For more information, here's a link.
So... Now I'm kinda looking at Ranger 9/Barbarian 1/Fighter 1/Horizon Walker 8/Barbarian (if DM will allow Wolf Totem) or Fighter 1. How does that seem?
If you fight with a greatsword, you'll deal 7+1.5*str damage on average. If you instead fight with a longsword and shortsword, you'll deal 4.5+1*str damage on average for the longsword and 3.5+0.5*str damage on average for the shortsword. That's 7.5+1.5*str damage total, which is only half a point better than the greatsword. Further, you're taking a -2 on attack rolls, so you're hitting less often and coming out worse overall.
If you have some other source of damage, like a rogue's sneak attack, the case for two-weapon fighting is better. You'll only have your weapon's enhancement bonus, extra damage from weapon special abilities, and sometimes your favored enemy bonus. Considering the -2 on attack rolls, the cost of keeping up on two magical weapons, and the opportunity cost of not getting other feats, I'd never go with the two-weapon-fighting combat style on any normal ranger.
Remember, you don't have to use a bow all the time just because you select the archery combat style. You can use a greatsword most of the time and just have the archery feats as a bonus for those occasions when you do use a bow.
As for combat styles, even if you're a melee focus, I support the idea of an archery combat style - especially in a core-only environment. You simply don't have enough options in that environment to pull off a pure melee strategy in every encounter you'll fight, particularly if the DM's experienced. Being competent in archery as a fallback will give you an option that's otherwise lacking in core - and if you want to look at it another way, since you're never grabbng archery feats except through Combat Style, you can ignore Point Blank Shot (and if the enemy's within 30' anyway, you've got Fast Movement and your melee weapon, so you would never use PBS anyway). Thus, Archery combat style in effect gives you two feats instead of one.
Good point, Maat. BUT: does using a guisarme & spiked gauntlet benefit from TWF? Meaning, if I'm swinging with the guisarme and somebody gets close, would I normally take -5 to use the gauntlet also?
Since the reaches don't overlap, I don't know why you'd consider it a TWF style. Usually the gauntlet is just used to provide you with a threatened area (so you can take AoOs even though they're within your reach). You can't TWF with the two of them unless you're fighting an enemy 10' away while another enemy is within 5', which is, suffice it to say, a rare occasion.
You ninja'd me again, Tempest! I appreciate the feedback. To be honest, I'd remembered the Horizon Walker being one of the better melee PrCs; I'd just forgotten the "trip" part. I'm mostly just putting it together for **** & giggles.
In the core environment it's probably the best melee prestige (although a very good case could be made for the dwarven defender in the same environment) due to the relatively easy entry requirements (a ranger splash does the trick, but you don't need too many actual ranger levels depending on your Intelligence and how much Fighter you want to use) and the unique class features (Underground and Desert are early standouts, and no one will say no to Plains after that). And then level 6 hits and you get a teleport (among other goodies as you keep going).
The trip synergy largely just works because tripping is great in Core, and Improved Trip requires a 13+ Int anyway. Rounding that off to 14 during point-buy is inexpensive and allows a single ranger level to meet the skill requirements if you time it right. More ranger levels gives you more skill points (useful particularly at the low levels, as the spells that subsume skills don't come online until later, or if you're taking the advice in the thread and cross-classing a bit of Tumble) and doesn't slow you down on the feat front (since it comes with Endurance), although it costs you some hit points if you focus on it too much; grabbing Fighter levels to pick up Combat Expertise or Combat Reflexes earlier also helps (and for variability, Endurance is also a fighter bonus feat). If you're already multiclassing your first five levels like that, barbarian is a natural fit - more for the Fast Movement than for Rage (since you can get into position quicker and you're using a core-only variant of the AoO tank), reserving Rage for serious fights (and there, the Desert mastery helps). The increased HD also offsets the ranger level(s) a bit.
It's not spectacular, but in core, very little is. The parts just happen to work well together - not in the way we usually mean when we say "synergy" (in that they don't work additively), but each part enhances something that supports something else in the build, and the costs are relatively low.
I never understood why the Dimension Door ability of Horizon Walker was considered a good ability. Most adventuring takes place on planes that are NOT "shifting plane[s]", so it would seem to me to be a very niche ability in most games. Whenever I'd looked at it, I'd always preferred an energy resistance 20 or tremorsense 30'. Even more so in a Core game where NPCs won't be rocking the Darkstalker feat and there are a lot more ways to get eaten by a Remorhaz or hugged by a Magmin.
I think you're misunderstanding the ability. The shifting ability works on any plain regardless of it's traits (minus null magic zones and such of course), the fluff simply explains that you D-Door by being able to pass through shifts in reality which aren't really defined at all. Think of it as you have a basic sense for natural distortions in reality that link time and space together and the ability to traverse said path.
I think you're misunderstanding the ability. The shifting ability works on any plain regardless of it's traits (minus null magic zones and such of course), the fluff simply explains that you D-Door by being able to pass through shifts in reality which aren't really defined at all. Think of it as you have a basic sense for natural distortions in reality that link time and space together and the ability to traverse said path.
And I don't think I am misunderstanding it. Directly quoting the DMG:
You have the supernatural ability to use the ever-shifting nature of planes such as Limbo and the Plane of Shadow to travel faster. You instinctively anticipate shifts in the reality of the plane that bring you closer to your destination, giving you the spell-like ability to use dimension door (as the spell cast at your character level) once every 1d4 rounds.
That says to me that you're using the shifting of planes that are highly morphic or magically morphic to achieve your dimension door rather than simply learning how do it on those planes and then applying it to others. Other planes which I wouldn't think naturally shift at a planar level every 1d4 rounds as Limbo and the Plane of Shadow aparently do. It also seems much more in keeping with Core's tendancy to not give people 4th level spells At Will and the Shadowdancer's Shadow Jump ability (which is a very weak version of dimension door) printed only 5 pages away.
I think you're misunderstanding the ability. The shifting ability works on any plain regardless of it's traits (minus null magic zones and such of course), the fluff simply explains that you D-Door by being able to pass through shifts in reality which aren't really defined at all. Think of it as you have a basic sense for natural distortions in reality that link time and space together and the ability to traverse said path.
And I don't think I am misunderstanding it. Directly quoting the DMG:You have the supernatural ability to use the ever-shifting nature of planes such as Limbo and the Plane of Shadow to travel faster. You instinctively anticipate shifts in the reality of the plane that bring you closer to your destination, giving you the spell-like ability to use dimension door (as the spell cast at your character level) once every 1d4 rounds.
That says to me that you're using the shifting of planes that are highly morphic or magically morphic to achieve your dimension door rather than simply learning how do it on those planes and then applying it to others. Other planes which I wouldn't think naturally shift at a planar level every 1d4 rounds as Limbo and the Plane of Shadow aparently do. It also seems much more in keeping with Core's tendancy to not give people 4th level spells At Will and the Shadowdancer's Shadow Jump ability (which is a very weak version of dimension door) printed only 5 pages away.
The use of the words "such as" throw that interpretation off, particularly when the second sentence says "of the plane" not "of highly morphic planes", implying the plain you are on will function that way. All planes in D&D have bends and twists in reality such as planar breaches or naturally occurring gates, this class feature just allows you to make use of more minor and spontaneous bends and twists hat normal go unused. Aside from that no particular sentence explicitly states that the ability functions differently on different planes, which would be a pretty big mechanical issue to just gloss over.
EDIT: As a side note worth mentioning, the plane of shadow also overlaps the material, so one could argue that that would be the reason it would work on the material plane if not any other reason.
Nevertheless, you can see my argument and misgivings for your argument.
I can't. It's abosultely clear. "...giving you the spell-like ability to use Dimension Door..." There is no ambiguity. You gain Dimension Door as an SLA. That's it.
Nevertheless, you can see my argument and misgivings for your argument. It's a very generically worded description that may blur the fluff of the ability and it's actual stats. Always one to lean for the "reasonable" interpretation you can see where I'm coming from. If you ARE doing core only because, say you DM has a dislike for 6 book combo abilities then their interpretation of this ability should be something to check on.
Oh defiantly, I feel like one of the main faults of early 3.5 material was the blur of fluff and statistics. A good example of this is The Cudgel That Never Forgets. The cudgel is a relic from complete divine and in earlier prints the fluff of the item was that so many of them where made originally to take out shape shifters or something like that and (as an intelligent item) it would spout out, and I quote "A cudgel that never forgets speaks little except during combat, during which it reminds its wielder in stentorian tones about the transgressions of each enemy, whether witnessed personally ("That bugbear wounded Lidda most grievously" or assumed based on creature type ("That succubus hath surely tempted many good men toward evil")". Nowhere in the stat block of the item does it have true seeing, and mechanical ability to detect alignment, nothing like that. Enter a friend of mine in a game our group at the time was playing. Although a friend of mine, I have to say that he was one of the more annoying players I've ever shared a table with. He would constantly argue over flavor text, he always hogged the RP spotlight, and would constantly change characters (and even admitted at one point that he did so so that he would have to be reintroduced giving him more face time).
This particular night he was playing a cleric of St. Cuthbert (the deity tied to the relic) and the moment anyone would say things contrary to what he wanted to do he would just exclaim "alright, my cudgel starts naming off your sins!" In an attempt to give himself a reason to disagree with people. I think someone was also playing a changeling and he went "okay, my cudgel tells me they're a changeling" despite no mechanical statistics saying either of these thongs could happen. the DM just wanting the game to get along let him have his way (though the sins thing didn't really fly since all of us were of good alignment) and such as the game till I noticed in my copy of complete divine (one of the last prints of the book before 3.5 was discontinued) completely lacked the flavor text about sins and shape changers which I offered to the DM to prove my point. He then repealed his take on the item and thee player then soon after changed characters (pretty much because he didnt get his way and had pissed everyone off in game). Things like that can really rub me the wrong way.
I digress though as I have gotten really off topic (READ: end rant).
The shifting quality does have something of an ambiguous mechanical reading too it, but I've always read it as such since core D&D generally assumes a fair lack of planar plot, which always made it hard for me to read it as you only get to shift on certain plains, that and I personally find D-door to be underpowered enough to have as a semi-at-will, however the beauty of the game is that some things are interpreted differently by others, so in the end I would say that as raw I feel it works fine regardless of current plane, but to each there own.
Introducing into all of this a class ability that grants a 4th level spell every 1d4 rounds is a VERY big assumption to make. While I wouldn't doubt (or care) were printed in ToB where I've had characters able to Solo monsters with a CR twice their level without batting an eye; in core where dwell Half-elves, LA +1 Hobgoblins, Toughness, and all manner of other underwhelming abilities I'll put my money on the weaker of the possible interpretations.
Edit: @Lashius Oh gods that sounds horrible. I try to avoid those kinds of people to the best of my ability or get very firm rulings put forth so that they can't twist things in their favor or to wreak havoc just because they feel confrontational today. I've always preferred the "Remember to forget to tell them when next game is" tactic myself. They are seldom interested enough in the games to really get bothered when they are excluded.
I never understood why the Dimension Doorability of Horizon Walker was considered a good ability. Most adventuring takes place on planes that are NOT "shifting plane[s]", so it would seem to me to be a very niche ability in most games. Whenever I'd looked at it, I'd always preferred an energy resistance 20 or tremorsense 30'. Even more so in a Core game where NPCs won't be rocking the Darkstalker feat and there are a lot more ways to get eaten by a Remorhaz or hugged by a Magmin.
From the SRD (emphasis added)
Terrain MasteryAt each level, the Horizon Walker adds a new terrain environment to their repertoire from those given below. Terrain mastery gives a horizon walker a bonus on checks involving a skill useful in that terrain, or some other appropriate benefit. A horizon walker also knows how to fight dangerous creatures typically found in that terrain, gaining a +1 insight bonus on attack rolls and damage rolls against creatures with that terrain mentioned in the Environment entry of their descriptions. The horizon walker only gains the bonus if the creature description specifically lists the terrain type.
Horizon walkers take their terrain mastery with them wherever they go. They retain their terrain mastery bonuses on skill checks, attack rolls, and damage rolls whether they’re actually in the relevant terrain or not.
Planar Terrain Mastery
Planar terrain mastery functions just like terrain mastery, except that the horizon walker can choose one of the planar categories at each level. The horizon walker can take a non-planar terrain type instead, if she wishes.
Given that it's generally accepted that a Horizon Walker keeps its fatigue immunity even when not in the desert, even though it's not a skill bonus, it's not unreasonable to assume that the Dim Door ability does the same.
There are a few basics that are visible through core: Clerics heal in combat, Wizards use xd6 blast spells, Fighters make full attacks and take feats like Weapon Proficiency (bastard sword).
I've never, ever seen this in practice. I don't see why people trot this out like it's the holy grail of 3.5.
You can cry that these are sub-optimal but they are the tactics that every player I know of who started in 3.0 and 3.5 used. It was the tactics described by the play testers. It is the most basic and unmodified state of 3.X even if it's not a superior state.
I'd like to see some evidence for that pretty damned big claim. It's clearly obvious everyone I've met that killing is more efficient, Greatswords are superior to bastard swords, Power Attack is "yes," and winning the action economy is more important that ineffective spells that will likely be inferior to a standard Fighter full attack.
Introducing into all of this a class ability that grants a 4th level spell every 1d4 rounds is a VERY big assumption to make.
It's an even bigger assumption to assume that a class ability would be made intentionally awful.
Also? Candle. Core really didn't care about spell level.
While I wouldn't doubt (or care) were printed in ToB where I've had characters able to Solo monsters with a CR twice their level without batting an eye; in core where dwell Half-elves, LA +1 Hobgoblins, Toughness, and all manner of other underwhelming abilities I'll put my money on the weaker of the possible interpretations.
In core, there also dwells the Wizard, the CoDZilla, and the Candle. Also, Holy Word and Wish loops.
Assuming it's weak because it's core is not a very good idea.
The Horizon Walker clearly keeps its terrain mastery abilities in any terrain. This includes a level 11 character using Dimension Door at will, with a cooldown. (Outside of core, warlocks have been doing that since level 6 via Flee the Scene, but that's separate from here.) It really helps to realize just how powerful 11th level characters are.
The most I would say against it apart from the flavour hints is that it's noticably better than most of the other Horizon Walker abilities.
There are a few basics that are visible through core: Clerics heal in combat, Wizards use xd6 blast spells, Fighters make full attacks and take feats like Weapon Proficiency (bastard sword).
I've never, ever seen this in practice. I don't see why people trot this out like it's the holy grail of 3.5.
If you've never ever seen a cleric heal in combat, a wizard use xd6 blast spells, a fighter make a full attack, or anyone with Weapon Proficiency (bastard sword), your experience of the game is weirdly lacking in commonplace occurences. It would certainly be ridiculous for us to have had threads advising against options of those sorts if no-one was using them in the first place.
Not, however, that it makes an argument against the Horizon Walker using dimension door on non-shifting planes, since both mechanically strong and mechanically weak options exist in core.
builds are out there too. Sometimes with a Pixie attached.
d20srd Horizon Walker:
Other (Planar)
If other planes are in use additional Planar Terrains can be created.
Huh, I never bothered to notice that before.
That's like plain old legal houserule territory.
If you've never ever seen a cleric heal in combat, a wizard use xd6 blast spells, a fighter make a full attack, or anyone with Weapon Proficiency (bastard sword), your experience of the game is weirdly lacking in commonplace occurences.
I've never seen a wizard use xd6 damage spells when a kill wasn't guaranteed, or when they were unprepared and trying to kill a golem, I've never seen a cleric use a Cure spell in combat, and I most certainly have not seen the use of a bastard sword. Actually, I retract that last one, I've seen an Ubermoose. But, beyond that, no. Full attacks are the only intelligent thing for a melee character not from ToB to do.
It would certainly be ridiculous for us to have had threads advising against options of those sorts if no-one was using them in the first place.
Why do preservative packets have warnings against eating them? Or on bleach canisters? Or other basic common sense warnings?
Just because some people get their kicks from chugging household chemicals does not mean that's normal.
What is an "ubermoose" just out of curiosity
Paladin/Knight of the Iron Glacier, generally with a touch of Beastmaster. Bonus points for Halfling Outrider.
Basically, it's one of the superior bodies for an ubermount. Sadly, the prereqs are stupid. One of the requirements is EWP:Bastard Sword.
I've never seen a cleric use a Cure spell in combat, and I most certainly have not seen the use of a bastard sword.
*raises hand sheepishly*
Remember that dwarf scout/favored soul... Yeah. Guess what his deity's favored weapon was? And guess what spells were taken every spell level...
Oh, yeah? Well... Well... Yo mama!
To Question is to Doubt.
Interesting ubermount idea I have actually never seen that before.
With good reason. Quite simply, the prereqs mean it is veery difficult to make, and would generally be inferior to a normal Ubermount. Or an Ashworm Dragoon ubermount. Which is sad, because I really like the ubermoose.
On an unrelated note, what's the usual structure for a build involving a PrC that provides a special mount analogue if you're Supermount!ing it? Pal5 / PrC 4 / Beastmaster 1 / Outrider 10, possibly adjusting the Outrider/PrC balance depending on how awesome the PrC's dedicated class features are?
Or, Pally 5/Beastmaster 1/PrC X(However much you need to get the special mount)/Outrider 10/PrC Y
The PrC's feat requirements are Mounted Combat, Ride-By Attack, EWP(Bastard sword), and Animal Affinity. Beastmaster requires Skill Focus (Handle Animal); the skill requirements otherwise overlap so I think (to first order) that won't be a problem.
What's your reading on the MIC's Battle Bridle (9000gp) or the Riding Boots (12000gp) with regards to counting as those prerequisites? Part of the benefit of having a feat is meeting requirements based on it. Assuming THAT works, we could see, say:
Strongheart Halfling
Paladin 1 (Animal Affinity, EWP: Bastard Sword))
Pal2
Pal3 Mounted Combat* (Get the Battle Bridle between now and level 5, expensive but I think affordable.)
Pal4
Pal5
Knight of the Iron Glacier 1 (Mounted Archery - this is why we did Mounted Combat as a hard feat, dual prereuquisite)
Halfling Outrider 1
Halfling Outrider 2
Halfling Outrider 3 (Skill Focus: Handle Animal)
Halfling Outrider 4
Halfling Outrider 5
Beastmaster 1 (Devoted Tracker)
Halfling Outrider 6-10 (Natural Bond)
Knight of the Iron Glacier 2-4 (whatever 18th level feat)
Effective paladin level: 19 (all the perks, including SR 24)
Effective druid level: 16 (all but the last tier of perks, which is purely numeric).
Not necessarily the best, but it does shave a feat at the cost of your mount's face body slot.
EDIT: Forgot about Devoted Tracker's effect not being specifically restrained to normally valid animal companions.
I've never seen a wizard use xd6 damage spells when a kill wasn't guaranteed, or when they were unprepared and trying to kill a golem, I've never seen a cleric use a Cure spell in combat, and I most certainly have not seen the use of a bastard sword. Actually, I retract that last one, I've seen an Ubermoose. But, beyond that, no. Full attacks are the only intelligent thing for a melee character not from ToB to do.
And yet they're quite commonplace despite their inefficiency, since many of the ideas familiar to optimization simply don't make an appearance for a lot of groups (or indeed, for a lot of official material).
It would certainly be ridiculous for us to have had threads advising against options of those sorts if no-one was using them in the first place.
Why do preservative packets have warnings against eating them? Or on bleach canisters? Or other basic common sense warnings?
Just because some people get their kicks from chugging household chemicals does not mean that's normal.
People aren't born with the ability to identify bleach or to know the effects of preservatives. Much of what we know is forged through a long maturing process whereby we assimilate a vast body of information through both instruction and experience. In this case, that translates to the effect of optimization experience.
It is indeed normal for people to use most the core options (including cure spells in combat, xd6 spells, and bastard swords) because optimization isn't the general state of the D&D game. By definition, "optimized" is at the top end of the scale in terms of adventuring efficiency, rather than the middle.
I've never seen a wizard use xd6 damage spells when a kill wasn't guaranteed, or when they were unprepared and trying to kill a golem, I've never seen a cleric use a Cure spell in combat, and I most certainly have not seen the use of a bastard sword. Actually, I retract that last one, I've seen an Ubermoose. But, beyond that, no. Full attacks are the only intelligent thing for a melee character not from ToB to do.
And yet they're quite commonplace despite their inefficiency, since many of the ideas familiar to optimization simply don't make an appearance for a lot of groups (or indeed, for a lot of official material).
Got some support for that massive claim, buddy?
People aren't born with the ability to identify bleach or to know the effects of preservatives. Much of what we know is forged through a long maturing process whereby we assimilate a vast body of information through both instruction and experience. In this case, that translates to the effect of optimization experience.
No, but by the time people are capable of playing D&D, I expect them to be able to put two and two together. It's obvious to anyone who thinks about it for more than two seconds that it's less efficient to hurt without killing than it is to prevent actions, since a monster with one HP hits just as hard as one with a thousand. It's also basic to anyone who's read the monster manual that cures are outpased by damage.
I don't expect people to be born knowing these things. I do, however, expect people to be able to figure out the very basics by themselves.
It is indeed normal for people to use most the core options (including cure spells in combat, xd6 spells, and bastard swords) because optimization isn't the general state of the D&D game. By definition, "optimized" is at the top end of the scale in terms of adventuring efficiency, rather than the middle.
Again, got some support for those claims?
And, no, optimization is not on "the top end" by defintion. It is working for efficiency. That's it.
Even in those optimizer groups, we set targets as a group (mostly to save the DM's head). Usually it will be something like "High Tier 3/Low Tier 2 build" we sort of spit ball ideas and come up with a team that works well, as individuals that can help support one another (See the Dead for Nothing Team in Tempest's sig for an example of such a team).
Now, in the other two groups, which have been shorter lived I could literally walk into the room and look around tagging everyone as different play styles altogether. Unskilled power gamer (had to make his character for him), tactless munchkin (made the most powerful character, regardless of what that might do to party dynamic), role playing rogue (low power character, but plenty of fun), goof (played an illusionist and mostly just messed with both the PC's and npcs, still really effective).
Most of the time I've been asked to help someone build a character (on this forum or not) they're asking to fill one of the four boxes, largely what Slagger describes. Just pick some random posts. Weather these ideas are the way we are supposed to play or not, a lot of people expect that to be the way it's played.
I've never seen a wizard use xd6 damage spells when a kill wasn't guaranteed, or when they were unprepared and trying to kill a golem, I've never seen a cleric use a Cure spell in combat, and I most certainly have not seen the use of a bastard sword. Actually, I retract that last one, I've seen an Ubermoose. But, beyond that, no. Full attacks are the only intelligent thing for a melee character not from ToB to do.
And yet they're quite commonplace despite their inefficiency, since many of the ideas familiar to optimization simply don't make an appearance for a lot of groups (or indeed, for a lot of official material).
Got some support for that massive claim, buddy?
I can certainly speak for my personal experience (including my observation of my fellow players online and offline), but what kind of support would you like, and which particular idea are you challenging?
Keep in mind that I'd ask you to support your own position on an equivalent basis.
No, but by the time people are capable of playing D&D, I expect them to be able to put two and two together. It's obvious to anyone who thinks about it for more than two seconds that it's less efficient to hurt without killing than it is to prevent actions, since a monster with one HP hits just as hard as one with a thousand. It's also basic to anyone who's read the monster manual that cures are outpased by damage.
I don't expect people to be born knowing these things. I do, however, expect people to be able to figure out the very basics by themselves.
That's the sort of information that actually varies a lot with different game systems, and it does rely on knowing quite a bit of the underlying data of the game.
I note that you've assumed that players will have read the Monster Manual and will therefore know that curative magic is outpaced by the damage of monstrous opponents. But why should players automatically read the Monster Manual (as opposed to the DM), and even if they do, there will be relatively few people capable of meaningfully examining the data unless they made a deliberate attempt at finding that specific answer.
And, no, optimization is not on "the top end" by defintion. It is working for efficiency. That's it.
Optimization is the process of aiming for an optimum result. By definition, an optimum result is the best and most favourable result.
Aiming for optimum efficiency is one possible goal of optimization, though you could easily be aiming to optimize some other element with little regard for efficiency. Ultimately, optimization involves finding the best way to meet a given set of parameters.
I can certainly speak for my personal experience (including my observation of my fellow players online and offline), but what kind of support would you like, and which particular idea are you challenging?
Your claim of most people not optimizing.
Keep in mind that I'd ask you to support your own position on an equivalent basis.
I'm not the one claiming to know the One True Waytm.
Which is all right there in the Monster Manual and the PHB.I note that you've assumed that players will have read the Monster Manual and will therefore know that curative magic is outpaced by the damage of monstrous opponents. But why should players automatically read the Monster Manual (as opposed to the DM), and even if they do, there will be relatively few people capable of meaningfully examining the data unless they made a deliberate attempt at finding that specific answer.
Because knowing the game is cool?Optimization is the process of aiming for an optimum result. By definition, an optimum result is the best and most favourable result.
Aiming for optimum efficiency is one possible goal of optimization, though you could easily be aiming to optimize some other element with little regard for efficiency. Ultimately, optimization involves finding the best way to meet a given set of parameters.
And you still haven't supported your claim of basic optimization being the "top end."
... I'm not the one claiming to know the One True Waytm ...
My kitty avatar does on occasion ; but he (it?) ain't telling me ...
I'm not the one claiming to know the One True Waytm.
As you're opposing the idea that there are a lot of groups who are not familiar with many of the ideas that frequently feature in optimization, your own position entails an equivalent claim that those groups are indeed familiar with optimization. All you've done is select the Other True Waytm.
If you're unable to support that position, what basis do you have for disagreeing?
That's the sort of information that actually varies a lot with different game systems, and it does rely on knowing quite a bit of the underlying data of the game.
Which is all right there in the Monster Manual and the PHB.
It's not in a form that would allow someone to readily make a comparion between things like average healing and average damage dealt by their opponents without deliberately assembling it for that purpose.
I note that you've assumed that players will have read the Monster Manual and will therefore know that curative magic is outpaced by the damage of monstrous opponents. But why should players automatically read the Monster Manual (as opposed to the DM), and even if they do, there will be relatively few people capable of meaningfully examining the data unless they made a deliberate attempt at finding that specific answer.
Because knowing the game is cool?
Facing the unknown is cool.
And you still haven't supported your claim of basic optimization being the "top end."
That's the nature of "optimization" as a basic idea. If you aren't producing high end results, you've simply failed to optimize, since the aim of optimization is to produce optimum results.
Optimum results are produced by optimization; there isn't much more to be said than what the word naturally defines.
==Aelryinth
I'm not the one claiming to know the One True Waytm.
As you're opposing the idea that there are a lot of groups who are not familiar with many of the ideas that frequently feature in optimization, your own position entails an equivalent claim that those groups are indeed familiar with optimization. All you've done is select the Other True Waytm.
Are you trolling? Or are seriously dense?
If you're unable to support that position, what basis do you have for disagreeing?
You're the one making a claim, buddy.
It's not in a form that would allow someone to readily make a comparion between things like average healing and average damage dealt by their opponents without deliberately assembling it for that purpose.
...Have you read the players handbook and the monster manual?
Facing the unknown is cool.
And we're running into the One True Waytm again.
That's the nature of "optimization" as a basic idea. If you aren't producing high end results, you've simply failed to optimize, since the aim of optimization is to produce optimum results.
Optimum results are produced by optimization; there isn't much more to be said than what the word naturally defines.
So, basically you have no idea what you're talking about and don't feel like supporting your pretty big claims. See, this is one of those things you should just say.
Damage outpaces Cures, eventually. I don't think there's any damage that regularly outpaces Heal, let alone Mass Heal.
And if you honestly believe it's more efficient to blow a high-level slot(ESPECIALLY Mass Heal
:rofl
on something that could be used to instantly kill the enemy, I think I've got a deal on the Brooklyn Bridge you can't refuse.What are you actually trying to prove or have proved EA? Tell or ask, respectively please because so far this is an arguement without an arguement being propped only by you attacking and other people jumping in with some experiences.
So the next real question is, how does your character know what is most optimal? Why does your wizard who would die to any normally damaging spell for their first 5 level know that things are all that different when dealing with rare and exotic creatures (IE. Anything not a level 1 commoner).
So EA, every player knows exactly how to do awesome things (somehow) because they're all statisticians. There's never any question that a majority of printed spells, prestige classes, and everything else are just to fill up the rulebooks and aren't actually meant to be good. Obvious, since the other option is that even the poorest player is better at optimization than the dev team which are the lowest common denominator, which would be impossible because as you say, even the dev team should be able to realize that.
Have you read those books? The dev team is absolutely the lowest denomitator here. I, personally, believe the ingestion of mild neurotoxins, or at least some traumatic head injury, is a requirement to get a job there.
So the next real question is, how does your character know what is most optimal? Why does your wizard who would die to any normally damaging spell for their first 5 level know that things are all that different when dealing with rare and exotic creatures (IE. Anything not a level 1 commoner.
Because every wizard maxes the big four Knowledges? Or because they're in a party with a character intelligent enough to make Isaac Newton look like an idiot child?
I'm not the one claiming to know the One True Waytm.
As you're opposing the idea that there are a lot of groups who are not familiar with many of the ideas that frequently feature in optimization, your own position entails an equivalent claim that those groups are indeed familiar with optimization. All you've done is select the Other True Waytm.
Are you trolling? Or are seriously dense?
Look who's talking. Do you have an actual answer supporting your position or were you just attempting an insult?
If you're unable to support that position, what basis do you have for disagreeing?
You're the one making a claim, buddy.
And you're claiming it's not true, which is also a claim. Again, if you don't know, why are you disagreeing?
It's not in a form that would allow someone to readily make a comparion between things like average healing and average damage dealt by their opponents without deliberately assembling it for that purpose.
...Have you read the players handbook and the monster manual?
If your only response is attempting to insult me or imply some lack of knowledge on my part, rather than forming a meaningful response, you'll do no better than Mr. Joker, I'm afraid.
Facing the unknown is cool.
And we're running into the One True Waytm again.
Since you were the one making statements about "cool" in the first place, wouldn't I be the Other True Waytm this time? I'm sorry that you feel someone is a zealot for not agreeing with your way of thinking.
That's the nature of "optimization" as a basic idea. If you aren't producing high end results, you've simply failed to optimize, since the aim of optimization is to produce optimum results.
Optimum results are produced by optimization; there isn't much more to be said than what the word naturally defines.
So, basically you have no idea what you're talking about and don't feel like supporting your pretty big claims. See, this is one of those things you should just say.
Did the word "optimization" somehow change its meaning? Optimization means that you optimize things. Claiming that optimizing involves producing high end results for a given set of parameters is simply based on the meaning of the word "optimization". It's not a big claim any more than saying that heating objects will tend to make them hotter than freezing them.
I notice that you've once again failed to form a response more complicated than attempting to deride my validity. You can engage in more meaningful discussion if you want to; you'll just end up sinking down to ban level if you're going to be rude about it.
For example, you could try explaining your own position, since I'm not currently clear on what you would think optimization is if it isn't the process of producing optimum results.
Have you read those books? The dev team is absolutely the lowest denomitator here. I, personally, believe the ingestion of mild neurotoxins, or at least some traumatic head injury, is a requirement to get a job there.
Or maybe they're more representative of a typical new player since they don't have the "benefit" of being indoctrinated by the optimization boards.
So the next real question is, how does your character know what is most optimal? Why does your wizard who would die to any normally damaging spell for their first 5 level know that things are all that different when dealing with rare and exotic creatures (IE. Anything not a level 1 commoner.
Because every wizard maxes the big four Knowledges? Or because they're in a party with a character intelligent enough to make Isaac Newton look like an idiot child?
Knowledge checks don't typically reveal hit point totals (we have a couple of monster manuals full of examples), and being smarter doesn't innately give them knowledge of hit point totals either.
The players are all math savvy who can optimize to such a degree that Optimization boards are useless except as a pastime for arguing different styles of optimization.
The books are mostly nothing but the rantings of insane chimpanzees strung out on hard drugs that were published for money by editors that couldn't even gauge the overall quality of product.
And that all play consists of mega-geniuses directing each other in a very specialized dance of spellcasting, RP, and optimized murder and/or maiming. After divining the very nature of the universe by inferring the contents of the Rulebooks though pure skill points.
So the question becomes: "Why do you play or care about a game that you hate so much?" I'm sure there are other systems that might offer something more reasonable or dynamic for you. GURPS, any World of Darkness product, Paranoia, Call of Cthulhu all sound like they would be a much more enjoyable time sink for you than to keep coming back here.
Now, before you say that that applies to the rest of us, it's important to remember that "No it doesn't." We're the one's making claims about how play is sub optimal, and we all enjoy the game enough to ignore those others (mostly) for it. If we're stupid for doing that then by all means, feel free to leave. We're not forcing you to assert your position here, remember you were the one who posted because you couldn't conceptualize the point I was making and decided to start calling everyone liars when they gave examples. If all of this hasn't helped and you're not here just to get into fights on the internet, then we're at an impasse and you should just ignore challenges to your worldview from here on.
All in all, most players get good at what important in there game, and they tend to make rulings on abilities within those parameters, so too say any game play style is typical outside of the inclusion of role playing is being fairly presumptuous, and assuming that everyone strives to create expert killing machines that plow through encounters even more so.
Look who's talking. Do you have an actual answer supporting your position or were you just attempting an insult?
Given the fact that you have done nothing to support that whopper, guess,
And you're claiming it's not true, which is also a claim. Again, if you don't know, why are you disagreeing?
Are you familliar with the concept of "burden of proof?" Well, it's on you.
Do you have anything meaningful to say, or is the only respon
Can you form a complete sentence?
If your only response is attempting to insult me or imply some lack of knowledge on my part, rather than forming a meaningful response, you'll do no better than Mr. Joker, I'm afraid.
I'd love to have a reasonable discussion, but the burden's still on you, and you've done nothing to support it. So you're the one doing worse than CJ.
Since you were the one making statements about "cool" in the first place, wouldn't I be the Other True Waytm this time? I'm sorry that you feel someone is a zealot for not agreeing with your way of thinking.
I'm sorry you find willful ignorance to one of the pillars of the game "cool."
For example, you could try explaining your own position, since I'm not currently clear on what you would think optimization is if it isn't the process of producing optimum results.
Are you ESL? Not meaning to be insulting, this is a serious question.
Or maybe they're more representative of a typical new player since they don't have the "benefit" of being indoctrinated by the optimization boards.
So you find mind-boggling idiocy "more representative" of a typical player than the ability to put two and two together and get four?
Knowledge checks don't typically reveal hit point totals (we have a couple of monster manuals full of examples), and being smarter doesn't innately give them knowledge of hit point totals either.
Reading comprehension is cool. So is understanding the game. You see, you can ID the monster. You can also get a very good ballpark of the HD and the type, and thus HD size. If you can't figure out the monster's probable HP range from there, I feel sorry for you, and feel obliged to suggest you try out this "4e" thing.
Plus, it's totally reasonable to have every scrap of knowledge you remember if you can actually identify a monster. That's kinda what identify means. Or, of course, you could just have a wizard who's capable of understanding the basic concept of a big, scary monster being able to swat fireballs, or generally be a lot harder to kill than a peasant. That's a very simple concept, don'cha think?
So EA... If I get what you're saying 3.5 is a stupid, entirely broken system that was never play tested.
The players are all math savvy who can optimize to such a degree that Optimization boards are useless except as a pastime for arguing different styles of optimization.
Yep, pretty much.
The books are mostly nothing but the rantings of insane chimpanzees strung out on hard drugs that were published for money by editors that couldn't even gauge the overall quality of product.
That's a bit harsh, but how do you explain Shivering Touch, Thought Bottle, Candle, Mirror Mephits, and the ability to Wish loop? Or, oh gods, Epic Spellcasting and that horrible creature from Serpent Kingdoms?
So I'm going to blame alchohol, poor editors, and a few extasy-ODing hamsters getting on the keyboards
And that all play consists of mega-geniuses directing each other in a very specialized dance of spellcasting, RP, and optimized murder and/or maiming.
Most play. Not all, but most.
After divining the very nature of the universe by inferring the contents of the Rulebooks though pure skill points.
Not quite, but I'd imagine it's not too hard to figure out how to kill things and all.
So the question becomes: "Why do you play or care about a game that you hate so much?"
Who said I hate it? It's fun. It's enjoyability, however, does not impact the quality of the writing or design.
I'm sure there are other systems that might offer something more reasonable or dynamic for you. GURPS, any World of Darkness product, Paranoia, Call of Cthulhu all sound like they would be a much more enjoyable time sink for you than to keep coming back here.
GURPS is lol, WoD, or generally anything written by WW, makes 3.5 look like the pinacle of balanced game design, Paranoia looks interesting, but I've never gotten into it, and Call of Cthulu is interesting, but I really dislike how inevitable death is, even with meticulous planning and preparation.
Now, before you say that that applies to the rest of us, it's important to remember that "No it doesn't."
The games being poorly designed doesn't? Next you're going to tell me your Solars don't run 2/7 filters and your Lunars don't have massive 0-mote flurries.
We're the one's making claims about how play is sub optimal, and we all enjoy the game enough to ignore those others (mostly) for it. If we're stupid for doing that then by all means, feel free to leave. We're not forcing you to assert your position here, remember you were the one who posted because you couldn't conceptualize the point I was making and decided to start calling everyone liars when they gave examples. If all of this hasn't helped and you're not here just to get into fights on the internet, then we're at an impasse and you should just ignore challenges to your worldview from here on.
I'm sorry, but can you rephrase this in some way that isn't just a mindless angry rant?
If I might interject, I would have to say that about 70% of people I talk too who ether play D&D or are interested in it do so for the role play aspect, and most of the time I see beginners play the rules are hardly even called into effect.
And 82.7 percent of statistics are made up on the spot. And 68.4 percent of statistics are totally bogus. And 34.5 percent of statistics don't add up to 100.
People are too busy with the dialogue and craft of a story to bother looking up the result of a diplomacy check, or whether or not a bluff check was high enough to fool an npc that has no stats and was just thought up last moment to keep the game on track.
Hello, Stormwind fallacy.
Tempest, you seeing this?
Optimization believe it or not is generally a pass time of seasoned players of the game and taken up to smooth the lines between the craft of a games story and the statistics it employs.
Exactly. However, much like Chungian play, anyone in a universe where it is possible that isn't doing it is a suicidal idiot. I cannot believe a character far more intelligent than the smartest human in history would willingly resort to inefficient tactics.
Furthermore tiers of optimization depend on the over all resources available to a group.
Sorry, but CoDZilla and Batman are too busy fighting over Gothokyo to hear you right now.
When I first started my group had access to a single players handbook between us, and that was pretty much it (imagine a group of four leveling up out of one book at a time, it was dreadfully long to advance a rouge or heaven forbid a cleric or a wizard) so you could see how figuring that cure spells where outpaced by monster damage would be an unreasonable assumption.
Um... no. Planning our builds is an obvious thing, and if you haven't figured out the inefficiency of healing after three encounters, you weren't paying attention.
All in all, most players get good at what important in there game, and they tend to make rulings on abilities within those parameters, so too say any game play style is typical outside of the inclusion of role playing is being fairly presumptuous, and assuming that everyone strives to create expert killing machines that plow through encounters even more so.
I guess I beat Tempest here. Oh, well. I'm gonna leave it at that to leave some enjoyment to Tempest.
You do realize the game expressly states that no one has an understanding of the concept of hit dice right? that beign said, thee same goes for HP totals.
So? Metagame constructs. Also, ballparking is easy, and I, personally, find it difficult to believe a supergenius has problems figuring out how tough a monster he can identify on sight is to kill.
Also to be honest, your speach patters and retort style are almost idendical to CJ's, and I'm starting to think that your an alt acount of his and really him, and if not, then this is just a little creepy.
Huh. The universe is a scary place, I guess.
That's a bit harsh, but how do you explain Shivering Touch, Thought Bottle, Candle, Mirror Mephits, and the ability to Wish loop? Or, oh gods, Epic Spellcasting and that horrible creature from Serpent Kingdoms?
You're pulling examples from over 94 published books. Several tens of thousands of pages of rules and options. The only reason you can name those exact things is because it's been SEVERAL years since they were released and thousands of people have gone over the content with a fine toothed comb. Or, as you put it you flipped through you personal collection of several thousands of dollars of not pirated material and found them all right off the bat.
Not quite, but I'd imagine it's not too hard to figure out how to kill things and all.
Goodness me, I guess that's why modern humans developed nuclear weapons to get rid of neanderthals then or why every member of an armed force in the world has a black belt in the only martial arts school in existence. But no, that isn't the case. Pikes were obsolete with the invention of the Bayonet at the end of the 30 Years war. After that it was ONLY 500 years for them to be phased out of use. Except by the Swiss Guard.
Who said I hate it? It's fun. It's enjoyability, however, does not impact the quality of the writing or design.
Then why argue the flawed rules at all? Pointless arguing isn't fun. I'm doing it to try and get you to use a less vicious wording in your posts. If you were REALLY into the rules, you'd remember the first one "The DM says what goes". Write a game that isn't broken and never look back.
I'm sorry, but can you rephrase this in some way that isn't just a mindless angry rant?
You want a rephrase? Fine, I'll give it to you in a softer tone. You are belittling, reject the statements of others with no support for your own, you're confrontational, you have no perception of metagame concepts other than optimization, you have never given a single example of any game you've ever participated in, you're insulting, and you are unable to bring a full argument to bare on any point you've made. Your biggest goal seems to be to make inflammatory remarks get into arguments with strangers on the internet rather than to forward any point of view you find worthy of discussion.
.People are too busy with the dialogue and craft of a story to bother looking up the result of a diplomacy check, or whether or not a bluff check was high enough to fool an npc that has no stats and was just thought up last moment to keep the game on track.
Hello, Stormwind fallacy.
Tempest, you seeing this?
Yep. I also try to stay out of thread fights.
(Aside: Since it's come up...)
Btw, while you're right in pointing that out as a SWF, that also undermines your point: The SWF hinges upon "degree of optimization" being a separate axis from "degree of roleplaying". That, implicitly, says that optimization is an axis - an inherently two-dimensional construct. If "everybody optimizes" and "nobody ever does awful things", then there's no axis - you're describing a discrete point, not a line.
All that's needed is one counterexample to show there's more than one dimension here. We see that in WotC's own books, particularly their sample NPCs and any attempt they had at publishing "strategy" (Sword and Fist's combat examples most dramatically, the PHB2's party composition / tactics sections more recently - patently awful advice that doesn't really account for the math of the system at all). Absolute claims are undone by a single counterexample - that is, in fact, how I historically fought the guys who couldn't wrap their heads around the SWF (by presenting examples of RP-heavy parties of optimized characters).
[EDIT: I apologize if that seems like I strawmanned you - As I try to avoid arguments, I haven't read the ins and outs of this thread quite as deeply as a solid debater should have.]
You have a point that the system isn't geared for quite a few things (in-combat heals, d6-spell mages, most pre-ToB melee outside of ubercharging/specialist locks, and so on) and will punish people for trying, while rewarding experienced players - system mastery and all that. However, your absolute position on this argument undermines itself. There can be no mastery unless there's also weakness to overcome. (Even the most skewed distributions have two tails.)
If I might interject, I would have to say that about 70% of people I talk too who ether play D&D or are interested in it do so for the role play aspect, and most of the time I see beginners play the rules are hardly even called into effect. People are too busy with the dialogue and craft of a story to bother looking up the result of a diplomacy check, or whether or not a bluff check was high enough to fool an npc that has no stats and was just thought up last moment to keep the game on track. Optimization believe it or not is generally a pass time of seasoned players of the game and taken up to smooth the lines between the craft of a games story and the statistics it employs. Furthermore tiers of optimization depend on the over all resources available to a group. When I first started my group had access to a single players handbook between us, and that was pretty much it (imagine a group of four leveling up out of one book at a time, it was dreadfully long to advance a rouge or heaven forbid a cleric or a wizard) so you could see how figuring that cure spells where outpaced by monster damage would be an unreasonable assumption.
All in all, most players get good at what important in there game, and they tend to make rulings on abilities within those parameters, so too say any game play style is typical outside of the inclusion of role playing is being fairly presumptuous, and assuming that everyone strives to create expert killing machines that plow through encounters even more so.
Lashius, there are also those of us who got into the game because of the numbers. I wasn't any good at optimizing D&D when I started (I had no experience with the system, thumbing through borrowed PHBs during a lunch break) but I was drawn to it as a way of codifying a story (emphasis on the first part). Perhaps this reflects my mindset - I'm a physicist by training (you can loosely define physics as using math to model reality) and I work in cognitive modelling (loosely defined as using math to model thought), so using math to model a fantastic reality isn't too hard a stretch. It took me over a year before I became comfortable roleplaying the various characters I had come up with in any way that was distinguishable from my natural personality. (In fact, my most well-deveoped character, RP-wise, started out as an optimization experiment! It wasn't until I thought about what that specific progression of abilities would feel like that the personality and history emerged, but when it did, it did so in great detail - catalyzed by the rules.) Even today, in our most story-driven games, there's a sense of accomplishment that emerges from seeing your character succeed at what they were designed to do, from overcoming challenges that you had no real business surviving, and planning for whatever else your DM might throw at you.
To claim that most players are drawn to D&D - or RPGs in general - by a desire to act, with mathematical ability at character-building being a side-effect, is to ignore quite a bit of the playing field. That's what EA was suggesting with his "Stormwind Fallacy" remark.
This is one area where, I feel, Magic: The Gathering got things right. They've been characterizing player profiles for that game for a long time, more or less, as "Timmy", "Johnny", and "Spike". Quite a lot has been written on this, and I don't want to repeat too much, but basically, they reflect personality archetypes and how people approach the game. "Timmy" thrives on the social aspect and generally likes big, memorable effects. "Johnny" is the artist, who loves how things interact and builds specific combos to explore what's possible. "Spike" is the tournament player, out to prove his skill at the game. People fall into these different perspectives - or often more than one of them simultaneously. The designers recognized that people approach the game differently and design cards with this in mind. (More recently, there's a different dimension added to this, with "Vorthos" and "Melvin" being the labels; this loosely corresponds to the D&D idea of favoring fluff or favoring crunch, respectively.)
To borrow that parlance, you're describing a pure Vorthos/Timmy perspective, while EA's putting forth an almost textbook Melvin/Spike perspective. (Me? I identify as a Johnny, with a varying position on the Melvin/Vorthos axis.)
Of course, even with different perspectives, that doesn't mean that "everyone's entitled to their opinion". Some positions are demonstrably incorrect, even if you share the perspective of the person putting them forward. The flipside of this, however, is that just because you disagree with someone doesn't mean they're playing the game wrong.
That's a bit harsh, but how do you explain Shivering Touch, Thought Bottle, Candle, Mirror Mephits, and the ability to Wish loop? Or, oh gods, Epic Spellcasting and that horrible creature from Serpent Kingdoms?
You're pulling examples from over 94 published books. Several tens of thousands of pages of rules and options. The only reason you can name those exact things is because it's been SEVERAL years since they were released and thousands of people have gone over the content with a fine toothed comb. Or, as you put it you flipped through you personal collection of several thousands of dollars of not pirated material and found them all right off the bat.
So core and CA are obscure splats and reading the Spell and Wondrous Item sections was "going over it with a fine-toothed comb." Thank you for enlightening me with your brilliant brilliance
.Goodness me, I guess that's why modern humans developed nuclear weapons to get rid of neanderthals then or why every member of an armed force in the world has a black belt in the only martial arts school in existence.
Oh, jeez, I didn't know guns were rendered obsolete by fists, and soldiers were generally incapable of killing people. Thank you! I never even guessed!.
But no, that isn't the case. Pikes were obsolete with the invention of the Bayonet at the end of the 30 Years war. After that it was ONLY 500 years for them to be phased out of use. Except by the Swiss Guard.
WOW! I didn't realize the inbred aristocracy was a cover for a bunch of superhumanly-intelligent reality warpers, and that people didn't know how to kill people with bayonets! Good to know!
Then why argue the flawed rules at all?
Why should I deny that the flawed rules are flawed?
Pointless arguing isn't fun.
Yes it is. It's among the most enjoyable things in the world.
I'm doing it to try and get you to use a less vicious wording in your posts. If you were REALLY into the rules, you'd remember the first one "The DM says what goes". Write a game that isn't broken and never look back.
Rule Zero fallacy ain't cool. I was enjoying this, too.
You want a rephrase? Fine, I'll give it to you in a softer tone. You are belittling, reject the statements of others with no support for your own,
Burden of Proof. I wasn't making the assertions here.
you're confrontational,
So?
you have no perception of metagame concepts other than optimization,
Lemme think here... yeah, no. But, more importantly, I fail to see what that has to do with an optimization board.
you have never given a single example of any game you've ever participated in,
Again, so?
you're insulting,
Only in retaliation. Newton's law applies to social interactions, you know.
and you are unable to bring a full argument to bare on any point you've made.
Yes I can. I, however, expect my opponent to support their argument before I respond. I don't make your arguments for you, and "prove my assertion isn't true" is not a valid argument.
Your biggest goal seems to be to make inflammatory remarks get into arguments with strangers on the internet rather than to forward any point of view you find worthy of discussion.
As fun as that would be, not at all. I want to have a reasoned, civilized argument. The fact that I appear to be the only one interested in that is mildly frustrating.
.People are too busy with the dialogue and craft of a story to bother looking up the result of a diplomacy check, or whether or not a bluff check was high enough to fool an npc that has no stats and was just thought up last moment to keep the game on track.
Hello, Stormwind fallacy.
Tempest, you seeing this?
Yep. I also try to stay out of thread fights.
That's sad. Your posts are frequently the highlights of them.
Btw, while you're right in pointing that out as a SWF, that also undermines your point: The SWF hinges upon "degree of optimization" being a separate axis from "degree of roleplaying". That, implicitly, says that optimization is an axis - an inherently two-dimensional construct. If "everybody optimizes" and "nobody ever does awful things", then there's no axis - you're describing a discrete point, not a line.
Except that's not my point. My point was that EWP:Bastard Sword on a druid is not the average game.
All that's needed is one counterexample to show there's more than one dimension here. We see that in WotC's own books, particularly their sample NPCs and any attempt they had at publishing "strategy" (Sword and Fist's combat examples most dramatically, the PHB2's party composition / tactics sections more recently - patently awful advice that doesn't really account for the math of the system at all). Absolute claims are undone by a single counterexample - that is, in fact, how I historically fought the guys who couldn't wrap their heads around the SWF (by presenting examples of RP-heavy parties of optimized characters).
I must have poorly phrased something. My point wasn't that nobody ever plays like those characters(Although I've previously established that the dev team is generally incompetent. My point was more that the basics of optimization are pretty plainly obvious.
You have a point that the system isn't geared for quite a few things (in-combat heals, d6-spell mages, most pre-ToB melee outside of ubercharging/specialist locks, and so on) and will punish people for trying, while rewarding experienced players - system mastery and all that. However, your absolute position on this argument undermines itself. There can be no mastery unless there's also weakness to overcome. (Even the most skewed distributions have two tails.)
Again, it was not my intent to make an absolute claim. Rather, it was that the line is skewed towards optimization, rather than WF(Handax) fighters.
(In fact, my most well-deveoped character, RP-wise, started out as an optimization experiment! It wasn't until I thought about what that specific progression of abilities would feel like that the personality and history emerged, but when it did, it did so in great detail - catalyzed by the rules.)
If I may inquire, what is this character? I am curious.
To claim that most players are drawn to D&D - or RPGs in general - by a desire to act, with mathematical ability at character-building being a side-effect, is to ignore quite a bit of the playing field. That's what EA was suggesting with his "Stormwind Fallacy" remark.
To borrow that parlance, you're describing a pure Vorthos/Timmy perspective, while EA's putting forth an almost textbook Melvin/Spike perspective. (Me? I identify as a Johnny, with a varying position on the Melvin/Vorthos axis.)
Melvin? Really?
More importantly, I need to say this: I'm not out to "win" D&D. It's totally not the point. The point is to have fun with friends. That said, I, personally, find it boring, if not mildly frustrating, when the character I built fails at its intended purpose. Basically, it interferes with the fun of the game to have a crappy character. It's more fun to have a strong character, and pit it against strong challenges. If I come across another way, it's at least partially due to the fact that this corner of the forum is for optimization, and thus numbers are the most important consideration.
I despise tourney ****es.
EDIT: KHAAAN!ONESITE!
And, Tempest, it's more fun if you autocard [=Johnny, Combo Player]Johnny[/c] and Spike. I'm pretty sure they've made a Vorthos, too. I don't know that they ever got around to making Timmy, though... And where the hell did "Melvin" come from?
Except that's not my point. My point was that EWP:Bastard Sword on a druid is not the average game.
On that specific example I would agree with you.
I must have poorly phrased something. My point wasn't that nobody ever plays like those characters(Although I've previously established that the dev team is generally incompetent. My point was more that the basics of optimization are pretty plainly obvious.
I edited in a note - as I'm avoiding arguments I didn't read the entire thread as deeply as I should have.
Again, it was not my intent to make an absolute claim. Rather, it was that the line is skewed towards optimization, rather than WF(Handax) fighters.
...Oddly enough, a couple of the builds that might get showcased later on actually make use of that very feat (but not for the reason that people on the other end of the distribution might take it - here it was Andarious being crazy awesome with bottom-of-the-forgotten-barrel stuff largely because it's been forgotten.).
If I may inquire, what is this character? I am curious.
An astral-construct-specialized shaper. She's seen a few different revisions - her first incarnation was actually in the atrocity that was 3e psionics (the experiment that motivated her was seeing what a psion with only metacreativity powers would look like, which forced you to pick a lot of creation effects with a small amount of fire on the side. Her current version is a lot better, adding in a bit of pure-magic-manipulation and time control, themed as playing with the boundaries between the material and astral planes.).
Melvin? Really?
Well, not so much in this argument, now that I look at it in more detail. A Vorthos might justify a poor mechanical choice because it looks awesome or feels like part of the world, while a Melvin would see that certain mechanics were more effective and elegant, and would let those mechanics govern his choices. I think my (mis?)characterization of your position as Melvin-esque can be understood.
More importantly, I need to say this: I'm not out to "win" D&D.
Technically, neither is Spike. Our longtime DM (DisposableHero_) is probably best characterized as a Spike/Johnny and isn't out to win either. (He's just quite creative and devasatingly effective at what he does.)
It's totally not the point. The point is to have fun with friends. That said, I, personally, find it boring, if not mildly frustrating, when the character I built fails at its intended purpose. Basically, it interferes with the fun of the game to have a crappy character. It's more fun to have a strong character, and pit it against strong challenges. If I come across another way, it's at least partially due to the fact that this corner of the forum is for optimization, and thus numbers are the most important consideration.
I would agree with this wholeheartedly, and have expressed similar sentiments before.
That link also explains how I reconcile that position with different levels of player expertise (apropos of this discussion, this would be if I'm in a group with people who haven't yet seen the math of D&D). We've actually seen this at our table firsthand: when we started, one of my fellow players had been free-form RP/creative writing for ages, but hadn't played D&D before. He was quite capable on the RP front, but was open to us teaching him what to look for mathematically (including warning him of traps). Now he's our team's cuisinart - and his ability to take on multiple personas in quick sequence has, in turn, affected how our DM's writing the story (it'd really take too much time to explain here - serial reincarnation, multiple personalities, dreams within dreams, powerful enemies, time travel / reality revision, multiple continuities... you know, the usual.).
Of course, sometimes a game comes together for ****s and giggles and doesn't particularly care about serious fun. I played a one-shot where I was a telekinesis-focused ghost trapped inside my brother's barbarian's sword, as an example. My brother's a Timmy/Spike, and we had a blast bouncing personas off of each other (if you've played the BioWare D&D games, he was basically Minsc while I was basically Enserric) and getting laughs out of the DM. Had it been more than a simple, goofy one-shot, or had it continued to a higher level, we probably would have died (er... again, in the case of the ghost). I wouldn't dare play this kind of character like I meant it (and if I were stuck on that concept now, I'd've done it a lot better mechanically!), but that doesn't mean that game was badwrongfun for the context in which it was played.
I don't know that they ever got around to making Timmy, though...
Timmy was in Unglued; you're remembering him as Spike (who hasn't been carded yet - Spike isn't about power gaming so much as serious gaming. I imagine his card's flavor text might be "Just wait till I sideboard.")
And where the hell did "Melvin" come from?
Yeah, that's a common reaction - common enough to be addressed by MaRo while also going into the archetype, in classic form.
Pointless arguing isn't fun.
Yes it is. It's among the most enjoyable things in the world.
I win. You're arguments are invalid, your advice is suspect. Thank you and have a nice day. The ORCs will see you out.
Also of course I think it goes without saying that not many people posses your intellect (that is to say a respectably high one). To most patterns such as healing scale VS. damage scale don't really come up until a person steps back and look at the rules from a perspective other than simply as a player, but rather someone interested in using the given system to express their own fantasy. Further more I still stand by my statement that a groups personal play style determines what they get good at. If you have a group of people that grasp how numbers effect each other and have an interest in fantasy, you'll probably wined up with all around good players capable of tier 3-2 builds (of course better math skills could mean a higher caliber of builds however) and decent role playing ability at the table (though terms such as "good' or "bad" role playing are arguable on a personal taste level, but that's beside the point). If you have people soley interested in the role playing aspect, you'll get a bunch of people who pretty much devote time to LARPing probably minus the plastic swords and homemade wizard robes though.
Throw a group together that Has no interest in detailed story and with a high faculty for numbers and you'll quickly get people finding infinite damage loops and making pun-pun through their own understanding of rules and with no input from the internet as a fun test of mechanical theory. All in all there is no right play style, however that's just the assertion that EA makes with a claim that if you can do it and don't you're doing it wrong, and to assume that just anyone can make these connections within a few rounds of game play I feel is a little absurd even.
On to Eruditeape.
You say that people need to give proof in order to bake their claim, I hold it to you that until you posted the line "My point was that EWP:Bastard Sword on a druid is not the average game" I had no idea you where taking a stance on specifically that, as apposed to what simply was what I thought a stance that bastard swords are inferior weapons, and healing in combat has never happened ever. Regardless of this, as to what ever was your assertion, you never mentioned any "proof" to begin with to support either claim. Pretty much as I see this, this started when Slagger asked what type of proof you wanted to him provide to back his claims and you simply answered in turn with rude remarks denoting his intelligence. In order to keep this debate clean I suggest a fresh start. no rude comment, insults, and the such. Simply post your stance, list some references (personally game play, consisting of yours or other peoples in game experiences that your familiar with and so on, whatever yo think constitutes proof so the bar is set and there is a standard) and proceed in a civil manner as apposed to questioning people's intellect when you feel they are wrong.
And you're claiming it's not true, which is also a claim. Again, if you don't know, why are you disagreeing?
Are you familliar with the concept of "burden of proof?" Well, it's on you.
The burden of proof is on me for a claim I make. If you make a counterclaim, the burden of proof is similarly on you for that counterclaim.
If you don't support your counterclaim, the best you've got is "you don't have proof of that".
I'd love to have a reasonable discussion, but the burden's still on you, and you've done nothing to support it.
You've yet to tell me what kind of support you'd like.
I'm sorry you find willful ignorance to one of the pillars of the game "cool."
In terms of the game, deliberately not looking through the Monster Manual is little different from not peering behind the DM screen. You're willfully ignorant of the exact challenges that you might face, but so what? People play the game to have fun, and dealing with the new and surprising is often entertaining.
For example, you could try explaining your own position, since I'm not currently clear on what you would think optimization is if it isn't the process of producing optimum results.
Are you ESL? Not meaning to be insulting, this is a serious question.
It's ironic that you should use the acronym, since I would be unlikely to recognize its meaning without a solid grasp of the language.
But no, I am not. Having spent a long time dealing with the language, and encountering the perspectives of people who do not use it natively, I do often pay attention to the fundamental meaning of the words I use (though I don't claim to make a profession of it).
Naturally, I must also ask you in return: are you ESL?
Or maybe they're more representative of a typical new player since they don't have the "benefit" of being indoctrinated by the optimization boards.
So you find mind-boggling idiocy "more representative" of a typical player than the ability to put two and two together and get four?
What seems obvious to someone already familiar with the game is not necessarily obvious to outsiders encountering it for the first time.
As a perfect example, the game designers were capable of producing a fairly complex and involved system for the game, yet were not aware of a variety of important factors that we would consider common knowledge.
Knowledge checks don't typically reveal hit point totals (we have a couple of monster manuals full of examples), and being smarter doesn't innately give them knowledge of hit point totals either.
Reading comprehension is cool. So is understanding the game. You see, you can ID the monster. You can also get a very good ballpark of the HD and the type, and thus HD size. If you can't figure out the monster's probable HP range from there, I feel sorry for you, and feel obliged to suggest you try out this "4e" thing.
Try getting that ballpark figure without using metagame knowledge that your character wouldn't possess. Remember, we were talking about an in-game perspective.
Plus, it's totally reasonable to have every scrap of knowledge you remember if you can actually identify a monster. That's kinda what identify means. Or, of course, you could just have a wizard who's capable of understanding the basic concept of a big, scary monster being able to swat fireballs, or generally be a lot harder to kill than a peasant. That's a very simple concept, don'cha think?
The exact discrimination of how tough a creature is compared to an absolute measure that doesn't exist within the game world is more complicated than just whether or not it's tougher than a peasant.
Since individuals within the game world don't have access to exact information about a creature's statistics, it's not reasonable for a character to know that information simply because they were capable of identifying a creature.
Indeed, if it were reasonable to have "every scrap of knowledge you remember" as a result of merely identifying a creature, there wouldn't be additional information made available for getting a higher Knowledge check result. To identify a creature means that you know its identity, rather than every last detail about it.
That's a bit harsh, but how do you explain Shivering Touch, Thought Bottle, Candle, Mirror Mephits, and the ability to Wish loop? Or, oh gods, Epic Spellcasting and that horrible creature from Serpent Kingdoms?
So I'm going to blame alchohol, poor editors, and a few extasy-ODing hamsters getting on the keyboards
I'd put blame more on imminent deadlines, along with occasional oversights on the broader effects of various elements. If you write enough material, you'll inevitably end up with a few aberrant bits here and there.
For the creatures, it can also be a matter of attitude, since they sometimes seem to be written with the idea that the DM uses them where appropriate, and allows the players to use them as they see fit. In other words, they assume the DM will appropriate moderate their use. The sarrukh, for example, makes a lot more sense if you assume that the writer was leaving the arbitration of appropriate abilities up to the DM.
Just post the pic. You know you want to.
Sadly, I could not find that picture. I'll dig it up next time Onesite does it's thing.
Except that's not my point. My point was that EWP:Bastard Sword on a druid is not the average game.
On that specific example I would agree with you.
Except that was a general point where "EWP: Bastard Sword on a druid" means "That, or other equally-absurd choices that Slagger is apparently in love with."
...Oddly enough, a couple of the builds that might get showcased later on actually make use of that very feat (but not for the reason that people on the other end of the distribution might take it - here it was Andarious being crazy awesome with bottom-of-the-forgotten-barrel stuff largely because it's been forgotten.)
And all of them involve High Sword Low Ax, I'd imagine.
If I may inquire, what is this character? I am curious.
Melvin? Really?
Well, not so much in this argument, now that I look at it in more detail. A Vorthos might justify a poor mechanical choice because it looks awesome or feels like part of the world, while a Melvin would see that certain mechanics were more effective and elegant, and would let those mechanics govern his choices. I think my (mis?)characterization of your position as Melvin-esque can be understood.
It was the name. "Melvin?" I'm pretty sure that name qualifies as child abuse.
More importantly, I need to say this: I'm not out to "win" D&D.
Technically, neither is Spike. Our longtime DM (DisposableHero_) is probably best characterized as a Spike/Johnny and isn't out to win either. (He's just quite creative and devasatingly effective at what he does.)
Oh, okay. I misunderstood what you were saying, then. I took it as "tourney ****."
Pointless arguing isn't fun.Yes it is. It's among the most enjoyable things in the world.
I win. You're arguments are invalid, your advice is suspect. Thank you and have a nice day. The ORCs will see you out.
... nope. Care to try again? Or are you just going to concede the point?
You say that people need to give proof in order to bake their claim, I hold it to you that until you posted the line "My point was that EWP:Bastard Sword on a druid is not the average game" I had no idea you where taking a stance on specifically that, as apposed to what simply was what I thought a stance that bastard swords are inferior weapons, and healing in combat has never happened ever. Regardless of this, as to what ever was your assertion, you never mentioned any "proof" to begin with to support either claim.
The sheer obviousness of the numbers. That was part of what that whole thing was about. Anyone capable of reading who reads Cure should instantly notice that "Oh, hey, an ogre does more damage in a single attack than the higher-level Cures. Maybe I should rethink this." Or notice the inefficiency of Bastard Swords. Or realize that a Druid has better things to do than swing a scimitar.
So, I'm wanting to know where Slagger got that absurd idea that the average D&D player is a drooling idiot incapable of basic arithmatic.
Simply post your stance, list some references (personally game play, consisting of yours or other peoples in game experiences that your familiar with and so on, whatever yo think constitutes proof so the bar is set and there is a standard)
Sadly, anecdotal evidence is just that.
And you're claiming it's not true, which is also a claim. Again, if you don't know, why are you disagreeing?
Are you familliar with the concept of "burden of proof?" Well, it's on you.
The burden of proof is on me for a claim I make. If you make a counterclaim, the burden of proof is similarly on you for that counterclaim.
If you don't support your counterclaim, the best you've got is "you don't have proof of that".
"Your claim is unsupported" does not require support from me beyond the simple fact that your claim is unsupported, and therefore wrong. Care to try again?
In terms of the game, deliberately not looking through the Monster Manual is little different from not peering behind the DM screen.
...nope. Not at all. False analogies aren't cool.
You're willfully ignorant of the exact challenges that you might face, but so what? People play the game to have fun, and dealing with the new and surprising is often entertaining.
While I'm flattered you think so highly of me, even I am incapable of memorizing every single book. However, a basic knowledge of the system is useful for things like having a comeptent fighter. I mean, it's kinda pathetic for your super-skilled fighter dude to be one-shot, or have massive difficulty hitting same-CR creatures.
t's ironic that you should use the acronym, since I would be unlikely to recognize its meaning without a solid grasp of the language.
Not seeing it
But no, I am not. Having spent a long time dealing with the language, and encountering the perspectives of people who do not use it natively, I do often pay attention to the fundamental meaning of the words I use (though I don't claim to make a profession of it).
So there's your problem. Etymology and meaning are frequently drastically different.
Naturally, I must also ask you in return: are you ESL?
Nope.
What seems obvious to someone already familiar with the game is not necessarily obvious to outsiders encountering it for the first time.
Basic arithmatic isn't obvious?
As a perfect example, the game designers were capable of producing a fairly complex and involved system for the game, yet were not aware of a variety of important factors that we would consider common knowledge.
And, as we've already covered, a good number of them were drooling idiots, or seriously needed an intervention.
Try getting that ballpark figure without using metagame knowledge that your character wouldn't possess. Remember, we were talking about an in-game perspective.
And you have to have an understanding of the metagame to have an in-game perspective.
The exact discrimination of how tough a creature is compared to an absolute measure that doesn't exist within the game world is more complicated than just whether or not it's tougher than a peasant.
Since individuals within the game world don't have access to exact information about a creature's statistics, it's not reasonable for a character to know that information simply because they were capable of identifying a creature.
Wow, again, I'm really flattered, but as I've said, even I am incapable of memorizing every single scrap of text.
Indeed, if it were reasonable to have "every scrap of knowledge you remember" as a result of merely identifying a creature, there wouldn't be additional information made available for getting a higher Knowledge check result. To identify a creature means that you know its identity, rather than every last detail about it.
And how tough it is to kill is part of that.
Or, there's the general idea that how hard something is to kill isn't that complicated. There's also the idea that it's a good idea to know the averages and ranges of stats at every level.
I'd put blame more on imminent deadlines, along with occasional oversights on the broader effects of various elements. If you write enough material, you'll inevitably end up with a few aberrant bits here and there.
I really don't see how it's possible to overlook the absurdity of the Candle, and Wish loops were the first thing I thought of when I saw the Wish spell. It's not complicated. Same with the abomination that is "Hey, have one of the most broken high-level spells in the game as a 2nd level summon!" Mephit.
For the creatures, it can also be a matter of attitude, since they sometimes seem to be written with the idea that the DM uses them where appropriate, and allows the players to use them as they see fit. In other words, they assume the DM will appropriate moderate their use. The sarrukh, for example, makes a lot more sense if you assume that the writer was leaving the arbitration of appropriate abilities up to the DM.
...Nope, it still doesn't. Such a lack of limits is an obvious bad idea. If nothing else, an editor should have shredded that entire entry.
"Your claim is unsupported" does not require support from me beyond the simple fact that your claim is unsupported, and therefore wrong.
A lack of support does not indicate that something is incorrect, merely that it hasn't been proven to be correct.
I could, for example, claim that birds often have wings and be correct even if I haven't yet provided supporting evidence.
In terms of the game, deliberately not looking through the Monster Manual is little different from not peering behind the DM screen.
...nope. Not at all. False analogies aren't cool.
Good that this isn't one of those then. The two are alike in avoiding the knowledge of challenges before facing them.
t's ironic that you should use the acronym, since I would be unlikely to recognize its meaning without a solid grasp of the language.
Not seeing it
Recognizing an acronym involves assembling a logical arrangement of words that applies for the given context. A person with English as a second language (rather than a first) may well have a reduced familiarity with the way words relate to that context when assembled, which can hinder their ability to identify a given acronym.
Etymology and meaning are frequently drastically different.
They certainly can be different, though even the drifts tend to follow a logical path if you know what is occuring and can be very illuminating regarding the nature of the current meaning. But I wasn't referring to merely an etymology somewhere in the distant past and long since divorced from the current meaning of the word.
A glance through a contemporary dictionary is enough to tell us the current meanings of "optimization".
What seems obvious to someone already familiar with the game is not necessarily obvious to outsiders encountering it for the first time.
Basic arithmatic isn't obvious?
I have played with people who did indeed have difficulty with basic arithmetic (it tended to slow them down a bit, but din't otherwise impact on the general quality of play), but that's beside the point. The difficulty is usually not with the arithmetic itself, but the fact that the numbers involved are scattered within the rulebooks, rather than being conveniently assembled in one place for perusal regarding a given concern.
Consequently, people are able to remain unaware of the conclusions that can be drawn even though they may have seen most of the data at one time or another.
As a perfect example, the game designers were capable of producing a fairly complex and involved system for the game, yet were not aware of a variety of important factors that we would consider common knowledge.
And, as we've already covered, a good number of them were drooling idiots, or seriously needed an intervention.
Whether or not they required an intervention, their mental capacity cannot reasonably be in question given the game they managed to produce. Even very intelligent people are not all-knowing or infallible.
Try getting that ballpark figure without using metagame knowledge that your character wouldn't possess. Remember, we were talking about an in-game perspective.
And you have to have an understanding of the metagame to have an in-game perspective.
Exactly. Which is why the characters don't have access to that perspective (and cannot determine ballpark HD figures when identifying monsters), since it depends on metagame knowledge.
Indeed, if it were reasonable to have "every scrap of knowledge you remember" as a result of merely identifying a creature, there wouldn't be additional information made available for getting a higher Knowledge check result. To identify a creature means that you know its identity, rather than every last detail about it.
And how tough it is to kill is part of that.
Or, there's the general idea that how hard something is to kill isn't that complicated. There's also the idea that it's a good idea to know the averages and ranges of stats at every level.
A generalized "toughness to kill" rating is rarely included in any kind of formal description of a creature, even in modern accounts. No-one in the game world is likely to have done rigorous studies on how many sword thrusts it took to kill a blue wyrmling compared to a badger, so the information simply isn't available as knowledge.
I really don't see how it's possible to overlook the absurdity of the Candle, and Wish loops were the first thing I thought of when I saw the Wish spell. It's not complicated. Same with the abomination that is "Hey, have one of the most broken high-level spells in the game as a 2nd level summon!" Mephit.
"Candle" is a bit too vague, so I'm not sure exactly what you're talking about there. It's common to think of ways to essentially wish for more wishes, and it's one of those spells whose design seems intended to make things go glorious wrong. If you try to circumvent the limits, it's just encouraging your DM to take a firmer hand.
And summoned mirror mephits aren't a problem since they won't be using simulacrum.
The sarrukh, for example, makes a lot more sense if you assume that the writer was leaving the arbitration of appropriate abilities up to the DM.
...Nope, it still doesn't. Such a lack of limits is an obvious bad idea. If nothing else, an editor should have shredded that entire entry.
How would you propose they give the sarrukh the mechanical ability to design entirely new creatures of almost any form while remaining within reasonable limits?
A lack of support does not indicate that something is incorrect, merely that it hasn't been proven to be correct.
So? Until you've proven it, it doesn't matter here. You've made several very large claims, and backed up nothing.
I could, for example, claim that birds often have wings and be correct even if I haven't yet provided supporting evidence.
And that's another false analogy. Good going there.
Good that this isn't one of those then. The two are alike in avoiding the knowledge of challenges before facing them.
Yes it is. One is private information, the other is public.
So, if you're trolling, please take it somewhere else. I'm not interested.
Recognizing an acronym involves assembling a logical arrangement of words that applies for the given context. A person with English as a second language (rather than a first) may well have a reduced familiarity with the way words relate to that context when assembled, which can hinder their ability to identify a given acronym.
A common acronym frequently applied to them? Why don't you try again?
They certainly can be different, though even the drifts tend to follow a logical path if you know what is occuring and can be very illuminating regarding the nature of the current meaning. But I wasn't referring to merely an etymology somewhere in the distant past and long since divorced from the current meaning of the word.
So do you just like typing, or are you going to make a point. I'm bored already.
I have played with people who did indeed have difficulty with basic arithmetic (it tended to slow them down a bit, but din't otherwise impact on the general quality of play), but that's beside the point. The difficulty is usually not with the arithmetic itself, but the fact that the numbers involved are scattered within the rulebooks, rather than being conveniently assembled in one place for perusal regarding a given concern.
First of all, I very highly doubt that most people have trouble with such basic mathematics as six being less than fourteen. I also really don't see how "core" and "the SRD" is "scattered"
Consequently, people are able to remain unaware of the conclusions that can be drawn even though they may have seen most of the data at one time or another.
Six, from a CL3 CLW, is leses than fourteen from a CR3 monster. It's that simple, and I really don't see how it's possible to miss.
Whether or not they required an intervention, their mental capacity cannot reasonably be in question given the game they managed to produce. Even very intelligent people are not all-knowing or infallible.
Speak for yourself.
More seriously, though, Wish loops. Mirror Mephits. Sarrukh. Shapechange. Candles. The list goes on and on. MY dog could notice those problems.
Exactly. Which is why the characters don't have access to that perspective (and cannot determine ballpark HD figures when identifying monsters), since it depends on metagame knowledge.
I'm really leaning towards the trolling hypothesis right now. You cannot be serious. Or capable of reading, I'm not sure.
A generalized "toughness to kill" rating is rarely included in any kind of formal description of a creature, even in modern accounts. No-one in the game world is likely to have done rigorous studies on how many sword thrusts it took to kill a blue wyrmling compared to a badger, so the information simply isn't available as knowledge.
Now I'm positive you're trolling. Okay, that wasn't particularly fun.
"Candle" is a bit too vague, so I'm not sure exactly what you're talking about there.
Candle of Invocation.
It's common to think of ways to essentially wish for more wishes, and it's one of those spells whose design seems intended to make things go glorious wrong. If you try to circumvent the limits, it's just encouraging your DM to take a firmer hand.
Except the limits are very clear, and wishing for more wishes is WELL within the limits.
And summoned mirror mephits aren't a problem since they won't be using simulacrum.
Oh, " title="http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/charmMonster.htm">really?
How would you propose they give the sarrukh the mechanical ability to design entirely new creatures of almost any form while remaining within reasonable limits?
Not doing so? Make it a fluff-thing? Explicitly make it a DM-only thing? Partially copy the Epic Spellcasting rules on it? Make some sort of point purchase system? Or just put some limits on it? Or just not doing it?
1. You deal 5% more damage. This is because you look at the number you needed to roll and now have one more number that hits on the d20. 1/20 is a 5% increase.
2. It depends on what you originally needed to hit but somewhere between +0% and +100%. If you need a 21+ to hit and thus only a natural 20 hits the +1 on you attack will not have you dealing any more damage. If a 20 hits normally then getting +1 on the attack will mean you hit on a 19 as well; this means you hit TWICE as often which doubles (+100%) your expected damage. This "math" is 100% correct although the expected damage is actually very low to start with. Going to the other end if a natural 1 only misses because it is a natural 1 then getting +1 on the attack will not improve damage at all by itself. If you needed to roll a 3 or higher to hit then the +1 will improve your damage output by about that 5% mentioned the first time.
The same question with two very different, but both correct, answers. At issue it that people often don't see both answers as being valid and if you expect one you usually ignore the other. If most players are asked this question they will see the first answer but fewer will see the second. The same is true when it comes to the higher levels of optimization where answers aren't always so clear.
p.s. Sorry that this doesn't contribute to the Ranger/HorizonWalker discussion but it seems this thread has gone well away from that topic.
A lack of support does not indicate that something is incorrect, merely that it hasn't been proven to be correct.
So? Until you've proven it, it doesn't matter here. You've made several very large claims, and backed up nothing.
Since you're the one asking for proof, you'll need to answer my inquiry about what we should go for on that.
I could, for example, claim that birds often have wings and be correct even if I haven't yet provided supporting evidence.
And that's another false analogy. Good going there.Good that this isn't one of those then. The two are alike in avoiding the knowledge of challenges before facing them.
Yes it is. One is private information, the other is public.
Since they're analagous in the manner that I was describing, it's unimportant whether or not they're analagous in some other way.
A common acronym frequently applied to them? Why don't you try again?
It's an acronym applied to them from the perspective of an English-speaking person and using English words. People with English as a second language aren't going to automatically define themselves by an acronym based on that second language as opposed to their native tongue.
Why don't you give up Joker's bad habit of asking people to "try again" as if they somehow failed in the imaginary land of jokerworld?
They certainly can be different, though even the drifts tend to follow a logical path if you know what is occuring and can be very illuminating regarding the nature of the current meaning. But I wasn't referring to merely an etymology somewhere in the distant past and long since divorced from the current meaning of the word.
So do you just like typing, or are you going to make a point. I'm bored already.
Sorry, I didn't realize this was Twitter.
I also really don't see how "core" and "the SRD" is "scattered"
So on which page is the relevant information?
Six, from a CL3 CLW, is leses than fourteen from a CR3 monster. It's that simple, and I really don't see how it's possible to miss.
And how did you learn that figure of fourteen for a CR 3 monster?
Exactly. Which is why the characters don't have access to that perspective (and cannot determine ballpark HD figures when identifying monsters), since it depends on metagame knowledge.
I'm really leaning towards the trolling hypothesis right now. You cannot be serious. Or capable of reading, I'm not sure.
Which part of the idea that characters without a perspective on the metagame concept of Hit Dice won't be able to determine ballpark figures based on those Hit Dice doesn't make sense?
A generalized "toughness to kill" rating is rarely included in any kind of formal description of a creature, even in modern accounts. No-one in the game world is likely to have done rigorous studies on how many sword thrusts it took to kill a blue wyrmling compared to a badger, so the information simply isn't available as knowledge.
Now I'm positive you're trolling. Okay, that wasn't particularly fun.
The only thing I'm trolling for is a reasonable response.
Except the limits are very clear, and wishing for more wishes is WELL within the limits.
Not if your DM is awake.
And summoned mirror mephits aren't a problem since they won't be using simulacrum.
Oh, really?
I didn't realize that Diplomacy or charm spells could make a summon monster effect last for 12 hours.
Not doing so? Make it a fluff-thing? Explicitly make it a DM-only thing? Partially copy the Epic Spellcasting rules on it? Make some sort of point purchase system? Or just put some limits on it? Or just not doing it?
Limiting it to fluff or DM use would prevent a PC sarrukh from having fun with it, and they did include a variety of examples, so it's not like they left it completely without guidance.
Limits would be relatively easy to apply for spell-like abilities (due to their connection to the normal spellcasting structure), but much harder to define for extraordinary and supernatural abilities, and you do want something that can fit in as an ability in a single creature entry.
Since you're the one asking for proof, you'll need to answer my inquiry about what we should go for on that.
..I'm not going to dignify this with an answer.
Since they're analagous in the manner that I was describing, it's unimportant whether or not they're analagous in some other way.
No, they aren't.
It's an acronym applied to them from the perspective of an English-speaking person and using English words. People with English as a second language aren't going to automatically define themselves by an acronym based on that second language as opposed to their native tongue.
Why not? It's in every ESL class, it's basically what's done. So not recognizing it is more like "English as a Not Spoken Language" than ESL.
Why don't you give up Joker's bad habit of asking people to "try again" as if they somehow failed in the imaginary land of jokerworld?
So what, would you rather me be as sarcastic as the responses deserve? I think "Try again" was among the best option.
Sorry, I didn't realize this was Twitter.
And, again, how is this relevent?
So on which page is the relevant information?
Enough that there is basically no excuse to miss it all.
And how did you learn that figure of fourteen for a CR 3 monster?
An ogre is a pretty normal CR 3 challenge. I don't recall the precise average damage for a CR 3 creature, but an Ogre wasn't too far off, and quite normal.
The only thing I'm trolling for is a reasonable response.
Nope. You are quite the master baiter, however.
Not if your DM is awake.
Ah, hello Rule Zero fallacy, I was wondering when you'd show up again.
I didn't realize that Diplomacy or charm spells could make a summon monster effect last for 12 hours.
...I really don't know how to respond to this except by assuming you're trolling. Did Oma break into your house or something?
Limiting it to fluff or DM use would prevent a PC sarrukh from having fun with it,
Which is a bad thing? It's basically unlimited power.
and they did include a variety of examples, so it's not like they left it completely without guidance.
Again, how is this relevent?
Limits would be relatively easy to apply for spell-like abilities (due to their connection to the normal spellcasting structure), but much harder to define for extraordinary and supernatural abilities, and you do want something that can fit in as an ability in a single creature entry.
Meh. 40K did something like that a couple years ago. I'm not seeing the problem.
1) Slagger makes claim.
2) You say "Nuh-uh; prove it."
3) Slagger says "Ok. What standard of proof do you want?"
4) Your response is, AND I QUOTE, "I'm not going to dignify that with a response."
Yeah... Time for you to put up or shut up. Again. You actually managed to do a halfway decent job of it yesterday; maybe you should give it a try in the real world.
EA, here's the "burden of proof" that YOU are the one trolling: 1) Slagger makes claim. 2) You say "Nuh-uh; prove it." 3) Slagger says "Ok. What standard of proof do you want?" 4) Your response is, AND I QUOTE, "I'm not going to dignify that with a response."
Why should I dignify that with a response? It's hardly my fault he's incapable of posting proof in the first place.
But, fine, sure, I'll spell everything out, and type slowly this time, just for you guys. I want empirical facts. That's it. No anecdotal crap. Empirical facts, and on a scale to back up those whoppers of claims.
Which should be blatantly obvious to anyone who has been within a mile of someone who took a logic class.
Since you're the one asking for proof, you'll need to answer my inquiry about what we should go for on that.
..I'm not going to dignify this with an answer.
Then you can find the proof you need all by yourself.
So on which page is the relevant information?
Enough that there is basically no excuse to miss it all.
Oh, too scattered for you to name one? I thought so.
And how did you learn that figure of fourteen for a CR 3 monster?
An ogre is a pretty normal CR 3 challenge. I don't recall the precise average damage for a CR 3 creature, but an Ogre wasn't too far off, and quite normal.
Perhaps, but how did you learn the figure in question?
I didn't realize that Diplomacy or charm spells could make a summon monster effect last for 12 hours.
...I really don't know how to respond to this except by assuming you're trolling.
I'm sorry, do you not understand that there's a problem with summoning mirror mephits for simulacrum when it has a 12-hour casting time, and that it's not a problem that can be solved with Diplomacy or charm spells?
Forgive me for accidentally "trolling" you with valid responses.
Limiting it to fluff or DM use would prevent a PC sarrukh from having fun with it,
Which is a bad thing? It's basically unlimited power.
It's a bad solution, since it excludes the problem instead of fixing it.
and they did include a variety of examples, so it's not like they left it completely without guidance.
Again, how is this relevent?
Again? I didn't mention it before.
It's relevant to the idea that the writer might have expected the DM to adjudicate the effect of the ability.
Limits would be relatively easy to apply for spell-like abilities (due to their connection to the normal spellcasting structure), but much harder to define for extraordinary and supernatural abilities, and you do want something that can fit in as an ability in a single creature entry.
Meh. 40K did something like that a couple years ago. I'm not seeing the problem.
Assuming that the 40K rules just drop neatly into place from the grim darkness of the future where there is only war in a completely different game system, I guess there isn't a problem.
Then you can find the proof you need all by yourself.
Not how it works, buddy.
Oh, too scattered for you to name one? I thought so.
Too many example for me to bother naming. Difference, which you'd know if you weren't trolling.
Perhaps, but how did you learn the figure in question?
Basic arithmatic. It's pretty cool like that.
I'm sorry, do you not understand that there's a problem with summoning mirror mephits for simulacrum when it has a 12-hour casting time, and that it's not a problem that can be solved with Diplomacy or charm spells?
Forgive me for accidentally "trolling" you with valid responses.
#implyingdurationsaren'tlulz
So, yeah, you're pretty much trolling.
It's a bad solution, since it excludes the problem instead of fixing it.
Nope, it's a good solution because it solves the problem. Funny how that works.
Again? I didn't mention it before.
English is cool. I suggest you learn it.
And Pulp Fiction jokes are too easy, so I'm going to leave it to others.
It's relevant to the idea that the writer might have expected the DM to adjudicate the effect of the ability.
Funny thing about that is they didn't. The text is perfectly clear.
Assuming that the 40K rules just drop neatly into place from the grim darkness of the future where there is only war in a completely different game system, I guess there isn't a problem.
#notpayingattention #noideawhathestalkingabout
I must say, though, you really are a master baiter and great troll.
Too many example for me to bother naming.
Then since you have no proof of it, I'll hold you to your own standards.
Perhaps, but how did you learn the figure in question?
Basic arithmatic. It's pretty cool like that.
I'm surprised that your school included the average hit points of a CR 3 monster under D&D 3.5 rules as part of basic arithmetic (if it did, then you're about 15 years old).
Normally, you'd need to gather data from all the CR 3 creatures in the Monster Manual, determine the average damage per creature, and the averages across all those creatures. You'd also need to account for average chances to hit against a party of any given level, and then presumably determine an absolute average of the chance to hit at all levels so that you can determine a single total.
#implyingdurationsaren'tlulz
So, yeah, you're pretty much trolling.
You can answer a valid issue with the 12-hour casting time, or you can just go spouting on about imaginary trolls.
It's a bad solution, since it excludes the problem instead of fixing it.
Nope, it's a good solution because it solves the problem. Funny how that works.
It doesn't allow you to use the sarrukh's signature ability on a sarrukh PC, so the problem isn't solved, but merely absent.
It's relevant to the idea that the writer might have expected the DM to adjudicate the effect of the ability.
Funny thing about that is they didn't. The text is perfectly clear.
Oh, you've got proof of the author's intent?
Assuming that the 40K rules just drop neatly into place from the grim darkness of the future where there is only war in a completely different game system, I guess there isn't a problem.
#notpayingattention #noideawhathestalkingabout
Oh, more of Joker's feeble attempts at insulting?
But, fine, sure, I'll spell everything out, and type slowly this time, just for you guys. I want empirical facts. That's it. No anecdotal crap. Empirical facts, and on a scale to back up those whoppers of claims.
Okay, that's cool. Since we're sticking to empirical facts, we'll need a source that we can observe. So let's go with the three core books "PHB, DMG, and MM, which we can reasonably assume will be available to anyone playing the game (and are significantly more representative than books which groups may not possess) and are officially printed, so that it's a formal account that can be verified rather than an anecdote.
Now, to our points of issue, which were several specific in-game activities, namely clerics healing in battle, wizards casting xd6 damage spells when a kill isn't guaranteed (and when not trying to kill a golem while unprepared), fighters making full attacks, and having Exotic Weapon Proficiency (bastard sword). These can all have observable evidence, which is good for our purposes.
The claim was that these are commonplace, so we need evidence of them appearing in an ordinary circumstance. Since you've already spelled out everything in your description, and have asked for it to match an undefined scale I'll be going with "any amount" of evidence in the core books, which should be reasonable for our purposes since everyone can consider the books fundamental to the game to be commonplace. Onto the specifics (fighters making full attacks was a withdrawn objection, so I'll skip it):
1. Clerics healing in battle. To find evidence of this, we'll want an example of a cleric casting any healing spell during a battle, and the absence of a suggestion that it's unusual. Page 137 of the PHB describes a character paralyzed by a ghoul receiving a remove paralysis spell, and page 133 of the DMG describes a second wave of clerics healing the fallen in battle, so we've got evidence for healing and it isn't described as unusual.
2. Wizards cast xd6 damage spells without it being a guaranteed kill (and without it being a golem when the wizard would have a more suitable spell given time to prepare). To find evidence of this, we'll want an example of a wizard casting such a spell when its minimum damage isn't sufficient to kill the target, and the absence of a suggestion that it's unusual. If the target is a golem, we'll want to see that there is no better spell in the wizard's list of known lists that might have been prepared with more time.
I'll broadly include any spells which deal hit point damage in an amount expressed in damage dice. Page 25 of the DMG has a phase spider blasted by a wizard's magic missile, so we've got evidence again.
3. Exotic Weapon Proficiency (bastard sword). To find evidence of this, we'll want to see possession of the feat described in statistics or in general, in the absence of a suggestion that it's unusual. Page 117 of the DMG has a hobgoblin fighter with EWP (bastard sword) as a sample NPC, so we've evidence here too.
Now, I expect a response along the lines of "that's not a good enough scale". But that's just too bad; everything was spelled out (and even typed slowly!) and that "everything" didn't include any quantifiable requirements of scale between the claims and amount of evidence required, so this meets the requested conditions.
The claim was that these are commonplace, so we need evidence of them appearing in an ordinary circumstance. Since you've already spelled out everything in your description, and have asked for it to match an undefined scale I'll be going with "any amount" of evidence in the core books, which should be reasonable for our purposes since everyone can consider the books fundamental to the game to be commonplace.
Nope. "Any amount" is not sufficient evidence for the massive claim of that kind of idiocy being normal.
1. Clerics healing in battle. To find evidence of this, we'll want an example of a cleric casting any healing spell during a battle, and the absence of a suggestion that it's unusual. Page 137 of the PHB describes a character paralyzed by a ghoul receiving a remove paralysis spell, and page 133 of the DMG describes a second wave of clerics healing the fallen in battle, so we've got evidence for healing and it isn't described as unusual.
Not even any real examples.
2. Wizards cast xd6 damage spells without it being a guaranteed kill (and without it being a golem when the wizard would have a more suitable spell given time to prepare). To find evidence of this, we'll want an example of a wizard casting such a spell when its minimum damage isn't sufficient to kill the target, and the absence of a suggestion that it's unusual. If the target is a golem, we'll want to see that there is no better spell in the wizard's list of known lists that might have been prepared with more time.
I'll broadly include any spells which deal hit point damage in an amount expressed in damage dice. Page 25 of the DMG has a phase spider blasted by a wizard's magic missile, so we've got evidence again.
So you've got one example from among the least-balanced books ever printed, and think that's enough to declare that it's normal?
3. Exotic Weapon Proficiency (bastard sword). To find evidence of this, we'll want to see possession of the feat described in statistics or in general, in the absence of a suggestion that it's unusual. Page 117 of the DMG has a hobgoblin fighter with EWP (bastard sword) as a sample NPC, so we've evidence here too.
So? A sample NPC isn't even a proper character, and the fact that you've only found one such fringe example just goes to show my point.
Now, I expect a response along the lines of "that's not a good enough scale". But that's just too bad; everything was spelled out (and even typed slowly!) and that "everything" didn't include any quantifiable requirements of scale between the claims and amount of evidence required, so this meets the requested conditions.
No, it really doesn't. So are you going to come back with some real evidence? Or are you going to just concede? This is getting tiresome, I really shouldn't have to walk you through this whole process.
I'm surprised that your school included the average hit points of a CR 3 monster under D&D 3.5 rules as part of basic arithmetic (if it did, then you're about 15 years old).
Nope. My school did, however, cover that 7+7=14, 3.5+3=6.5, and 14>6.5.
Normally, you'd need to gather data from all the CR 3 creatures in the Monster Manual, determine the average damage per creature, and the averages across all those creatures. You'd also need to account for average chances to hit against a party of any given level, and then presumably determine an absolute average of the chance to hit at all levels so that you can determine a single total.
Are you even reading what I'm typing?
You can answer a valid issue with the 12-hour casting time, or you can just go spouting on about imaginary trolls.
So you seriously mean to tell me you cannot think of a single way to keep a mirror mephit around for over 12 hours?
It doesn't allow you to use the sarrukh's signature ability on a sarrukh PC, so the problem isn't solved, but merely absent.
Which prevents the Sarrukh's abilities from being used by a PC. Which solves the problem quite nicely.
Oh, you've got proof of the author's intent?
The text doesn't say so. That's enough.
Oh, more of Joker's feeble attempts at insulting?
Nope. But once you're willing to talk with the grown-ups, I'll try to stop hurting your delicate little feelings. But, since you appear to have no idea what I'm talking about, and lack the cajones to admit it, I think there is very little point in continuing.
"Any amount" is not sufficient evidence for the massive claim of that kind of idiocy being normal.
Not even any real examples.
We're trying to determine if these things are commonplace.
So you've got one example from among the least-balanced books ever printed, and think that's enough to declare that it's normal?
So? A sample NPC isn't even a proper character, and the fact that you've only found one such fringe example just goes to show my point.
So are you going to come back with some real evidence? Or are you going to just concede? This is getting tiresome, I really shouldn't have to walk you through this whole process.
You already spelled out everything you wanted, and I met the conditions that you requested. It's your own fault if you don't understand how to properly define requirements.
I've given you empircal evidence from books demonstrating that the examples in question are sufficiently commonplace that they appear as examples in the core books that define the game.
It's pretty thin, but beating a total no-show as the opposing evidence doesn't require much.
So you seriously mean to tell me you cannot think of a single way to keep a mirror mephit around for over 12 hours?
Are you intending to describe a method by which you're keeping a mirror mephit you're getting from a 2nd-level summoning spell around for 12 hours, or are you just intending to dodge difficult questions in the hope no-one will notice you failing to answer them?
It doesn't allow you to use the sarrukh's signature ability on a sarrukh PC, so the problem isn't solved, but merely absent.
Which prevents the Sarrukh's abilities from being used by a PC. Which solves the problem quite nicely.
The problem involves using a sarrukh with the ability as a PC; if you can't use it, you haven't done anything to fix the problem of how to use it.
Oh, you've got proof of the author's intent?
The text doesn't say so. That's enough.
In case you've forgotten, we were talking about hypothetical intentions of the author. The text describes what that author did write, but it doesn't encompass all of what they might have intended.
If we were to go from only what the text say, we would have to assume that the author intended to give the ability in question to players, unconstrained as it is.
Oh, more of Joker's feeble attempts at insulting?
Nope. But once you're willing to talk with the grown-ups, I'll try to stop hurting your delicate little feelings. But, since you appear to have no idea what I'm talking about, and lack the cajones to admit it, I think there is very little point in continuing.
And an attempt at belittlement as well? You've just wasted another paragraph trying to feel superior with the same Complete Jokes I've seen a dozen times before.
We're trying to determine if these things are commonplace.
Which you've failed to do.
You already spelled out everything you wanted, and I met the conditions that you requested. It's your own fault if you don't understand how to properly define requirements.
It's not my fault you are incapable of reading.
I've given you empircal evidence from books demonstrating that the examples in question are sufficiently commonplace that they appear as examples in the core books that define the game.
And I can find more examples of people spontaneously combusting. It doesn't mean that it's "sufficiently commonplace."
It's pretty thin, but beating a total no-show as the opposing evidence doesn't require much.
Except the burden is on you to prove it.
Are you intending to describe a method by which you're keeping a mirror mephit you're getting from a 2nd-level summoning spell around for 12 hours, or are you just intending to dodge difficult questions in the hope no-one will notice you failing to answer them?
It's like you're typing, but not actually trying to communicate or understand the topic.
The problem involves using a sarrukh with the ability as a PC; if you can't use it, you haven't done anything to fix the problem of how to use it.
Except preventing the use solves the problem just fine.
In case you've forgotten, we were talking about hypothetical intentions of the author. The text describes what that author did write, but it doesn't encompass all of what they might have intended.
And, of course, you, in your brilliant brilliance, can magically tell precisely what an author meant, and that, for some absurd reason, actually matters? Yeah, okay
And an attempt at belittlement as well? You've just wasted another paragraph trying to feel superior with the same Complete Jokes I've seen a dozen times before.
Trying to feel superior? No. Feeling superior? Yes. Trying to get you to participate, so this is actually a discussion? Yes.
You just aren't going to get away with making massive, unsupported claims while I'm around. It's that simple. Why don't you drop the horribly offended act, and either form a decent argument or concede? I'm sure baseless accusations and faux outrage is easier for you, but I'm tired of putting up with it.
But, seriously, you're like a copy of Oma, with knowledge of the shift key, just for us in PE Optimization.
It's pretty thin, but beating a total no-show as the opposing evidence doesn't require much.
Except the burden is on you to prove it.
I've proven it on the level you requested.
Are you intending to describe a method by which you're keeping a mirror mephit you're getting from a 2nd-level summoning spell around for 12 hours, or are you just intending to dodge difficult questions in the hope no-one will notice you failing to answer them?
It's like you're typing, but not actually trying to communicate or understand the topic.
It's like you're typing, but haven't got the faintest clue how to make that 2nd-level summoning spell last 12 hours despite your claims. The burden of proof is on you for that one.
And, of course, you, in your brilliant brilliance, can magically tell precisely what an author meant, and that, for some absurd reason, actually matters?
Of course I can't, which is why I merely suggested it as a possibility. You can check back if you like and you'll see that this is nothing more than a possible reason for the author not precisely restricting the ability.
Either we go just by the exact text written, and they must have intended it to be out of control, or we assume they were thinking that it would work and be reasonable.
You just aren't going to get away with making massive, unsupported claims while I'm around. It's that simple.
Unlike you, I've actually given support. And since you were too busy trying to act like you were defining something unreasonable for idiots to describe your terms properly, you made it easy for me to meet the conditions you requested.
Even if your conditions had been properly defined to require some actual scale, you've offered precisely nothing as evidence of an opposing claim, leaving me 100% ahead in terms of supporting evidence. It's easy to exceed zero.
Why don't you drop the horribly offended act, and either form a decent argument or concede?
I'm not offended by you wasting your own time on insults and ego-stroking. As for decent arguments, you've currently got quite a backlog of failure to deliver padded by "I won't bother", "you don't understand me", and "what I mean is basic knowledge for everyone" in lieu of content.
Asking me to concede isn't a substitute for making points of your own and proving your position.
It's not core only but I wonder - can you make a Dwarf Fighter 1/Barb 1/Ranger 3/Horizon Walker X/Occult Slayer X/Some PrC to finish things off viable. A friend of mine is relatively new to DnD and wanted to make something that swings a huge, badass sword around. Since she was focused on Frenzied Berzerker and I absolutely refuse to play in a party with that stupidity, I need a build that still charges, does decent damage with simple mechanics and decent saves. We are currently level 2.
Thank you.
Five levels of bear warrior would be valuable if you can manage weapons for it (and depending on how many levels are spent elsewhere), and Tome of Battle will be useful one way or another, if the maneuver system isn't too much to handle.
I've proven it on the level you requested.
No, you haven't.
It's like you're typing, but haven't got the faintest clue how to make that 2nd-level summoning spell last 12 hours despite your claims. The burden of proof is on you for that one.
It's like you're on a D&D forum, but have no idea how the game works.
Of course I can't, which is why I merely suggested it as a possibility. You can check back if you like and you'll see that this is nothing more than a possible reason for the author not precisely restricting the ability.
The author was on truly impressive amounts of control substances. That's much more likely.
Either we go just by the exact text written, and they must have intended it to be out of control, or we assume they were thinking that it would work and be reasonable.
It doesn't matter. It is totally unreasonable.
Unlike you, I've actually given support. And since you were too busy trying to act like you were defining something unreasonable for idiots to describe your terms properly, you made it easy for me to meet the conditions you requested.
No, you haven't. You have given no evidence of them being used at all. So, I'm still waiting.
Even if your conditions had been properly defined to require some actual scale, you've offered precisely nothing as evidence of an opposing claim, leaving me 100% ahead in terms of supporting evidence. It's easy to exceed zero.
Not how it works, buddy. You see, you have to prove it first. You have provided no evidence whatsoever.
I'm not offended by you wasting your own time on insults and ego-stroking.
As for decent arguments, you've currently got quite a backlog of failure to deliver padded by "I won't bother", "you don't understand me", and "what I mean is basic knowledge for everyone" in lieu of content
And here we have unrelated whining in lieu of supporting your argument. Nice
Asking me to concede isn't a substitute for making points of your own and proving your position.
And here we have the true Complete Joke of the thread.
You maid the assertion, you prove it. That's how it works.
It's not core only but I wonder - can you make a Dwarf Fighter 1/Barb 1/Ranger 3/Horizon Walker X/Occult Slayer X/Some PrC to finish things off viable. A friend of mine is relatively new to DnD and wanted to make something that swings a huge, badass sword around.
No. Occult Slayer is terrible, and Horizon Walker is bad outside of core.
Since she was focused on Frenzied Berzerker and I absolutely refuse to play in a party with that stupidity, I need a build that still charges, does decent damage with simple mechanics and decent saves. We are currently level 2.
Water Orc Whirling Frenzy Lion Spirit Totem Barbarian 2/Fighter 4/Paladin of Freedom(Or Slaughter) 5/FullBABPrCs 9. Take Leap Attack, Shock Trooper, and Headlong Rush, and use a Valorous greatsword, and spam Rhino's Rush. There. Have fun. Bring a spatula.
It's like you're typing, but haven't got the faintest clue how to make that 2nd-level summoning spell last 12 hours despite your claims. The burden of proof is on you for that one.
It's like you're on a D&D forum, but have no idea how the game works.
If you've got an answer for the summoning question, post it.
You have given no evidence of them being used at all. So, I'm still waiting.
The claim was that they're commonplace, which has been demonstrated to the standard you requested.
If you want a higher standard, you could ask nicely and give a quantifiable description of the level of evidence you want, and maybe someone else will decide to help you.
You have provided no evidence whatsoever.
If you didn't read my post with the evidence in it, that's your loss.
The problem with your initial stance is that it was given as an inherent absolute that was imposable to justify. Your only recourse is to hide behind the fact that now you're asking for empirical evidence that goes against your assertion, when people who recreationally play this game hardly ever log encounters turn by turn and action by action explicitly, making pretty much any example anecdotal. The fact is that it is for the most part imposable to give empirical evidence on the subject of curing people in combat unless you could find an npc stat block that lists a by round tactical agenda for the npc in question and that lists curing itself or others at the cost of an action. You for the most part automatically lose on the fronts that no one uses xd6 damaging spells or bastard swords as there are several npc's listed throughout the various supplements that have such spells on their lists, and such proficiency and weapons at hand in their stat block.
As a matter of fact exemplars of evil have an npc who uses two weapon fighting via two large bastard swords well utilizing monkey grip and over sized two weapon fighting. This is hardly an optimal combat method as most people on the boards would tell you, but clearly the games mechanics allow for it, and it as such has been done, once again refuting your stance that no one ever uses bastard swords.
If you wish to argue that these are sub optimal tactics, then I don't think many people would disagree with you on that, however you indead said never, and saying something never happens is a statment that holds up about as good as a souffle' on a sub-woofer.
] If you've got an answer for the summoning question, post it.
Sorry, but if you are totally incapable of figuring it out for yourself, I'm not going to let you distract from the real point here.
The claim was that they're commonplace, which has been demonstrated to the standard you requested.
Not at all. You have given no evidence that it's ever been used at all. So, I'm still waiting.
If you want a higher standard, you could ask nicely and give a quantifiable description of the level of evidence you want, and maybe someone else will decide to help you.
Given that you have provided no evidence whatsoever for your absurd claim, I'm not really wanting a higher standard. I mean, you haven't even gotten up to the incredibly low standard you set, much less any reasonable standard.
If you didn't read my post with the evidence in it, that's your loss.
Nope. You see, all you've done is show that some of the things are in a book, while others aren't even there. So, no evidence at all that inability to do basic arithmatic is the norm for D&D.
Wow, it's like watching a politician tell a scientist he doesn't know his own field of study, no matter how much logic he throws at the politician there will always be a spin on words that hurdle him to the next insult that has nothing to do with the topic.
I whole-heartedly agree.
Slagger gave examples of the things you deny ever happening in game within the core books.
The same book that gave us Wish loops. He still hasn't proven it happens
Here's a little advice, if you speak in absolutes, you will absolutely be wrong. Your original Claim was that no one ever uses cure spells, xd6 damage spells, or takes exotic weapon proficiency bastard sword in 3.5. You later added sardonic amendments to these assertions such as "a wizard will never use a xd6 damaging spell when there is no chance of it killing an opponent, and due to the fact that spells that control action economy are better, unless you're a moron who doesn't understands average cr damage scales versus curitive spell scales you never use a cure spell in combat, and druids don't use bastard swords".
Meaning you weren't paying attention. Okay.
The problem with your initial stance is that it was given as an inherent absolute that was imposable to justify. Your only recourse is to hide behind the fact that now you're asking for empirical evidence that goes against your assertion, when people who recreationally play this game hardly ever log encounters turn by turn and action by action explicitly, making pretty much any example anecdotal.
The problem, however, is that it wasn't me making the assertion, but him. It's like him raging about how Global Warming is a hoax.
The fact is that it is for the most part imposable to give empirical evidence on the subject of curing people in combat unless you could find an npc stat block that lists a by round tactical agenda for the npc in question and that lists curing itself or others at the cost of an action.
Then he shouldn't make such huge, unsupported claims. It's not my fault he chose to make such a crazy argument.
You for the most part automatically lose on the fronts that no one uses xd6 damaging spells or bastard swords as there are several npc's listed throughout the various supplements that have such spells on their lists, and such proficiency and weapons at hand in their stat block.
There are also examples of NPCs not qualifying for their own PrCs. Does that mean it's the norm for games? No? Okay, then, so what makes inability to do basic math so special?
As a matter of fact exemplars of evil have an npc who uses two weapon fighting via two large bastard swords well utilizing monkey grip and over sized two weapon fighting. This is hardly an optimal combat method as most people on the boards would tell you, but clearly the games mechanics allow for it, and it as such has been done, once again refuting your stance that no one ever uses bastard swords.
So? Again, I fail to see how this supports his argument of such idiocy being the norm.
If you wish to argue that these are sub optimal tactics, then I don't think many people would disagree with you on that, however you indead said never, and saying something never happens is a statment that holds up about as good as a souffle' on a sub-woofer.
Reading is cool. I suggest you try it sometime.
There are a few basics that are visible through core: Clerics heal in combat, Wizards use xd6 blast spells, Fighters make full attacks and take feats like Weapon Proficiency (bastard sword).
I've never, ever seen this in practice. I don't see why people trot this out like it's the holy grail of 3.5.You can cry that these are sub-optimal but they are the tactics that every player I know of who started in 3.0 and 3.5 used. It was the tactics described by the play testers. It is the most basic and unmodified state of 3.X even if it's not a superior state.
I'd like to see some evidence for that pretty damned big claim. It's clearly obvious everyone I've met that killing is more efficient, Greatswords are superior to bastard swords, Power Attack is "yes," and winning the action economy is more important that ineffective spells that will likely be inferior to a standard Fighter full attack.Introducing into all of this a class ability that grants a 4th level spell every 1d4 rounds is a VERY big assumption to make.
It's an even bigger assumption to assume that a class ability would be made intentionally awful.
Also? Candle. Core really didn't care about spell level.While I wouldn't doubt (or care) were printed in ToB where I've had characters able to Solo monsters with a CR twice their level without batting an eye; in core where dwell Half-elves, LA +1 Hobgoblins, Toughness, and all manner of other underwhelming abilities I'll put my money on the weaker of the possible interpretations.
In core, there also dwells the Wizard, the CoDZilla, and the Candle. Also, Holy Word and Wish loops.
Assuming it's weak because it's core is not a very good idea.
This is where the train wreck started. as you can see, it wasn't slagger who made the assertion that such things where the norm, but you would know that, seeing as how reading is cool and all. Slagger chimes in here with this:
Show
While the flavour text may suggest that the dimension door effect relies on the ever-shifting nature of certain planes, it doesn't outright state that you be on one of those planes in order to use it. The most I would say against it apart from the flavour hints is that it's noticably better than most of the other Horizon Walker abilities.There are a few basics that are visible through core: Clerics heal in combat, Wizards use xd6 blast spells, Fighters make full attacks and take feats like Weapon Proficiency (bastard sword).
I've never, ever seen this in practice. I don't see why people trot this out like it's the holy grail of 3.5.
If you've never ever seen a cleric heal in combat, a wizard use xd6 blast spells, a fighter make a full attack, or anyone with Weapon Proficiency (bastard sword), your experience of the game is weirdly lacking in commonplace occurences. It would certainly be ridiculous for us to have had threads advising against options of those sorts if no-one was using them in the first place. Not, however, that it makes an argument against the Horizon Walker using dimension door on non-shifting planes, since both mechanically strong and mechanically weak options exist in core.
The claim was that they're commonplace, which has been demonstrated to the standard you requested.
Not at all. You have given no evidence that it's ever been used at all. So, I'm still waiting.
Today I'll be running a brief roleplaying adventure played entirely in this post. The DM is Slagger the Chuul, and the characters in the group are Joe the Fighter (played by Slagger the Chuul), Bob the Cleric (played by Slagger the Chuul), and Mary the Wizard (played by Slagger the Chuul).
- Joe is a 1st-level human fighter using the human starting package (Str 15, Dex 13, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 12, Cha 8) with Exotic Weapon Proficiency (bastard sword) instead of Weapon Focus (greatsword). Alignment: Neutral. Skills: Climb, Jump, Swim.
- Bob is a 1st-level human cleric using the human starting package (Str 12, Dex 13, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 15, Cha 8). Alignment: Neutral Good. Skills: Concentration, Heal, Spellcraft.
- Mary is a 1st-level human wizard using the human starting package (Str 12, Dex 13, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 15, Cha8) with magic missile and shocking grasp (as an alternative choice) gained from her Intelligence score. Alignment: Neutral. Skills: Concentration, Decipher Script, Spellcraft.
As a fun houserule, everyone gets gets the rounded-down average on all dice rolls, instead of delaying the gripping narrative by rolling.
DM (Slagger): "After many brave adventures which we won't describe here, you have finally tracked Mary's arbitrarily evil identical twin sister, Sue (who has identical statistics, aside from her name and alignment), to this room, where she now stands about 10 feet away. Having all drawn weapons, except for Sue, you decided not to attack for some reason known only to yourselves, and have instead delayed and are in the middle of waiting to see what Sue will do. Seeing your hesitation, Sue casts magic missile at her hated sister, dealing 3 points of damage."
Joe (Slagger): "I undelay." (There's a brief pause in which no-one else says they want to undelay.)
"I move in between Sue and Mary, telling the two sisters not to fight over me, and use the total defense action. I certainly won't be needing my trusty bastard sword (for which I have that proficiency feat) today."
Bob (Slagger): "Since Joe's covering Sue, I undelay." (There's another brief pause in which no-one else says they want to undelay.)
"I spontaneously cast cure light wounds on Mary to heal her during this life-threatening combat."
DM (Slagger): "Okay, Mary, you're back on full hit points. Everyone else has acted, so do you want to undelay?"
Mary (Slagger): "Yes I do. I'm going to go over and give my sister some corrective electrotherapy with shocking grasp."
DM (Slagger): "You hit and deal her a karmically-appropriate 3 hit points of electricity damage. She promptly apologizes for being nasty and you all live happily ever after. The End."
And there we have it, observable empirical proof that the elements described have ever occurred ingame.
Show
CLERICAL ERROR
Especially when you’ve got lots of hit points, it can be tempting to provoke attacks of opportunity willy-nilly, taking a little damage in exchange for unfettered action. That’s a valid tactical option, but a nonchalant attitude toward such attacks from powerful opponents can backfire. In a playtest a few years ago, we were fighting a frost giant jarl (not the CR 17 one in the Monster Manual), and we were hard pressed. One of us slipped out of the meeting room and grabbed a phone.
Word soon went out over the building’s intercom: “Could a 7th-level cleric please report to Focus Group Room 2 immediately?” Enter Rob Heinsoo and his 7th-level cleric, possessed of both hit points and moxie in abundance. Seeing wounded comrades locked in melee with the frost giant jarl, he moved forward, eager to drop a big cure spell on the fighter. Because the giant had reach and some advantageous terrain, Rob’s cleric provoked an attack of opportunity just for moving nearby.
It’s just an attack of opportunity, right? What’s the worst that could happen? One critical hit from a massive greataxe later, Rob’s cleric was dead on the icy floor. But the disaster didn’t end there. When Rob’s cleric fell, that triggered the jarl’s Cleave feat and killed the fighter, too. The final tally for Rob’s cleric: 15 feet moved, two PCs dead. That might be the shortest PC life span I’ve ever seen. And it’s worth noting that if Rob’s cleric hadn’t been there, the fighter would have survived until his next turn—and maybe beyond.
—David Noonan, designer
Especially when you’ve got lots of hit points, it can be tempting to provoke attacks of opportunity willy-nilly, taking a little damage in exchange for unfettered action. That’s a valid tactical option, but a nonchalant attitude toward such attacks from powerful opponents can backfire. In a playtest a few years ago, we were fighting a frost giant jarl (not the CR 17 one in the Monster Manual), and we were hard pressed. One of us slipped out of the meeting room and grabbed a phone.
Word soon went out over the building’s intercom: “Could a 7th-level cleric please report to Focus Group Room 2 immediately?” Enter Rob Heinsoo and his 7th-level cleric, possessed of both hit points and moxie in abundance. Seeing wounded comrades locked in melee with the frost giant jarl, he moved forward, eager to drop a big cure spell on the fighter. Because the giant had reach and some advantageous terrain, Rob’s cleric provoked an attack of opportunity just for moving nearby.
It’s just an attack of opportunity, right? What’s the worst that could happen? One critical hit from a massive greataxe later, Rob’s cleric was dead on the icy floor. But the disaster didn’t end there. When Rob’s cleric fell, that triggered the jarl’s Cleave feat and killed the fighter, too. The final tally for Rob’s cleric: 15 feet moved, two PCs dead. That might be the shortest PC life span I’ve ever seen. And it’s worth noting that if Rob’s cleric hadn’t been there, the fighter would have survived until his next turn—and maybe beyond.
—David Noonan, designer
I am completely and utterly lacking in self-awareness of any kind.
Yup.
How, exactly, are you managing to get a summon effect to last long enough for a mephit to cast Simulacrum?
I've tried to engage you positively whenever I do show up in these slugfests; I would wish that you do the same here. I'm honestly not seeing how you're pulling off this specific duration trick. The only solution I know of is the Twice-Betrayer's Ocular Spell / Persistent Spell / Divine Metamagic trick, and I would see this more as a problem with that interaction (as that also allows persisting of any spell) than with the specific nature of the mirror mephit (which I'm not pretending to make excuses for, don't get me wrong! Its problems still exist through Planar Binding effects at the very least).
It's not core only but I wonder - can you make a Dwarf Fighter 1/Barb 1/Ranger 3/Horizon Walker X/Occult Slayer X/Some PrC to finish things off viable. A friend of mine is relatively new to DnD and wanted to make something that swings a huge, badass sword around. Since she was focused on Frenzied Berzerker and I absolutely refuse to play in a party with that stupidity, I need a build that still charges, does decent damage with simple mechanics and decent saves. We are currently level 2.
Viability depends on a number of things because it would seem that if you ask around here you're always going to hear "NO" for any build designed around damage that doesn't use spellcasting or ToB. Now I'm going to say it is NOT a viable build for a purely RAW reason; you'll take an XP penalty! Because you have Ranger3 and only Barbarian1 you'll get slapped with the -20% XP penalty for multiclassing with a wide level gap. The Fighter level doesn't count as it is the dwarf's favored class. Of course I point out that I'm completely full of 'it because everybody knows that nobody bothers to use XP penalties for multiclassing base classes despite it clearly being in the PHB.
Now in the "huge, badass sword" department how keen is the dwarf on wielding a greatsword? I know the greatsword deals a touch more average damage then the greataxe's d12 which is so much more the the Dwarven Waraxe's d10 damage but as a dwarf you can wield that axe pretty easily and can use it one handed if the sitation calls for it. Now if the "huge" sword means wanting to wield oversized weapons I'll just shake my head.
I have to admit I'm curious about one thing here, EA (even though I don't want to get involved in the argument).
That's sad. You're generally the most interesting person to argue with around here.
The Mirror Mephit is a problem, as pretty much unanimously agreed here. However, when Slagger mentioned that summoned (specifically summoned, not Planar Binding or anything) mirror mephits aren't going to be able to use their Simulacrum ability, you first pointed out better control effects (which will work if the mephit is Bound, certainly, but won't be needed if it's summoned since summoned creatures follow your orders as a consequence of the spell), and when you were challenged on the duration point, you merely said "#implyingdurationsaren'tlulz". (This would not be a contested point on Planar Binding, so I presume you were specifically referring to a summon effect with their typical duration of one round per level and their inability to be persisted).
How, exactly, are you managing to get a summon effect to last long enough for a mephit to cast Simulacrum?
There are several ways to go about it. A cleric, or an Illumian Mystic Theurge, for example, can easily persist it, as can any other metamagic abuse, although Planar Binding is my favorite way to go about it, as you cannot force a summon to use SLAs that would normally have XP costs. There is another way, but, for the life of me, I cannot remember it right now.
I've tried to engage you positively whenever I do show up in these slugfests; I would wish that you do the same here. I'm honestly not seeing how you're pulling off this specific duration trick. The only solution I know of is the Twice-Betrayer's Ocular Spell / Persistent Spell / Divine Metamagic trick, and I would see this more as a problem with that interaction (as that also allows persisting of any spell) than with the specific nature of the mirror mephit (which I'm not pretending to make excuses for, don't get me wrong! Its problems still exist through Planar Binding effects at the very least).
This line of reasoning is faulty. It could just as well be used to justify the Sarrukh, by blaming it on Gate, or wish or Craft Contingent Spell by blaming them on cost negators. Problematic things are inherently problematic.
That's sad. You're generally the most interesting person to argue with around here.
I work in academia. I get in enough arguments as a matter of my job.
There are several ways to go about it. A cleric, or an Illumian Mystic Theurge, for example, can easily persist it, as can any other metamagic abuse,
I'm not sure how just anyone can persist it: Persistent Spell only works on fixed-range or personal spells, and Summon spells have Range: Close. The ability to convert spells of any range* into a fixed range with Ocular Spell (thus making them compatible with Persistent) is kind of why the Twice-Betrayer's ultra-persistent works. Without Ocular to switch it over, its range isn't fixed, and it can't be persisted. (If Persistent worked on close-ranged spells natively, I wouldn't be asking this question.)
*(Qualifier: Well, any range except touch and personal, but personal already works with Persistent, and Reach Spell is used to switch touch spells to rays, which works with Ocular. And then there's the casting time issue, which offhand I forget how LordofProcrastination solved (but, as I recall, he did - that's probably why I also recall Ocular:Persist:Summon working, as normally they take too long to cast to be candidates for Ocular.). But these details aren't too important to the overall point: without Ocular, Persistent won't work with Summons.)
EDIT: Hmm. Looks like my memory was faulty: the Twice-Betrayer can persist nearly any spell, but can't persist those with both non-fixed/non-personal ranges and casting times longer than 1 full-round action. Summon spells fail on both fronts: they have non-fixed ranges (so they won't work with Persist unless combined with Ocular Spell) and a casting time of 1 round (so they won't work with Ocular Spell). How, exactly, are you persisting them?
although Planar Binding is my favorite way to go about it, as you cannot force a summon to use SLAs that would normally have XP costs.
I'd forgotten about that bit of control limitation. Planar Binding + some extra compelling force (diplomancy, domination, etc) would be required.
There is another way, but, for the life of me, I cannot remember it right now.
If it comes to you, please let me know.
This line of reasoning is faulty. It could just as well be used to justify the Sarrukh, by blaming it on Gate, or wish or Craft Contingent Spell by blaming them on cost negators. Problematic things are inherently problematic.
I was not attempting to justify the mirror mephit - I qualified it twice in that quote as something that's problematic, i.e. making no excuses for it. (In the Sarrukh/Gate example, I blame both of them. Gate is one of those "what the hell, designer?" spells when used as a summoning effect, and the Sarrukh looks like the product of an Ed Greenwood fever dream. Broken A + Broken B.) I was simply wondering how you could dismiss the point about summon monster effects with just a "#implyingdurationsaren'tlulz" as if these methods were self-evident, instead of mentioning why they were "lulz". As I've pointed out here, that doesn't appear to be the case, as you can't Persist its effect natively no matter how cheap you can make metamagic. It requires Ocular, which opens up its own can of worms (again, Broken A + Broken B, although without Persistent, Ocular on its own is far less of an issue).
We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_...
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intellegent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others. Believe us when we say it is possible.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
Let's try this again after my service provided stopped the first time I tried responding. It's unfortunate I need to quote the "on topic" question.
Whats even more sad is that draco seems to have landed a ban for telling someone they where trolling/going off topic in his own thread.
Hmm. Looks like my memory was faulty: the Twice-Betrayer can persist nearly any spell, but can't persist those with both non-fixed/non-personal ranges and casting times longer than 1 full-round action. Summon spells fail on both fronts: they have non-fixed ranges (so they won't work with Persist unless combined with Ocular Spell) and a casting time of 1 round (so they won't work with Ocular Spell). How, exactly, are you persisting them?
It's been a while since I read the Twice-Betrayer, but doesn't Ocular Spell also require the spell to be either a ray or targeted (with a target other than personal)?
Incidentally, I said a summoned creature specifically since EA attributed the excessively good access to the mirror mephits to a 2nd-level summoning spell (rather than the obvious use of a calling effect like planar binding).
That's sad. You're generally the most interesting person to argue with around here.
I work in academia. I get in enough arguments as a matter of my job.
I'm not sure there's such a thing as enough.
I'm not sure how just anyone can persist it: Persistent Spell only works on fixed-range or personal spells, and Summon spells have Range: Close. The ability to convert spells of any range* into a fixed range with Ocular Spell (thus making them compatible with Persistent) is kind of why the Twice-Betrayer's ultra-persistent works. Without Ocular to switch it over, its range isn't fixed, and it can't be persisted. (If Persistent worked on close-ranged spells natively, I wouldn't be asking this question.)
I am aware of this. My bringing up Persist was meant to imply Ocular as well.
*(Qualifier: Well, any range except touch and personal, but personal already works with Persistent, and Reach Spell is used to switch touch spells to rays, which works with Ocular. And then there's the casting time issue, which offhand I forget how LordofProcrastination solved (but, as I recall, he did - that's probably why I also recall Ocular:Persist:Summon working, as normally they take too long to cast to be candidates for Ocular.). But these details aren't too important to the overall point: without Ocular, Persistent won't work with Summons.)
EDIT: Hmm. Looks like my memory was faulty: the Twice-Betrayer can persist nearly any spell, but can't persist those with both non-fixed/non-personal ranges and casting times longer than 1 full-round action. Summon spells fail on both fronts: they have non-fixed ranges (so they won't work with Persist unless combined with Ocular Spell) and a casting time of 1 round (so they won't work with Ocular Spell). How, exactly, are you persisting them?
Actually, I've done some digging on this(This simulacra farm strategy was on a fun TO doc on my old computer that died), but MM p315 says specificly that all SLAs not otherwised specified are standard actions. So, unless that was erattad somewhere I can't find, it looks like it doesn't matter in the first place.
Furthermore, Ocular says "One full round or less." Summon Mirror Mephit is a one-round spell, and so qualifies.
But, hey, if everything else fails, Incantatrix. Problem solved.
although Planar Binding is my favorite way to go about it, as you cannot force a summon to use SLAs that would normally have XP costs.
I'd forgotten about that bit of control limitation. Planar Binding + some extra compelling force (diplomancy, domination, etc) would be required.
Actually, Planar Binding works as is, as it isn't a summoning spell.
There is another way, but, for the life of me, I cannot remember it right now.
If it comes to you, please let me know.
Yeah. It's going to bug me all night, now.
Actually, I've done some digging on this(This simulacra farm strategy was on a fun TO doc on my old computer that died), but MM p315 says specificly that all SLAs not otherwised specified are standard actions. So, unless that was erattad somewhere I can't find, it looks like it doesn't matter in the first place.
Part of the trouble there is that it doesn't make it clear in the MM whether they're talking about the spell or the spell-like ability noting the change in casting time.
But a more complete sentence does exist (tucked into the last page of the Magic chapter in the PHB) that says: "A spell-like ability has a casting time of 1 standard action unless noted otherwise in the ability or spell description."
They don't bother to repeat this part in the MM (which is inconvenient when trying to find it, since you typically look at the MM first), but they don't contradict it since they don't address the location for the notation, so it remains valid.
Interesting. I'd missed that. However it doesn't change the fact that the Monster Manual is the primary source in this case, and would trump the PHB.
Yes, the Monster Manual is the primary source, and it would trump the Player's Handbook if the two disagreed.
But the MM doesn't actually cover where it can be noted that the spell-like ability has a casting time other than 1 standard action; according to the Monster Manual description, a spell-like ability having a different casting time because of the spell's description is perfectly valid. The PHB's description simply describes two valid locations for the notation of a non-standard action casting time to occur (in the ability or in the spell description), both of which fit within the MM's description.
They're not in disagreement, the PHB just elaborates on what the MM already says.
Spell-like abilities are magical and work just like spells (though they are not spells and so have no verbal, somatic, material, focus, or XP components). They go away in an antimagic field and are subject to spell resistance if the spell the ability resembles or duplicates would be subject to spell resistance.
A spell-like ability usually has a limit on how often it can be used. A spell-like ability that can be used at will has no use limit. Using a spell-like ability is a standard action unless noted otherwise, and doing so while threatened provokes attacks of opportunity. It is possible to make a Concentration check to use a spelllike ability defensively and avoid provoking an attack of opportunity, just as when casting a spell. A spell-like ability can be disrupted just as a spell can be. Spell-like abilities cannot be used to counterspell, nor can they be counterspelled.
They're not in disagreement, the PHB just elaborates on what the MM already says.
This is incorrect. There is no mention of spells or spell descriptions in that sentence. It is totally unrelated. What you are doing is akin to claiming that every PLA has a 10 minute casting time because some power has the same duration. It's basically making up text.
They're not in disagreement, the PHB just elaborates on what the MM already says.
This is incorrect. There is no mention of spells or spell descriptions in that sentence. It is totally unrelated. What you are doing is akin to claiming that every PLA has a 10 minute casting time because some power has the same duration. It's basically making up text.
Monster Manual (page 315): "Using a spell-like ability is a standard action unless noted otherwise, and doing so while threatened provokes attacks of opportunity."
Player's Handbook (page 180): "A spell-like ability has a casting time of 1 standard action unless noted otherwise in the ability or spell description."
All the PHB does is describe two specific locations that the casting time can be noted as something other than a standard action. It's providing us additional information without contradicting the MM in any way. The MM does not state that the casting time should be noted in any particular location, but it doesn't exclude any particular location either.
Similarly, the MM tells us that spell-like abilities work like the spells they duplicate. The PHB goes a little further by stating that they work like spells with the same name. As with the casting time, the PHB is just describing important additional details that aren't included in the MM.importance.
That is incorrect. The PHB text is totally irrelevent. The MM text is all that matters, and the MM text says that the Simulacrum SLA is a standard action.
If the PHB text on spell-like abilities is totally irrelevant, how do you know that the simulacrum spell-like ability works like the simulacrum spell? The information relating a spell-like ability to a spell of the same name only appears in the Player's Handbook. Without that, a spell-like ability could be duplicating any spell in existence, no matter what name you gave it. I hope you can see the absurdity that would result from treating the PHB's description of spell-like abilities as irrelevant.
The Monster Manual says that the use of spell-like abilities is a standard action unless noted otherwise. The simulacrum spell entry notes otherwise.
Since the PHB doesn't contradict the MM, you've got no basis for stating that its information is irrelevant. The PHB is not the primary source, but it's a valid source and contains valid information on spell-like abilities that expands upon the MM description.
Uh... They're not contradictory. The PHB version is at least supplementary, if not complementary. It gives additional information, rather than different information.
Incorrect. The information is different.
But, seriously, I'm right, but this is turning into an "uh-huh" "uh-uh" situation, which will get us nowhere, so I'm calling it quits here.
I win!
They are contradictory. Therefore, the PHB one doesn't matter, at least for casting times, which is where the contradiction is.
The "unless noted otherwise" part is in both the PHB and MM, so it can't be incorrect. And the MM doesn't say anything about where differences can be noted for the casting time, so it's not possible for the PHB to contradict it by giving locations. How is it contradictory?
But, seriously, I'm right, but this is turning into an "uh-huh" "uh-uh" situation, which will get us nowhere, so I'm calling it quits here.
Have you ever read the section on "Time and Immortality" from page 12 of Libris Mortis?
Adaptation and learning are positive things.