating being indirectly insulted whilst reading a thread. There are DM's who allow such things and implying that they are insane or stupid is both discriminatory and generally rude.

This thread may be used for the discussion of such options and for the justification of the above implications if anyone cares to attempt it. Thank you.
If this thread falls under vigilante modding sorry, may it please be locked/deleted.

Are you also offended by the slander against WotC employees? Many posters will have at some point accused them of consuming illegal drugs.

Sheriff: Unless someone already said that they do, in fact, allow X. Then it most certainly is a personal attack.

True. However, in this particular thread, unless my reading if off, the OP has not clearly stated that they allow such things. So they are really just playing devil's advocate on behalf of some hypothetical DMs.

[Felyndiira]

I would like to ask the Playground to stop writing things such as "no sane DM would allow..." and "any DM with half a brain would ban...". It is very frustrating being indirectly insulted whilst reading a thread. There are DM's who allow such things and implying that they are insane or stupid is both discriminatory and generally rude.

This thread may be used for the discussion of such options and for the justification of the above implications if anyone cares to attempt it. Thank you.
If this thread falls under vigilante modding sorry, may it please be locked/deleted.

Certainly, it is entirely possible for a DM to enjoy using an ability tagged with the "no sane DM" statement for perfectly legitimate reasons.

However, it may not be a good idea to seek to ban blanket, undirected statements as personal attacks. To use an example: in your original post, you said that anyone using the phrase is attacking a certain group of DMs and is thusly automatically being discriminatory and rude. Thus, anyone who have used the phrase before can claim, in a similar manner, that your post is attacking them as "discriminatory" and "rude." There's absolutely no way that an individual can word their posts so that they cannot be interpreted in an offensive way.

Another example: let's assume that you wish to express that you believe that, er, Incantatrix are overpowered. If you say "I think incantatrix are way overpowered," an individual that played an incantatrix might interpret your statement as an attack that he plays overpowered characters. Therefore, pretty much the only way to word that opinion to be non-offensive is to state "I dislike incantatrix because I dislike the abilities of the incantatrix," since any mention that suggests "overpowered" can lead to the same implication, and a player might find offense at being indirectly called a powergamer.

What I'm trying to say is, it's really not possible/a good idea to dictate how another individual chooses to word his/her statements. Since most of the aforementioned people aren't really attacking anyone with the blanket statement, it would be wiser to just read the intention of the post rather than trying to dictate semantics.

[Starbuck_II]

aren't unique powers restricted by power points anyway?

Even if a 20th level erudite could manifest 11 9th level, + 11 8th level, + 11 7th level, and so on, powers per day, they still have to spend power points each time they manifest one.

My guess is, that hyperbole is overused- maybe the more common phrase should be:

"if you allow this, be warned that it is very powerful, and discuss it with the player beforehand so it doesn't overshadow everyone else"

Unless there's a variant of erudite that gets around this?

Mental Pinnacle grants bonus 3/caster (manfester level) PP that lasts 1 rd/level. Normally, you'd be stuck with the listed 5 powers, but you aren't a caster so you don't lose manifesting.

Now, a Erudite level 13, gains 39 pp with each casting manifesting. And he can continue casting it every 12 rounds if he wishes to keep it up forever (only costs 11 pp).

[Stompy]

No sane DM would allow StP Erudite with the interpretation that grants unique powers/class level.

The problem I have with the "No sane DM" argument is that most of the DMs I've played with don't know what an erudite is*, and don't know the power of it, unless used in their game. Sometimes sane DMs allow broken things to be allowed (Abrupt Jaunt), because they don't know of its power. Mind you, it is not usually their fault. Most DMs I know don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of DnD 3.5 books, and therefore can allow (or be beguiled into) very broken things into the game.

*Hell, I don't know what an erudite is either!

[hamishspence]

that's definitely a spell to avoid if you don't want to break the game outright.

[Optimystik]

*Hell, I don't know what an erudite is either!

Be enlightened...

...then weep

Now, a Erudite level 13, gains 39 pp with each casting manifesting. And he can continue casting it every 12 rounds if he wishes to keep it up forever (only costs 11 pp).

It costs 13, actually (11 + 2 to replace the material component each time, the potion of fox's cunning.) It can still be done ad infinitum.

[Starbuck_II]

Even better cast Schism. Now you have extra stabdard action to cast Mental Pinnacle every few rounds.
But wait, Schism runs out? Then have schism cast Schism when duration runs low.

See, you now as a no action keep it up always (after initial cost) for free. Till you sleep I guess.