Page 10 of 17 FirstFirst 1234567891011121314151617 LastLast
Results 271 to 300 of 495
  1. - Top - End - #271
    Orc in the Playground
     
    ElfRogueGirl

    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why hate optimization?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fizban View Post
    I don't know what build you're talking about, but I encourage you to do the math before making such blanket statements. Don't guess that your preferred build will have more money, prove it. And not just at 20th where almost nothing matters- at a spread of levels.

    And also remember that +4 AC is a subtractive 20% reduction in accuracy (as long as your overal AC isn't in the toilet), which is huge, and stacks with the much vaunted miss chances.
    first there have been many threads about AC optimization not working after a certain point. go read one. TLDR nat 20 hit means that +1 or +100 doesn't matter if they normally can't hit you.

    a tower shield is +4 AC and -2 to attack rolls to use. this is the BEST SHIELD i can find off hand that doesn't require some odd exotic proficiency. and heck there probably is one in a splat book somewhere i haven't looked for one. a +5 enchantment is the highest you can go on a shield (+6-10 are non ac booster enchantments), thus +9 is the highest. that +5 is 50k gold, which is most of an 11th level WBL character and a full 6.5% of a lvl 20s. so getting 3 +5 equipments is 150g which is sword shield and armor. pretty basic build if i do say so. meanwhile then two handed figher has only spent 100k on his +5 two hander and +5 armor. leaving him 50k to do whatever he wants and hell if there isn't a nice crap ton of stuff out there. for 50k i could buy a custom magic item to spit out a levle 3 spell every round like fireball (27000g). and as you can see thats just 1/2 the cost of that shield (with no cost reducers!)

    this does not take into account that higher level play is often plagued by magic meaning higher saves are more important than AC at that point. so a +5 cloak of resistance (25000g) is better than that +5 AC bonus.
    Quote Originally Posted by BassoonHero View Post
    No, the problem is that the limit one can achieve with physical brute force from a human body is low, very, very, very low, so obviously someone pursuing strength via muscles is not going to get far.
    This is certainly true in 3.5, but I don't think that it's an inevitable feature of the fantasy genre. Look at wuxia. Look at mythology. Look at what "peak human" means in the DC universe. I think that "strength via muscles" can do some pretty amazing things if the system allows for it.

  2. - Top - End - #272
    Orc in the Playground
     
    ElfRogueGirl

    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why hate optimization?

    Quote Originally Posted by Florian View Post
    Yes, and still your path is partially blocked by the obstacle, preventing the charge. (Unless the blocker stands one square before that charge target, meaning you charge into the square next to it, see AoO)
    again it all depends on positioning, a charger can almost always find a way to charge it just depends on how to do it. the blocker has to be damn close to the charger for the charger not to circumvent him. standard movement is 30ft. so 60 ft max between charger and target. as for AoO there are a crapton of ways around it. as with jump you can tumble to avoid it. i think i remember a feat that ignores it (no i don't remember feat name/sourcebook i don't often play chargers.), movement modes could circumvent it. size of target could circumvent, ect ect. hell just having a high enough AC could circumvent since if you cant hit me then what u gonna do?

    hell if primary target for charge is blocked just pick another one that isn't and wail on them then proceed to charge original target.

    again i tend NOT to play chargers so not the most knowledgeable. the few "chargers" that i play tend to run things like greater flyby attack. it isn't a actuall charger though. just not my style of play.
    Quote Originally Posted by BassoonHero View Post
    No, the problem is that the limit one can achieve with physical brute force from a human body is low, very, very, very low, so obviously someone pursuing strength via muscles is not going to get far.
    This is certainly true in 3.5, but I don't think that it's an inevitable feature of the fantasy genre. Look at wuxia. Look at mythology. Look at what "peak human" means in the DC universe. I think that "strength via muscles" can do some pretty amazing things if the system allows for it.

  3. - Top - End - #273
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGirl

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why hate optimization?

    Quote Originally Posted by death390 View Post

    3: to be fair sword and board should be a valid fighting style, however it as well as single handed fighting are not competent styles. yes you CAN use them however it usually isn't worth it. as for Two handed fighting it is over powered compared to any other fighting style without other mitigating factors (two weapon fighting with sneak attack for example). hell you only pay for 1 weapon to enchant compared to two weapons or sword and shield. meanwhile all the mechanics are balanced around two handed fighting since there is no way to scale a shield reliably and two weapon fighting is feat intesive.
    I thought TWF and S&B were competent for the ToB classes.


    10:sirs AC asuming all else is equal is at MOST +4 higher using a tower shield and taking a penalty to fighting. (+9 if fully maxed AC). i don't know about you but by the time you get enough WBL to upgrade the shield armor and your sword the Two handed fighter will have a better weapon better armor and probably a few more magic trinkets that hlep more than that AC bonus. epsecially since later in the creatures resistances are better than AC.
    Its important to note that tower shields let you duck behind them and just say no to attacks from one direction

  4. - Top - End - #274
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Berlin
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why hate optimization?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jormengand View Post
    From you, I seem to recall. When will you ever stop insisting that evil outsiders can't melt steel fighters?

    Don't answer that. Please. Just don't ruin yet another thread with it.
    Your recall it wrong. I consistently said three things, based on the whole "test" being based on the core rules:

    - No Pit Fiend was used. The MM entry that defines what a Pit Fiend actually is, also includes standard tactics for said Pit Fiend, which were blatantly ignored.
    - No environment that is supported by the core rules was used. And what the core rules support is basically only dungeon crawling in rather small rooms and complexes, aka a dungeon.
    - Assumptions were made about the victory and loss conditions of this test that didn't conform to the assumptions as provided with the core rules.

    Itīs not so unimportant to sum that up again, because it hits on a branch of Optimization that I really dislike, namely the one when players want to urgently get as many tools that let them force the direction of the game, overdoing the whole "agency" thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by death390 View Post
    3: to be fair sword and board should be a valid fighting style, however it as well as single handed fighting are not competent styles. yes you CAN use them however it usually isn't worth it. as for Two handed fighting it is over powered compared to any other fighting style without other mitigating factors (two weapon fighting with sneak attack for example). hell you only pay for 1 weapon to enchant compared to two weapons or sword and shield. meanwhile all the mechanics are balanced around two handed fighting since there is no way to scale a shield reliably and two weapon fighting is feat intesive.
    As a side note: TWF SnB is prolly one of the best fighting styles for a PF Fighter, working right out with core only and getting better with each splat.

    Quote Originally Posted by death390 View Post
    i think i remember a feat that ignores it (no i don't remember feat name/sourcebook i don't often play chargers.), movement modes could circumvent it. size of target could circumvent, ect ect. hell just having a high enough AC could circumvent since if you cant hit me then what u gonna do?
    Yes, there're feats that let you charge in a crooked line or allow you to make a 90į turn, on the opposing side, there're very cheap feats that upgrade the control radius of the defender or make squares in a radius around the defender count as difficult terrain in regards to movement. You already "play" when going into this kind of depth, even when not hitting, because you force your targets actions and decisions. And since this is a team-based game, chances are good, when not playing with total egomaniacs, that the blocker will also have Enlarge Person on and someone with a little bit of tactical savvy will have used Grease.
    Last edited by Florian; 2017-12-28 at 04:21 AM.

  5. - Top - End - #275
    Troll in the Playground
     
    GreenSorcererElf

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Oregon
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why hate optimization?

    Quote Originally Posted by death390 View Post
    a tower shield is +4 AC and -2 to attack rolls to use. this is the BEST SHIELD i can find off hand that doesn't require some odd exotic proficiency. and heck there probably is one in a splat book somewhere i haven't looked for one. a +5 enchantment is the highest you can go on a shield (+6-10 are non ac booster enchantments), thus +9 is the highest. that +5 is 50k gold, which is most of an 11th level WBL character and a full 6.5% of a lvl 20s. so getting 3 +5 equipments is 150g which is sword shield and armor. pretty basic build if i do say so. meanwhile then two handed figher has only spent 100k on his +5 two hander and +5 armor. leaving him 50k to do whatever he wants and hell if there isn't a nice crap ton of stuff out there.
    That's not a proof, that's a couple of cost comparisons placed alongside a number chosen to match them. I still don't know what these builds are or what the point is, but if you built both of them at a particular level with properly balanced gear and compared them to a couple standard monsters, you would have something.
    for 50k i could buy a custom magic item to spit out a levle 3 spell every round like fireball (27000g). and as you can see thats just 1/2 the cost of that shield (with no cost reducers!)
    Custom items are custom, and continue to have no bearing on game balance.
    this does not take into account that higher level play is often plagued by magic meaning higher saves are more important than AC at that point. so a +5 cloak of resistance (25000g) is better than that +5 AC bonus.
    If you're forcing a binary choice and dumping AC, sure. If you're using a balanced gear progression based on WBL, as the game assumes, you should have both. If you're hardcore optimizing, you shouldn't even have the cloak because rod-extended Superior Resistance exists and you're actually a gish.


    This is quite a tangent though, and I was not intending to continue your argument, just get you to argue it properly.
    Quote Originally Posted by Violet Octopus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Fizban View Post
    sheer awesomeness

  6. - Top - End - #276
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Berlin
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why hate optimization?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fizban View Post
    This is quite a tangent though, and I was not intending to continue your argument, just get you to argue it properly.
    Itīs an interesting tangent because it shows how thoughts about optimization work when done in a vacuum and will somehow always lead up to the conclusions that a character needs to be able to provide any aspect of it on its own.

    Cover, Concealment and Range, aka tactical use of the battlefield, brutally cheap and stay relevant for a very long time.

  7. - Top - End - #277
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Griffon

    Join Date
    Mar 2013

    Default Re: Why hate optimization?

    Quote Originally Posted by quark12000 View Post
    They're not free, friend.
    Their content is! There is so much cool content, classes, feats, spells, weapons etc etc! Cool monster! You really should broaden your horizon, you might just be pleasantly surprised!

    EDITED for breaking forum rules! Pardon!
    Last edited by Max Caysey; 2017-12-28 at 06:22 AM.

  8. - Top - End - #278
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Crake's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why hate optimization?

    Quote Originally Posted by Max Caysey View Post
    Their content is! There is so much cool content, classes, feats, spells, weapons etc etc! Cool monster! You really should broaden your horizon, you might just be pleasantly surprised!

    And yes they can all be downloaded for free!
    I'm like 99% sure that supporting piracy is against the forum rules. If you want a legit copy the PDFs cost money from online retailers.

    Edit: Unless that is, you're referring to pathfinder's hyper expansive SRD.
    Last edited by Crake; 2017-12-28 at 06:09 AM.
    World of Madius wiki - My personal campaign setting, including my homebrew Optional Gestalt/LA rules.
    The new Quick Vestige List

    Quote Originally Posted by Kazyan View Post
    Playing a wizard the way GitP says wizards should be played requires the equivalent time and effort investment of a university minor. Do you really want to go down this rabbit hole, or are you comfortable with just throwing a souped-up Orb of Fire at the thing?
    Quote Originally Posted by atemu1234 View Post
    Humans are rarely truly irrational, just wrong.

  9. - Top - End - #279
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2010

    Default Re: Why hate optimization?

    Quote Originally Posted by Crake View Post
    I'm like 99% sure that supporting piracy is against the forum rules. If you want a legit copy the PDFs cost money from online retailers.

    Edit: Unless that is, you're referring to pathfinder's hyper expansive SRD.
    We can report such things. Engaging with it only draws attention to it.

  10. - Top - End - #280
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Mid-Rohan
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why hate optimization?

    Quote Originally Posted by Crake View Post
    Somtimes failure can be more than just "undesirable". It can quite literally lead to straight up death. Take for example, in my current game that I'm running, the players have decided to take on sailing, and they're happily sailing the coast, but soon they see a violent storm brewing on the horizon. This storm requires DC30 profession sailor checks to sail through, which in an e6 game, is not an easy DC to beat. Failure means they ride the winds right into the cliffs on the shore, crashing their boat, and likely drowning in the process.
    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Ultron View Post
    As I said, many DM's agree with this or something similar and refuse to use Sunder on PCs. And it is about as ''adversarial'' as say attacking a PC and lowering their hit points. And it's not like you only Sunder the fighter types...any item of any character can be Sundered.
    I will say this: Death, HP Loss, and Sundered Equipment have different thresholds for recovery. Recovering HP Loss is as easy as finding a cleric willing to sacrifice a spell level slot or two. Death has a higher threshold, but some DMs compensate by making "town clerics" of the sufficient level easy to access for lower level players. For destroyed items, perhaps sometimes they can be repaired, but similar to Resurrection magic, a DM can alleviate the weight of Sunder used against players just by making sure the players are quite consistently finding replacement magic items.

    My point is that saying Death is worse that HP Loss is only as true in as much as the DM has made Resurrection magic more difficult to obtain than Curing spells. Similarly, Sundered Equipment is only as easy to manage as HP Loss if fixing/replacing that equipment is likewise similarly easy to manage as regaining lost hit points.

    In some campaigns, these statement may or may not be true.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Ultron View Post
    Power sounds fun, until you stop and think about it. Would it be fun to play a game where your character was all powerful? Like the first ten seconds of the game would be like ''my character blinks and rules everything everywhere''. Well, ok, not much game to play there.
    If Power = Absolute Power, then how do we define less than Absolute Power? Is that not Power?

    You seem to imply that accepting less than Absolute Power is simply "Normal." I would agree, except once again you seem to just make non-arguments where you exaggerate opposing positions far past any reasonable understanding of what your opponents are claiming just so they seem more wrong.

    We examine the scenario again: Optimization can be defined as, "maximizing the power of a set of mechanics." It should be obvious that this is a sliding scale spectrum of applicability. Using this to attain Absolute Power (or Nigh Absolute Power) is usually referred to as "Cheese." Somewhere on the sliding scale of Optimization there is a low end where "Normal" games live and an upper end where "Cheese" lives.

    Some people around the community use the terms "Practical Optimization" and "Theoretical Optimization" to help distinguish what level of Optimization they are looking for. It is generally accepted that people who want to slip Theoretical Optimization past a DM are indeed bad players as you are so eager to point out.

    But people seeking some Practical Optimization shouldn't be villainized because they enjoy playing the Character Creation Minigame and are good at getting the best bang for their buck on it. Most PO builds are quite commonly acceptable to your "Normal" games. That is to say, you wouldn't be able to distinguish them from any of your "Non-optimizer" players, because these people are just making prudent choices about their character's mechanical construction.

    And it doesn't mean they are stuck in Roll play so much they can't Role play. Being good at the Character Creation Minigame doesn't in any way affect a player's skill at taking any character they are handed and staying flawlessly in character, even when it means making decisions detrimental to optimal success ratio.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Ultron View Post
    And sure, I don't type ''in my opinion'' at the start of every single sentence I type....but nether does anyone else. So I'm not sure why people don't get anything I type is my opinion...other then hate.
    Untrue. The abbreviated, "IMO" only requires you to use a three letter disclaimer and is very commonly used on this forum. "IME/IMX" is likewise easy to add to literally every paragraph of your post without breaking the bank on your time budget for replying to internet comments.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fizban View Post
    No you can't, because this is already addresed in the charging rules. You must charge directly at them, the sortest path, to the closest position it would be possible to attack from along that line. You can't angle your charge away from someone in front to hit someone in back. You start at A, they start at B, and there is exactly one place C that you are allowed to charge into. Blocking that path, even slightly, blocks the charge.

    This is basic PHB stuff, p154.
    I would agree that to be RAI, but I can also see a case made for the other interpretation being ruled as RAW (meaning the answer actually depends a bit on your DM).

    Sure, the game makers talk a big game about "directly toward the opponent" and "closest space from which you can attack," but a lot of that kind of got muddied when they approximated movement to 5ft squares and then direction in combat is basically "you are facing all directions at all times".

    I don't think anyone has that argument nailed down so definitively that we shouldn't be qualifying our statements with the, "talk to your DM if Corner Charging is right for you."

    Quote Originally Posted by Fizban View Post
    I've been expecting that and already have the response prepared: take a look at flying creatures and notice how they're weaker than ground creatures.
    Hm? Let's have a look.

    Just scanning the SRD for a few flying monsters and then grounded monsters of the same level...

    Juvenile Arrowhawk and Grick are both CR 3.

    Arrowhawk: 16HP, +5 initiative, Fly 60ft (Perfect), AC 20/Touch 16/FF 15, Fort +4, Reflex +8, Will +4, Bite +9 for 1d6+1, immunity to Acid, Electricity, and Poison, Resistance to Cold and Fire 10

    Grick: 9hp, +2 initiative, Normal 30ft (plus Climb 20ft), AC 16/Touch 12/FF 14, Fort +0, Reflex +2, Will +5, +3 Tentacle (counts as magic for overcoming DR, but no Pounce, so can't use all 4 tentacles on a charge) for 1d4+2, DR 10/Magic, Scent

    Hm. Let's keep looking.

    At CR 9, we have Yrthak vs Bone Devil

    Yrthak: 102HP, +6 initiative, AC 18/Touch 10/FF 16, Fort +11, Reflex +10, Will +5, Bite +15 for 2d8+5, Blindsight 120ft, Immunity to Gaze attacks, visual effects, and illusions based on sight, vulnerability to sonic, Flyby Attack (bit of a "screw you" to charge blockers), Multiattack, Snatch

    Bone Devil: 95HP, +9 initiative, AC 25/Touch 14/FF 20, Fort +12, Reflex +12, Will +11, Bite +14 for 1d8+5 (I suppose they could use their Sting +12 for 3d4+2 and Poison DC 20 for 1d6 then 2d6 Str damage, actually not sure why that isn't their more primary attack), SLAs (including the Fly spell, because after a certain level, EVERYONE is flying), Fear Aura DC 17 out to 5ft, Summon Devil

    A quick extra note on the CR 9 comparison, the allies the Fighter is theoretically protecting by Charge blocking are probably flying at this point, making them more difficult to protect from charging attacks. Fighter better be buying Magic Items to let them keeping blocking the airways for their squishy 9th level caster companions.

    That said, yeah, the devil looks more intimidating, but more due to the SLAs than anything related to Charge Specials. In that department, the Yrthak is still more dangerous. The Bone Devil is more menacing overall because it has no need to charge.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fizban View Post
    Aquatic creatures are even weaker,
    ... strangely, the only CR 3 Aquatic creatures are in the MM2 (according to monsterfinder). I'm too lazy to get my book. I'll pick a close approximation.

    Large Shark is CR 2 (lightweight for competition with CR 3s): 38HP, +6 initiative, Swim 60ft, AC 15/Touch 11/FF 13, Fort +8, Reflex +7, Will +3, Bite +7 for 1d8+4, Blindsense, Keen Scent

    So far, Aquatic is comparing rather nicely with Ground and Air (especially in the "charging threat" department).

    CR 9, Dire Shark (cut me some slack, there aren't as many different kinds of Aquatics, especially in the SRD): 147HP, +2 initiative, Swim 60ft, AC 17/Touch 10/FF 15, Fort +14, Reflex +13, Will +12, Bite +18 for 2d8+9, Improved Grab (grapple +27), Swallow Whole

    So far as a Charging type threat, the Aquatics seem to keep pretty good pace with the Grounders. Looking back, it seems quite understandable. For an aquatic creature, one of the greatest advantages you have is the fact that you can charge through what most other creatures consider difficult terrain.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fizban View Post
    EIHP
    Every time you use this, I keep wanting to point out that it is essentially the same as saying IPSO (If Party Sufficiently Optimized).

    Quote Originally Posted by Fizban View Post
    Monsters don't have Tumble either, not the kinds you're usually afraid of charging you (disclaimer always applies, char-oped and higher power monsters from later books are not the original balance).
    Come now, NPC threats are part of the original balance as much as monsters are. And standing next to your ward to protect them from leaping chargers may work, but it also continues to limit your usefulness on the battlefield. Now you can't be a roadblock just anywhere, because you have to stand next to your friend the whole time.

    Congratulations! You're a living Animated Shield. I hope you feel as useful as the Ubercharging Barbarian.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fizban View Post
    Now here's a special one I saved for it's own post, 'cause it blew my mind once I realized it. I'm about to do some armchair game psychology, and that really makes people mad, but consider. . .

    Why hate un-optimizers?

    Why is it that when someone posts even the slightest un-optimizing sentiment, some optimizer has to immediately and directly contradict them every time? Why do we have giant threads of people shouting the same "nuh uh" over and over again? And getting mad when people won't shut up and stop being wrong?

    I think Jor just gave me the answer: If you don't attack and succeed every turn, you fail and can't have fun.
    I don't think there's any hate for un-optimizers. Any optimizers I've heard talk have said, "if that's your cuppa tea, then drink it."

    What often seems to be more the point of contention is Anti-Optimizers. "You having fun is stopping me from having fun, so stop having fun so I can have more fun."

  11. - Top - End - #281
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Griffon

    Join Date
    Mar 2013

    Default Re: Why hate optimization?

    Quote Originally Posted by Crake View Post
    I'm like 99% sure that supporting piracy is against the forum rules. If you want a legit copy the PDFs cost money from online retailers.

    Edit: Unless that is, you're referring to pathfinder's hyper expansive SRD.
    I was pretty sure I've read that since WotC is two editions removed, they had been released? I do not want to promote anything illegal! Sorry for unknowingly doing that.

    However my point still stands. Using 3 out of 100 book is ludicrous to me! I would not want to remove thousands of options that especially makes mundanes more powerful!!!

  12. - Top - End - #282
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Crake's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why hate optimization?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pleh View Post
    I will say this: Death, HP Loss, and Sundered Equipment have different thresholds for recovery. Recovering HP Loss is as easy as finding a cleric willing to sacrifice a spell level slot or two. Death has a higher threshold, but some DMs compensate by making "town clerics" of the sufficient level easy to access for lower level players. For destroyed items, perhaps sometimes they can be repaired, but similar to Resurrection magic, a DM can alleviate the weight of Sunder used against players just by making sure the players are quite consistently finding replacement magic items.

    My point is that saying Death is worse that HP Loss is only as true in as much as the DM has made Resurrection magic more difficult to obtain than Curing spells. Similarly, Sundered Equipment is only as easy to manage as HP Loss if fixing/replacing that equipment is likewise similarly easy to manage as regaining lost hit points.

    In some campaigns, these statement may or may not be true.
    While that's mostly true, if the whole party dies and sinks to the bottom of the ocean, who's gonna bring them back to town and resurrect them, save some kind of DM fiat?

    Quote Originally Posted by Max Caysey View Post
    I was pretty sure I've read that since WotC is two editions removed, they had been released? I do not want to promote anything illegal! Sorry for unknowingly doing that.
    Most certainly not, wizards still fiercely holds onto their copyright content. Releasing it as free content would hinder the current version, because why pay money for current content, when you can play old content for free? They would potentially lose paying customers.
    World of Madius wiki - My personal campaign setting, including my homebrew Optional Gestalt/LA rules.
    The new Quick Vestige List

    Quote Originally Posted by Kazyan View Post
    Playing a wizard the way GitP says wizards should be played requires the equivalent time and effort investment of a university minor. Do you really want to go down this rabbit hole, or are you comfortable with just throwing a souped-up Orb of Fire at the thing?
    Quote Originally Posted by atemu1234 View Post
    Humans are rarely truly irrational, just wrong.

  13. - Top - End - #283
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Griffon

    Join Date
    Mar 2013

    Default Re: Why hate optimization?

    Quote Originally Posted by Crake View Post

    Most certainly not, wizards still fiercely holds onto their copyright content. Releasing it as free content would hinder the current version, because why pay money for current content, when you can play old content for free? They would potentially lose paying customers.
    I see... Do they actually earn good money? I stopped caring after release of 4th ed!

    Anyway... thatís off topic!

    Why optimize... easy to have more fun. RPGs are inherently about improving your character. Whether that be ability in combat, knowledge or crafting. Your playing a character who tries to get by, thus normal people will choose options that increase the chance of success in what ever business life they choose, be that wizard, rogue or commoner! Thatís why you optimize, to maximize fun by not sucking!

  14. - Top - End - #284
    Troll in the Playground
     
    GreenSorcererElf

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Oregon
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why hate optimization?

    In-depth monster analysis wall of text, ho!

    Quote Originally Posted by Pleh View Post
    Juvenile Arrowhawk v Grick
    Yeah, grick is stronger in raw numbers, four attacks vs one. Neither has a special charge ability and both are actually EIHP to certain extent, with the grick's DR 10/magic at a level where you actually don't have magic weapons yet (which is why it only has 9hp), and the arrowhawk's energy ray and flight that really demand a bow early.

    Not sure why you didn't go with leopard or cheetah on the ground. They also showcase the intent in comparison to each other, the cheetah's extra long charge countered by its lack of pounce (replaced with trip). The best direct comparison is probably Rhino v Griffon v Tiger, as sphinxes have higher int, but Dire Lion and Heiracosphinx line up. In particular, the griffons and sphinxes pull a neat trick of switching the primary/secondary weapon to bite/claws instead of claws/bite, which wrecks their damage and attack bonus compared to the tiger and dire lion.

    Claw attacks also count as a special charge on flyers with the double damage dive. I think Giant Eagles might have the worst CR/flying charge ratio in the MM, with a 2d6+8 dive at CR 3.
    Yrthak vs Bone Devil
    Another weird flying monster that's focused on energy blasts rather than charging, but then CR9 is about where the MM1 starts running low on independant flying creatures. Single attack monsters do still have an advantage over those with multiple weapons, since they deal the same damage regardless of charge or full attack, but 2d8+5 isn't going to kill anyone but a negative con wizard at this level. Elementals even cap out at CR 11.

    Being compared to a monster with teleport at-will that as you note doesn't actually need to charge, which means its attacks should be a little watered down, and with poison. Teleport wastes their attack option just as hard as double-moving around you though. Once you've fought one, the savvy response is to stay next to your squishies so they can't be teleport bombed with impunity.

    Other CR9 monsters include Greater (Air) Elemental with 2d8+5 charge, its mostly tough with lots of hp and DR, and Whirlwind replaces its attacks with a 2d8 save negate. Hydra, 9 heads or 8 pyro, is also mostly a toughness monster with the fast healing but has an extremely mean "single" attack of 9-10 bites at 10' reach- this is the kind of thing people should be complaining about tactical positioning not working on, but those attacks are at -10 compared to the elemental. The Roc has a mean charge at +21/4d6+24 (~38) with Snatch, which makes it the winner of CR9 chargeaplooza.

    Ground-based foes also include the Triceratops with charge ~38 but also Trample to AoE, for a more direct comparison than the Hydra; Colossal Centipede for ~26 with poison vs the Bone Devil's 19 on all hits with poison, and Greater Fire Elemental with 46 on the full attack every round when you don't have fire resist up. Once again, there are clear breaks between single attacks, full attacks, and mobile attacks. Mobile attacks don't deal enough damage to one-shot the back row, but charges might, so you block the charge to make sure the party has that extra round with everyone up. When special attacks do deal enough to one-shot everyone (like crazy dragon breath or gaze attacks), there are immunity spells or always available tactics to negate them, which is where EIHP comes from.

    Note also that the roc and hydra are dumb and big enough to see coming a mile away, and a hydra in a box is a hydra you can block. I can make a case for both being EIHP encounters (I did say that a ton of monsters have that built in) with their lack of ranged attacks, though the Roc is not one you'll be able to run away from- best to let the PCs sacrifice a horse to it. Not technically in its programming, but it does say "anything medium or larger" and horses are a common enough herd animal, I'd say if your DM won't let that work then they're out to get you.

    We can also take a moment to appreciate the irony that even though I'm the one saying chargers are weaker, I found the strong chargers you missed. But again, compared to their full attacking peers they have much less on the full attack once you've fed the fighter to the charge.
    A quick extra note on the CR 9 comparison, the allies the Fighter is theoretically protecting by Charge blocking are probably flying at this point, making them more difficult to protect from charging attacks. Fighter better be buying Magic Items to let them keeping blocking the airways for their squishy 9th level caster companions.
    Says you. Why would you want to fly if it's going to get you charged? That's silly. You Overland Flight when flying will protect you from the hydra, and you cower on the ground under the horse when a Roc shows up.

    Still, after 9th is indeed where lots more monsters start having flight, almost as if they knew that after 9th the PCs would have easy access to flight and thus monsters would need it to challenge them. Which came first? We can also just go to those higher CRs and find the remaining non-flyers to compare attacks with.
    Large Shark v ?
    CR 2 monsters include the Leopard with Bite +6 melee (1d6+3) and 2 claws +1 melee (1d3+1) and 2 rakes +6 melee (1d3+1), and the Heavy Warhorse for standing full attacks of 2 hooves +6 melee (1d6+4) and bite +1 melee (1d4+2). The shark's 1d8+4 doesn't look so hot now.
    CR 9, Dire Shark
    Dire Sharks are terrifying indeed, but we do have the Roc above with that 38 damage charge (vs ~18) with +3 more on the attack and the ability to Snatch and fly away without stopping to Swallow. The flyer is still more deadly in my book.




    Every time you use this, I keep wanting to point out that it is essentially the same as saying IPSO (If Party Sufficiently Optimized).
    Deophaun did point out than mastery of the basic rules is effectively zero point optimization. The category still hinges on the fact that the standard party includes a cleric who has a whole list of immunities, utilities, and sub-par crowd control that ensure the party can deal with special monsters as long as they escape and survive. This is coupled with the fact that the party is assumed to always have the option to retreat as a legacy of site-based dugneoneering, and the DMG explicitly calls out that situations where the party is at a tactical disadvantage should be considered more difficult and earn more xp- being unable to flee is basically the tactical disadvantage. And finally, the assumption that the players will want to git gud and learn the rules and recognize the monsters at least in general terms, as it was done by the designers in previous editions.

    It's not flattering, but it can be said that some optimizers are lazy about actually learning and applying any rules outside of those they've chosen to optimize. Or more charitably, just too laser-focused to see the forest for the trees.

    Come now, NPC threats are part of the original balance as much as monsters are. And standing next to your ward to protect them from leaping chargers may work, but it also continues to limit your usefulness on the battlefield. Now you can't be a roadblock just anywhere, because you have to stand next to your friend the whole time.
    Define "NPC threats" and "part of the original balance." As I have stated, the primary section on encounter building never once uses the term NPC, only monsters. The Monster Manual is the book of monsters. Sure, many of those 1HD monsters are depicted as 1st level warriors as part of the homogenization of mechanics, but they're still listed with a CR for that stat block.

    If you're fighting multiple monsters, they should generally be weaker than a single monster, your need to block the charge diminishes, and the arcanist's crowd control role kicks in. When waiting for the main threat you can also shoot if your fingers are itchy, or ready an action so you still get to attack first and go before them (or even use an anti-charge weapon to get double damage on that attack), or full defense so that if they do charge you their attack is more likely to be wasted.

    Congratulations! You're a living Animated Shield. I hope you feel as useful as the Ubercharging Barbarian.
    Yup, it's great how applying an ACF from one of the last books printed for the edition screws up the core balance, especially in combination with feats that were also added after core and written under the assumption that very few if any PCs could ever get more than one attack on a charge.

    I don't think there's any hate for un-optimizers. Any optimizers I've heard talk have said, "if that's your cuppa tea, then drink it."
    Are we reading the same thread?

    Edit: finished a sentence, moved the edit line, added arcane crowd-control note.
    Last edited by Fizban; 2017-12-28 at 08:16 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Violet Octopus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Fizban View Post
    sheer awesomeness

  15. - Top - End - #285
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2010

    Default Re: Why hate optimization?

    Quote Originally Posted by Max Caysey View Post
    Why optimize... easy to have more fun. RPGs are inherently about improving your character. Whether that be ability in combat, knowledge or crafting. Your playing a character who tries to get by, thus normal people will choose options that increase the chance of success in what ever business life they choose, be that wizard, rogue or commoner! Thatís why you optimize, to maximize fun by not sucking!
    Unfortunately, that is only theoretically true. Most IRL normal people will choose comfort and mediocrity over effort ('optimisation') at most opportunities.

  16. - Top - End - #286
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    NinjaGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2013

    Default Re: Why hate optimization?

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Ultron View Post



    This is very true. Just look at the poster who thought sword and shield fighters should do exactly the same amount of damage as a two handed weapon fighter. It would seem obvious to most that the big, two handed weapon fighter will do more damage...but in turn have less defense as they have no shield...but the sword and shield fighter has about equal damage and defense.
    I see you're not just bad at what "optimization" means, you're also bad at math. The problem is not just that sword-and-board does less damage than two-hander, it's that the exchange rate of AC for damage is highly unfavorable.

    The game is full of mechanical support?

    I might point out, that contrary to popular beliefs, you can take skills even if they are cross class skills. So a Fighter can take say Bluff. Sure they will never be a Super Duper Optimized Demigod of Bluff, but even if they ''only'' have like a +5, they can still try to say trick an ogre(note oger's don't have Sense Motive of +100 either).
    I could look up the math, but I'll ask a pointless question instead: For a Fighter who is having difficulty hitting a Ogre, do you think his chances of hitting a DC 20 (Ogre roll 10, +10 for situation--bluff during combat) Bluff check are better?

    And this does get to the tricky bit: you can't just ''say'' a character is a hero (or anything else) unless you can Role Play(and even Roll Play) that. Like if you make a 15th Super Duper Hero, and for combat your like ''I runs forward and attackz!'', well that is not very ''hero'' like...
    Achilles and the men of the Light Brigade and Pickett's Division and most of World War I on the Western Front would disagree.

    even more so when it's like ''there are innocents in trouble and your greedy character is looting dead bodies ".
    Which has very little to do with anything in the mechanics. Again you're confusing "reasonably competent at a class' presumed job at their level" with "always winning everything everywhere."

    But you missed the Theobald Two-Hander's AC. Is it equal to or greater then Sirs?
    Two Handed Fighting does not boost AC, so I did not mention the "+0" that gives to him. I am sorry I overestimated you. A shield does. Which is why I mentioned the +7.

    I'm not going to attempt to discuss with you how much the designers didn't realize (because at the dawn of 3rd edition nobody did, there was no internet hivemind--we live in the singularity BTW) how much more valuable damage is than AC in the game.

    But I thought that even you could comprehend that +7 AC (at the cost of half the character's WBL, IIRC) is less than +10 damage (at zero cost in magic items).

  17. - Top - End - #287
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    NinjaGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2013

    Default Re: Why hate optimization?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fizban View Post

    I would assume this is a dig at me since I'm always going on about shields, but I've never said sword and board should deal the same damage- I must have missed whoever was saying it then. I'd have had some words for them about tradeoffs.
    He is talking to me, and misreading me. It's not that it's a tradeoff, it's that the math makes the tradeoff a swindle.

  18. - Top - End - #288
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    MindFlayer

    Join Date
    Sep 2014

    Default Re: Why hate optimization?

    Quote Originally Posted by lbuttitta View Post
    But just like some professional football players enjoy the game, so also do some optimizers (like me) enjoy their craft.
    Many player street football. Few advances to professional level. You should be really passionate about football to make it all your life. Majority has life outside football which is just fun for them. It is not to fun to play against pro gamer, when your levels are abyss apart. It is paint to pursue those who trains professional three times in a day.

    And yet it is inevitable. While some players would give up on improvement others would spent more and more time to advance. And it would spoilt fun for all.

  19. - Top - End - #289
    Troll in the Playground
     
    GreenSorcererElf

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Oregon
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why hate optimization?

    Quote Originally Posted by johnbragg View Post
    He is talking to me, and misreading me. It's not that it's a tradeoff, it's that the math makes the tradeoff a swindle.
    Ah, my mistake for skimming too fast then. I disagree, but that's already covered by the core of my position which includes "fighters' job is not primarily damage," so no need to open another line.
    Quote Originally Posted by Violet Octopus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Fizban View Post
    sheer awesomeness

  20. - Top - End - #290
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Mid-Rohan
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why hate optimization?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fizban View Post
    Not sure why you didn't go with leopard or cheetah on the ground.
    Cherry picking the clear top Charging threats seems like it would skew the actual usefulness of being a Roadblock character.

    Seems like you'd want to compare it to an average day in the life of a Roadblock character, not just what they can handle at their top end.

    Also it was early in the morning and I didn't really want this to get too far in depth. I wanted to pick a few average SRD monsters and use a more or less random sampling to estimate the true viability of an unoptimized Roadblock. I still find the prospect of playing such a character to be rather less than exhilarating.

    The fact that a creature having an ability as common as Flight automatically trivializes your intended purpose in the party doesn't help any.

    As if Charging a party of PCs was ever a truly effective strategy to begin with (you might get lucky and drop a player before they had the chance to focus fire and wipe the board). A party that lacks a fighter is still likely to have the ability to Summon Roadblock or have a Roadblock Companion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fizban View Post
    They also showcase the intent in comparison to each other, the cheetah's extra long charge countered by its lack of pounce (replaced with trip). The best direct comparison is probably Rhino v Griffon v Tiger, as sphinxes have higher int, but Dire Lion and Heiracosphinx line up. In particular, the griffons and sphinxes pull a neat trick of switching the primary/secondary weapon to bite/claws instead of claws/bite, which wrecks their damage and attack bonus compared to the tiger and dire lion.
    I think I've seen about a dozen Humanoid NPCs before I've seen a Tiger show up in a game, much less a Rhino (are we in the Medieval Sahara?) or a Sphinx (I will use Pounce, one of the most powerful Melee options in the game, but first you must fail to answer this riddle....)

    But again, why judge a Roadblock's effectiveness against the specific Charge based threats instead of the average monster threat (which would probably be Goblins and Kobolds with NPC levels)?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fizban View Post
    Other CR9 monsters include Greater (Air) Elemental with 2d8+5 charge, its mostly tough with lots of hp and DR, and Whirlwind replaces its attacks with a 2d8 save negate. Hydra, 9 heads or 8 pyro, is also mostly a toughness monster with the fast healing but has an extremely mean "single" attack of 9-10 bites at 10' reach- this is the kind of thing people should be complaining about tactical positioning not working on, but those attacks are at -10 compared to the elemental. The Roc has a mean charge at +21/4d6+24 (~38) with Snatch, which makes it the winner of CR9 chargeaplooza.
    Again, I don't feel the proper question to ask in assessing the usefulness of a Roadblock is how big of a freight train can we possibly need a Roadblock to solve. It's how often will we ever need to stop a freight train?

    Aren't you just asking that the party be optimized against a very specifically optimized challenge (charge specials)?

    Let's look at the Ogre, a bit of a more common threat, IMX. They rank in the CR 3 list with the Lion.

    The Lion is a heckuva Charger, but if you aren't just optimizing their ability, they are a bottle rocket charger. They rush in, do their Pounce for Full Attack+Rake, but then if the target isn't down, they don't back up and try to charge again, they just use Improved Grab and start trying to deal automatic Raking damage. If their bite or grapple missed, they're already standing next to you, so they'll full attack.

    Yes, little Roadblock, Living Animated Shield, well done sucking up all that damage from the Lion. But you forgot about the Charging Ogre right behind it that reaches right over you. You argue for Soft Cover, so take your +4 to Wizard AC. Let's hope the Wizard's 3d4 hit dice don't have to worry about the Ogre's 2d8+7 damage dice. Who knows? Maybe the Wizard chose to use their shiny new 2nd level slot to prepare Mage Armor (and had time to cast it).

    If I were in your position, I'd wish my ability to hit with my sword and quickly end the Ogre or Lion would actually come into play more than my ability to block them charging at my Wizard friend. To that end, my +3 BAB and my minimum +3 Str bonus make that work at least half the time against the Lion's 16 AC or the Ogre's 15 AC, right?

    Dealing damage half the time should be enough to prevent them smashing my wizard friend, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fizban View Post
    We can also take a moment to appreciate the irony ~snip~
    Blah blah blah. You start getting pretentious and I start losing interest in what you have to say. Respect my points, be they good or bad, or don't bother trying to reply to them. If I'm that stupid and inept, why are you wasting your time trying to talk to me?

    I won't make the same mistake.

  21. - Top - End - #291
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Crake's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why hate optimization?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pleh View Post
    Yes, little Roadblock, Living Animated Shield, well done sucking up all that damage from the Lion. But you forgot about the Charging Ogre right behind it that reaches right over you. You argue for Soft Cover, so take your +4 to Wizard AC. Let's hope the Wizard's 3d4 hit dice don't have to worry about the Ogre's 2d8+7 damage dice. Who knows? Maybe the Wizard chose to use their shiny new 2nd level slot to prepare Mage Armor (and had time to cast it).

    If I were in your position, I'd wish my ability to hit with my sword and quickly end the Ogre or Lion would actually come into play more than my ability to block them charging at my Wizard friend. To that end, my +3 BAB and my minimum +3 Str bonus make that work at least half the time against the Lion's 16 AC or the Ogre's 15 AC, right?

    Dealing damage half the time should be enough to prevent them smashing my wizard friend, right?
    Presumably, if everyone in the party is positioning themselves well, you'll be in a position where you're blocking the ogre from hitting the wizard despite it's reach. The wizard can literally just move 5 feet back and achieve that result.
    World of Madius wiki - My personal campaign setting, including my homebrew Optional Gestalt/LA rules.
    The new Quick Vestige List

    Quote Originally Posted by Kazyan View Post
    Playing a wizard the way GitP says wizards should be played requires the equivalent time and effort investment of a university minor. Do you really want to go down this rabbit hole, or are you comfortable with just throwing a souped-up Orb of Fire at the thing?
    Quote Originally Posted by atemu1234 View Post
    Humans are rarely truly irrational, just wrong.

  22. - Top - End - #292
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2017

    Default Re: Why hate optimization?

    Quote Originally Posted by Max Caysey View Post
    Their content is! There is so much cool content, classes, feats, spells, weapons etc etc! Cool monster! You really should broaden your horizon, you might just be pleasantly surprised!

    EDITED for breaking forum rules! Pardon!
    I'm not going to pirate sourcebooks, okay?

  23. - Top - End - #293
    Troll in the Playground
     
    GreenSorcererElf

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Oregon
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why hate optimization?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pleh View Post
    Blah blah blah. You start getting pretentious and I start losing interest in what you have to say. Respect my points, be they good or bad, or don't bother trying to reply to them. If I'm that stupid and inept, why are you wasting your time trying to talk to me?
    I'm sorry you're offended, as I was trying to inject some levity into the giant wall of text it took to properly respond to your post. As always, if I didn't respect your argument I wouldn't bother responding in length- I'd just tell you to come back with some math or ignore you entirely (and I do wish I could ignore some people more easily in order to reinforce that). You have actually responded with examples and math, which is a far cry from some people's responses.

    The baser version would have been: Yeah, you're probably gonna point out how all these chargers I mentioned actually disprove my own point, I'm just gonna pre-empt that argument. You took a slightly different tack though.

    And yeah, I do get a little pretentious. Also sanctimonious, and a bunch of other ious's. It's hard not to when from my position I'm fighting off a swarm of people who constantly contradict themselves by claiming superiority through rules knowledge when I can disprove them by using the rules. I'm aware of this, and attempt to make light of it at times with people who are actually engaging in real discussion.

    Shall we resume?


    The fact that a creature having an ability as common as Flight automatically trivializes your intended purpose in the party doesn't help any.

    As if Charging a party of PCs was ever a truly effective strategy to begin with (you might get lucky and drop a player before they had the chance to focus fire and wipe the board). A party that lacks a fighter is still likely to have the ability to Summon Roadblock or have a Roadblock Companion.
    Uh, the point was that flying monsters usually have less deadly charges, ergo failure to block them is not as critical. You're still a source of attacks, the same way the rogue and cleric are a source of attacks even when they can't sneak attack or divine power. And if so many monsters have special charges, how could you possibly claim that charging the party isn't important?
    But again, why judge a Roadblock's effectiveness against the specific Charge based threats instead of the average monster threat (which would probably be Goblins and Kobolds with NPC levels)?
    Because contrary to popular belief, a non-special monster getting a single attack roll on a squishy is not the end of the world. Once you pass 1st level they have multiple hit dice like everyone else, and a single weapon hit won't drop them immediately. Only monsters with rush attacks are so threatening that letting them past is the end of the world, and most of those can be blocked. The prevalence of pounce is grossly over-inflated thanks to ubercharger builds: as you've seen, most of them are animals and super animals. Only very specific monsters are actually built to snare a character and prevent them from getting away- if they walk past you, you follow them, and the squishy moves away, using Withdraw or Full Defense if needed (oh no, I didn't attack and win so I fail).

    Most of those fall under the Improved Grapple type, which become most threatening in that 8th+ range as monsters get bigger and bigger, which is also when Freedom of Movement and Air Walk appear. They begin as potentially EIHP depending on ranged attacks, but with FoM and flight they become firmly EIHP, and being being able to swallow the wizard is what happens if you don't handle it properly. Standard parties have standard counters, the use of which is zero point optimization and does not require more.

    The fighter's job is to fight in melee. There is no specific requirement for their damage output, because they're part of a team, thus the only true role they have is getting hit so the others don't have to. Getting hit isn't the end of the world, so the only time they absolutely need to take the hit, is from special charges. Charging is specifically, obviously intended to be blockable no matter what people may claim the RAW movement is (seriously the diagram shows how clipping corners of even allied creatures blocks the charge for pete's sake), so in the one absolutely definable instance that the fighter needs to be able to do something, they can.
    Aren't you just asking that the party be optimized against a very specifically optimized challenge (charge specials)?
    Standing in the correct square does not require any optimization, aside from zero point rules knowledge.
    Let's hope the Wizard's 3d4 hit dice don't have to worry about the Ogre's 2d8+7 damage dice. Who knows? Maybe the Wizard chose to use their shiny new 2nd level slot to prepare Mage Armor (and had time to cast it).
    Nice straw wizard spell prep btw. 7hp+ 10 death threshold, the wizard only dies instantly on a higher damage roll. Dangerous, but vs AC 14 the Ogre still has a 25% miss chance, and this is at the lowest squishiest levels assuming no dex or con in addition to no Mage Armor. Got anything else?

    (Elite array Wizard has to deliberately avoid dex and con to have less than a +1 in either. Lowest stats are 12/10/8, so you'd have to put the 12 in str to make sure dex and con are both 10 or less. Con is worth +3 hp, making it all but impossible to insta-kill without a crit, or dex gives a 5% reduction in hit chance- hence why optimzers prefer con.)

    Edit: a bit more Ogre analysis.

    How many attacks do you get to land before the squishy dies? Unless the ogre starts out within 30' of you- wait. Moviing around you costs two diagonal moves, that's -15', +5' for reach. Unless the ogre starts out 20' from you when initiative is rolled and wins (a situation almost certainly impossible outside of a dungeon environment with its -5 hide modifier), you will get an action. Weather you move in and attack or ready an action to attack, you get one roll from that, one roll from the AoO, and another roll before the wizard bleeds out. Three attacks at +5 vs AC 16 is one and a half hits, x1d8+2 for ~9 on average, which is slightly less than 1/3 of the ogre's hp. The other three members of your party also have actions they are expected to contribute, with the cleric losing one on turn two while saving the wizard, so that's one wizard, two rogue, and one cleric action to finish the other 22 hit points, with the rogue almost certainly having the option of a sneak attack at some point. If the wizard gets squished for all their hit points, that's actually still less than 1/4 of the party's combined hit point total, which is an appropriate resource expenditure.

    Standard ogre encounter seems to be working as intended even when it "ignores" the fighter, as long as the fighter is in position.

    Edit: one wizard action because they get squished.
    Last edited by Fizban; 2017-12-28 at 11:28 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Violet Octopus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Fizban View Post
    sheer awesomeness

  24. - Top - End - #294
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Rynjin's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default Re: Why hate optimization?

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Ultron View Post
    As I said, many DM's agree with this or something similar and refuse to use Sunder on PCs. And it is about as ''adversarial'' as say attacking a PC and lowering their hit points.
    It's more so for a simple reason: It's harder to fix than healing HP. Hell, repairing a significantly powerful magic item is more difficult than raising the dead, and replacing it outright can be more expensive.

    I say this with no hint of irony that I would 10 times out of 10 have my character die than have certain items broken at high levels because my +5 sword with no other magic properties costs 50k to replace (for those playing at home that's precisely double the cost of True Resurrection) and requires a 30th level (well, caster level 30 anyway) caster to repair with Make Whole.

    Sunder is a brutal tactic to use as a DM because whatever you break ain't coming back, and that character will be permanently behind on wealth (and therefore power) for the rest of the game.

    Mind you this is all based on Pathfinder rules, where you need 3xEnhancement in CL to make a magic weapon and double CL of magic item to repair Destroyed magic items with Make Whole, maybe 3.5 is different. But from the way people are agreeing with me it seems not MU


    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Ultron View Post
    And it's not like you only Sunder the fighter types...any item of any character can be Sundered.
    Correct, but Wondrous Items generally require much lower caster levels. For example a Headband of Vast Intelligence 6 only requires a CL 8 to make, so can be repaired by a level 16 caster. Relatively simple compared to the 30th level one required for a +5 sword (or even 18th level for a +3 one).
    Spoiler: Play by Post
    Show

    Sinner and Innocent OOC IC

    Carrion Crown: OOC IC

    Skull and Shackles: OOC

  25. - Top - End - #295
    Troll in the Playground
     
    GreenSorcererElf

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Oregon
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why hate optimization?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rynjin View Post
    Mind you this is all based on Pathfinder rules, where you need 3xEnhancement in CL to make a magic weapon and double CL of magic item to repair Destroyed magic items with Make Whole, maybe 3.5 is different. But from the way people are agreeing with me it seems not MU
    Speaking of numerical requirements, do note that magic weapons in 3.5 can also only be sundered by those with equivalent bonus or higher (while armor cannot be sundered at all). So if they've sundered your weapon with an actual Sunder roll, they must have a weapon of at least similar power to replace it (depending on how many extras you had), which you could theoretically use.

    Sundering other stuff is just outright ridiculously easy though, a stiff breeze could destroy most magic items and they get no defense from the wearer the way disarms do. I wear all my buff items under other armor and clothing whenever possible, giving them full cover and thus making them un-sunderable without going through a layer of cloth first. At which point I see your play and git gone.

    This level of zero point optimization is not required or effective against many "sundering" monsters, as their special abilities don't care. Rust Monsters rust (and are weak as kittens otherwise), oozes annihilate all your clothing (so shoot them from far away). Nightwalkers actually have to Disarm you first and waste a whole standard action to activate their Su ability, which gives you time to try and disarm them right back, which is cool.
    Last edited by Fizban; 2017-12-28 at 11:24 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Violet Octopus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Fizban View Post
    sheer awesomeness

  26. - Top - End - #296
    Orc in the Playground
     
    Goblin

    Join Date
    May 2016

    Default Re: Why hate optimization?

    Quote Originally Posted by death390 View Post
    rule for charge say you must move to the closest square on a charge. that does not mean the one directly in front of you. for running 5ft to the left or right is mechanically the same distance as straight ahead. because it takes 2 corner to corner moves to cost a extra 5ft.

    this means that unless you are charging at a corner you can charge 5ft to the left or right as needed.
    Under the rules for Measuring Distance:

    Closest Creature

    When itís important to determine the closest square or creature to a location, if two squares or creatures are equally close, randomly determine which one counts as closest by rolling a die.
    The intention of this is pretty obvious: there is only ever supposed to be one closest square, and the attacker does not get to choose which square that is. So, there is a specific square that you have to target when you charge. Presumably, the player attempting to play Roadblock would be privy to the knowledge of which square counts as "closest," and therefore should be able to place himself appropriately to block a charge.

  27. - Top - End - #297
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    MindFlayer

    Join Date
    Sep 2014

    Default Re: Why hate optimization?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fizban View Post
    Speaking of numerical requirements, do note that magic weapons in 3.5 can also only be sundered by those with equivalent bonus or higher (while armor cannot be sundered at all).
    Really? I missed another big part of RAW. I always think that the only protection enhancement bonus provide is bonus to hardness and hitpoints. Where could I read this rule?

  28. - Top - End - #298
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Arbane's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010

    Default Re: Why hate optimization?

    Quote Originally Posted by weckar View Post
    Unfortunately, that is only theoretically true. Most IRL normal people will choose comfort and mediocrity over effort ('optimisation') at most opportunities.
    I don't think 'normal people' are a good measure for player characters in any RPG, least of all one with Dwarf Ninjas.
    Imagine if all real-world conversations were like internet D&D conversations...
    Protip: DnD is an incredibly social game played by some of the most socially inept people on the planet - Lev
    I read this somewhere and I stick to it: "I would rather play a bad system with my friends than a great system with nobody". - Trevlac
    Quote Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera View Post
    That said, trolling is entirely counterproductive (yes, even when it's hilarious).

  29. - Top - End - #299
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    DwarfBarbarianGuy

    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    No Longer The Frostfell

    Default Re: Why hate optimization?

    Quote Originally Posted by death390 View Post
    1: Sunder: it is a tactic that Permanently destroys an item upon success, the only way to get a similar item or "repair" it is to spend a large quantity of WBL which is a finite resource. do you give you above average treasure to help replace your players gear? if not then you are purposely handicapping them. that is why people are so adverse to using sunder.

    2: yes it is possible to disuade a Dm's use of sunder by optimizing and yes there are many ways to affect characters around those optimizations. but doing something to negate an entire character (or series of them) fells like bad DMing to me. this is why most DM's don't use SoL/D/S on PC's unless its stated ahead of time. because seeing the character you got attached for for the past year die to petrification because you botched 1 roll sucks. as you have stated a fighting chance is good DMing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rynjin View Post
    It's more so for a simple reason: It's harder to fix than healing HP. Hell, repairing a significantly powerful magic item is more difficult than raising the dead, and replacing it outright can be more expensive.

    I say this with no hint of irony that I would 10 times out of 10 have my character die than have certain items broken at high levels because my +5 sword with no other magic properties costs 50k to replace (for those playing at home that's precisely double the cost of True Resurrection) and requires a 30th level (well, caster level 30 anyway) caster to repair with Make Whole.

    Sunder is a brutal tactic to use as a DM because whatever you break ain't coming back, and that character will be permanently behind on wealth (and therefore power) for the rest of the game.

    On the note of WBL, think of the expected WBL as a cup and think of actual weath at whatever leve you're at as water. If the Character has too much WBL, the water will overflow. If the character doesn't have enough WBL, the cup will not be full. The aim of the DM should be to ensure that the cup always, or usually, remains relatively close to full, but not overflowing. In this case, if a DM sunders a wizard's rod or a Fighters blade, the DM is basically taking a drink from their cup of WBL, and it is the DM's responsiblity to replenish the characters WBL back to an acceptable level, which is basically pouring treasure back into the character's cup of WBL. If the DM isn't doing that, complain to the DM about it, just like you would complain to a waiter/waitress if they weren't filling you cup at a restaurant. You always aim to keep the cup of WBL nearly full, but never overflowing and never too empty.

    \-----A well filled cup of WBL-----/
    |WBLWBLWBLWBLWBLWBLWBL|
    |WBLWBLWBLWBLWBLWBLWBL|
    |WBLWBLWBLWBLWBLWBLWBL|
    |WBLWBLWBLWBLWBLWBLWBL|
    |WBLWBLWBLWBLWBLWBLWBL|
    |WBLWBLWBLWBLWBLWBLWBL|
    |WBLWBLWBLWBLWBLWBLWBL|
    |WBLWBLWBLWBLWBLWBLWBL|
    |WBLWBLWBLWBLWBLWBLWBL|
    |WBLWBLWBLWBLWBLWBLWBL|
    |WBLWBLWBLWBLWBLWBLWBL|

    EDIT:
    Quote Originally Posted by Fizban View Post
    Speaking of numerical requirements, do note that magic weapons in 3.5 can also only be sundered by those with equivalent bonus or higher (while armor cannot be sundered at all). So if they've sundered your weapon with an actual Sunder roll, they must have a weapon of at least similar power to replace it (depending on how many extras you had), which you could theoretically use.
    Where is that at? All I found was:
    Quote Originally Posted by SRD
    Magic Armor, Shields, and Weapons
    Each +1 of enhancement bonus adds 2 to the hardness of armor, a weapon, or a shield and +10 to the itemís hit points.
    That was at this link. Is there something more about sundering magic items elsewhere?
    Last edited by AnimeTheCat; 2017-12-28 at 12:24 PM.

  30. - Top - End - #300
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    NinjaGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2013

    Default Re: Why hate optimization?

    (Paraphrasing) Most people will choose low effort mediocrity over a lot of work to be really good.
    Quote Originally Posted by Arbane View Post
    I don't think 'normal people' are a good measure for player characters in any RPG, least of all one with Dwarf Ninjas.
    I think the idea you're responding to was applying to players, not to our PCs.

    In the early days of 3rd edition, when it started to become clear that my fighter who had spent a bunch of feats to be good at Orc Double-Axe (as a human) was better off two-handing than using it as a double weapon , John the Player was a little bit sad. "Ozal Doubleaxe" didn't care too much--he just wanted to use the most effective tactics, not be cool. (He also took a Wizard level instead of Fighter 3 so that he could cast shield before wading into melee.)

    (2HWF gave one attack at 2*STR to damage, or maybe 1.5, I forget what judgment the DM made on whether an Orc double-axe , but once we ran into opponents with DR or hardness, TWF was not viable)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •