Why hate optimization?

[Jormengand]

Wish I had the skills to put this post to music.

Schmoyoho's songify app can do something like this, and there are probably similar programs if you don't feel like trying to do audio stuff with your phone or don't have the right kind of phone.

I gotcha.

Don't think I fully agree that a miss is a completely wasted turn, but thank you for taking the time to explain this to me. I understand a bit more now about the mindset behind this.

Well, a miss really is a wasted turn. Nothing has changed - your AC isn't any higher unless you're fighting defensively (it might even be lower if you charged), you didn't inflict any status conditions unless you got frightful presence from somewhere (you dirty cheating optimiser you), and you haven't done any damage - most rider effects are on-hit effects, not on-attack effects, and of course if you're trying to make a character who's good even when they miss, guess what you're doing? If you attack, and the attack doesn't do anything, that is by very definition a wasted turn, and maybe a wasted arrow too. Of course, if you're a caster using one of the few spells which actually require an attack roll, it's a wasted slot, too.

(This is, incidentally, why I love "X partial" and "X half" saves, because it's a chance to avoid being killed while making the caster feel like they didn't totally waste their high-level slots. There's also a spell which allows SR partial, because it burns people with sheer heat even if they resist the actual spell. This is A Good Thing, because it means you're still making plays and having fun even if you miss.)

[Jama7301]

Maybe saying it's not a waste was a mistake on my end. I just don't feel like it's that big of a deal.

Then again, the binary nature of the game is one of the gripes I have with D&D a lot of times. And hey, this has given me the idea to see if I can develop a "Drive them Back" mechanic for misses, to see if small movement can be used. Lots of things to consider.

[Jormengand]

Maybe saying it's not a waste was a mistake on my end. I just don't feel like it's that big of a deal.

Then again, the binary nature of the game is one of the gripes I have with D&D a lot of times. And hey, this has given me the idea to see if I can develop a "Drive them Back" mechanic for misses, to see if small movement can be used. Lots of things to consider.

The game I'm working on making has what's called "Glance damage" - you never really miss with an attack, so much as it bounces off your enemy's shield or armour, or you screw up your edge alignment or even just hit a little bit further away from the vital bits than you'd have liked. It still does some damage (and because it doesn't have D&D's "Only the last hit point matters" style of health, some damage can still mess people up pretty good) so you haven't done absolutely nothing. Because let's face it: people who are good with weapons don't tend to flat-out miss with them anything like half the time.

[Jama7301]

The game I'm working on making has what's called "Glance damage" - you never really miss with an attack, so much as it bounces off your enemy's shield or armour, or you screw up your edge alignment or even just hit a little bit further away from the vital bits than you'd have liked. It still does some damage (and because it doesn't have D&D's "Only the last hit point matters" style of health, some damage can still mess people up pretty good) so you haven't done absolutely nothing. Because let's face it: people who are good with weapons don't tend to flat-out miss with them anything like half the time.

Would that have something like a superficial damage track, where glancing blows, barely dodged spells, etc, start to accrue before inflicting the equivalent of a good hit? Or would that operate on the same scale as regular hits just at a lower number?

Regardless, seems like it might be something interesting. If you post anything about it here, I'll have to take a look.

[Deophaun]

Maybe saying it's not a waste was a mistake on my end.

No, that was right. The problem is the attack is seen as The Thing, and if they don't do The Thing, people often don't bother to look at everything else they're doing.

The sorcerer casts scary spell but target saves, negating the spell. Seems like sorcerer has done nothing. But sorcerer has actually announced he can cast scary spell and everyone is one step away from death as long as sorcerer is around. Intelligent opponents respond accordingly.

Or they should. The problem is that tactical ignorance affects both sides of the screen. Plus, the DM already knows the sorceror can cast the scary spell and has been metagaming against it because that's a spell bad optimizers use.

[quark12000]

"The greatest teacher, failure is."

[Pleh]

The sorcerer casts scary spell but target saves, negating the spell. Seems like sorcerer has done nothing. But sorcerer has actually announced he can cast scary spell and everyone is one step away from death as long as sorcerer is around. Intelligent opponents respond accordingly.

Miss me once, you seem scary and I feel lucky.

Miss me twice, and you seem incompetent and I feel safe.

[Remuko]

I cant help but wonder if were being played or its just a hilarious coincidence but I was thinking about DU's posts while drying dishes and how he keeps speaking as if everything he believes is a fact, which he has been asked to stop doing multiple times. Theres nothing wrong with him expressing his opinions about the game and how it should be played if hes not forcing people to play that way against their will and stuff like that. But, that's when it hit me. His name is Darth Ultron. Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

[Jormengand]

Would that have something like a superficial damage track, where glancing blows, barely dodged spells, etc, start to accrue before inflicting the equivalent of a good hit? Or would that operate on the same scale as regular hits just at a lower number?

Sorta both.

Spoiler: Dishonour Before Death Tangent

Show

In Dishonour Before Death, people don't have hit points. They have injury, wound and harm boxes. If you have 6 of each (which is unlikely but just about possible), then an attack that does 8 damage will do 6 injuries (which do nothing), and 2 wounds (which do something and you should avoid them). If someone then comes in and glances for 2 damage, they'll still do 2 more wounds (but if they'd glanced an uninjured target, then they would have done nothing but make further attacks more likely to do real damage). It might be an idea to have some attacks immediately go to wound if able (if unable, they'd go back to injury before going to harm), whereas glances strictly injure first with most weapons.

Regardless, seems like it might be something interesting. If you post anything about it here, I'll have to take a look.

I probably will, especially when it's done. It'll probably be pay-what-you-want as well, because that's pretty much my style.

No, that was right. The problem is the attack is seen as The Thing, and if they don't do The Thing, people often don't bother to look at everything else they're doing.

The sorcerer casts scary spell but target saves, negating the spell. Seems like sorcerer has done nothing. But sorcerer has actually announced he can cast scary spell and everyone is one step away from death as long as sorcerer is around. Intelligent opponents respond accordingly.

So actually, he's done nothing but give the opponents useful information, which is even worse than doing nothing!

[Pleh]

So actually, he's done nothing but give the opponents useful information, which is even worse than doing nothing!

Not necessarily. Just because the information will likely change their strategy doesn't mean that change in strategy won't also be advantageous to the heroes.

"Mandalorians don't make threats; we make promises."

[Jormengand]

Not necessarily. Just because the information will likely change their strategy doesn't mean that change in strategy won't also be advantageous to the heroes.

"Mandalorians don't make threats; we make promises."

True, but displays of power are so rarely worth making (and they don't help the fighter, either, because the enemy can see that he's wielding a sword anyway) that it's generally not particularly great anyway.

[Velaryon]

I tried to read the thread before responding, but it's already blown up super long and I just don't have the time to spend catching up all the way. So I apologize if any of this is a repeat of somebody else.

I think a certain degree of optimization is healthy and expected. Players should want their characters to be good at their jobs as the norm (though there is undoubtedly fun to be had for some people in playing characters that are not good at what they do as well). When there's a problem, it's a problem of degree, and it's usually one of these two issues:

1. More optimized characters are making less optimized characters feel useless or inadequate.
2. The DM is having trouble keeping up with the optimized characters.

For the first problem. it might vary from situation to situation whether the best solution is to help out players with less system mastery to make more optimized choices, or for players with more system mastery to rein themselves in and make less optimized characters (or perhaps play an optimized version of a lower-tier class). Sometimes the guy playing a sorcerer for the first time could use a little help to make sure he isn't wasting spells known on passwall and incendiary cloud. On the other hand, sometimes the new player just isn't ready to learn about why their Monk should have Fist of the Forest levels and an item that casts greater mighty wallop on them, or doesn't want to be told that they should just play a Swordsage instead, when they just want to make a badass kung fu warrior. In cases like that, maybe the optimizers should think about tricking out another Tier 5 class or something to keep themselves entertained without making the Monk useless. It's all about figuring out how best to get that group of people to have fun together.

For the second problem, it's helpful to look at optimization as an arms race. If the DM's system mastery isn't too good, then bringing optimized Tier 2 characters is just going to frustrate them. Hopefully the DM will ask for help, but they might also get frustrated and start nerfing or banning things. Or maybe they do have some ability to do it, but just don't want to spend the extra time and effort tweaking monster stat blocks or figuring out the right three Prestige Classes for the BBEG of this adventure to have. I know in my own 3.5 campaign, I basically can't use any encounters that rely primarily on melee combat because the wizard/warlock will never be in range, the centaur charger will start and end outside of everyone's threat range while totally melting his target of choice, the necromancer will clog the corridor with so many minions that nobody can get to him, and the gorilla grappler will lock down any dangerous enemy that isn't protected by freedom of movement and hold it still while his teammates beat it to death. If I'm not using high-end spellcasters or multiple monsters with a CR about 6 or 7 higher than the party level, I might as well be using goblins wielding cheese graters. Not every DM has the time or inclination to optimize the enemies well enough to provide a challenge without giving the PCs enough loot to buy the entire continent by level 8.

Another issue is that there are a LOT of things in 3.5 that seem like really cool, fun character ideas that are actually poor optimization choices. For example, any caster prestige class that loses more than a level of two of spellcasting is generally considered not worth taking (Bladesinger), which is a real shame because some of them are really cool ideas. Others might be really neat, but suboptimal choices because they rely on abilities that many enemies can easily resist or have blanket immunity to (Assassin). Or some might suffer from both problems *cough*Mindbender*cough*. Playing with a low-op group might make some of these classes, feats, and such a bit more viable, but in a game where everyone is Tier 3 and above, they just won't be good enough.


I guess the takeaway from all this is that optimization is a thing that often should be done in moderation, or at least with proper consideration for the rest of the table, including the DM.

[Fizban]

Is spending 500gp on the durable ability good optimization or bad?

Optimization- as is almost any assignment of gear, but particularly stuff that isn't even part of the base rules, the only way for it not to be some sort of optimization is if you're deliberately hamstringing yourself or DM has moved the goalposts by telling that anyone without Durable armor will lose their armor.

And I shouldn't have to point out that bad optimization is almost never one specific thing, when even the most borked spells involve multiple pieces if not outright leniency.



As for Jor and the refusal to see anything but successful attacks as "plays," well he's kinda tipped his hand there by mentioning that he works on games. A game designer is going to hold the strongest possible views on game design, and if they decide something is bad there's little point in trying to convince them. Jor thinks players have to be actively succeeding every round, makes games with mechanics to ensure that's always happening, and doesn't consider tactical positioning capable of being a play all its own (which is funny, because in most sports there's only one ball and the entire rest of the team is just tactically positioning themselves).

I don't make games for a living, but I have been staring at 3.5 for years to the point that I realized I'm just as qualified to analyze it as any other homebrewer (thus began my brewing and tinkering), and I've torn it down until I found answers for why it is the way it is that made sense with the rules rather than complaining about them. Just because I'd rather do something actively doesn't mean I don't see the value if my active action fails (I have used both full defense and failed at actions and been okay). I have a passing enough knowledge of statistics to know that just because this roll failed doesn't mean that it was a waste, regardless of how my gut may feel, and enough distance to respect the wargaming roots where positioning one guy had to have been a crucial move at times even if they couldn't succeed at an attack. I am okay with there being a party role for "guy that might not be able to do anything but stand in the way" sometimes, the same way I'm okay with some monsters being immune to magic (not this pansy "immune to everthing but conjuration," but actual immunity).

That said, if people are going to complain about others stating thing as fact when they're not, he should probably stop doing that.

Much like the assumption that anyone trying to say some optimization is bad is saying all optimization is bad, this stance assumes that people who think it's okay to sometimes not actively succeed are saying it's okay to never do so. Both are ridiculous and untrue.

But it's awful to be sitting there at first level, with no strength and no BAB (because according to a real person in this thread, anyone who takes fighter levels instead of commoner levels or has a strength bonus is a dirty cheating optimiser)

You really oughta take that chip off your shoulder, because, let's walk it back. You said this:

If you really believe that having full bab on your fighter - achieved literally by being a fighter - is optimisation, and that the fighter's true job is a glorified roadblock (jeez man clue's in the name) I have literally no idea what to tell you.

in response to this:

The game does expect you to have a 14 or higher in your main stat, but if you put your 14 in con for survival since surviving is your main job, and only have a 10 left for str because standard rolling has plenty of room for terrible stats, then you can absolutely have a mediocre fighter by the standard rules. At -2 or -3 attack those high odds of hitting start looking a lot closer to 50%.

which was in response to this:

Even a mediocre swordsman is hitting more than half the time. And, well, no duh, because every miss is a round where the player is doing nothing. A swordsman who puts in even a modicum of effort will indeed be hitting almost all the time. He will have a nearly 100% success rate at his own job, heaven forbid!

You asked for a mediocre swordsman, I gave you one. Turns out its pretty hard to make a mediocre swordsman without losing some BAB, so I gave an example of how someone might make one. If you want to complain about how the PHB standard rolling method allows for garbage stats that make bad fighters, go right ahead. I'd be right there with you on how random stats are bogus. But for someone who claims to be right about everything you sure miss the point a lot.

The standard fighter has +3 or +4 at 1st level before racial choices -and while we're at it, standard goblins only have AC 15. So you've optimized your monsters on top of the rest.

But, that's when it hit me. His name is Darth Ultron. Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

Bwahahhaha, oh man that's great! I'm not Star Wars-y enough to have got there on my own but its great! Say all the things everyone else does, optimize on the DM's side, but sound evil about it and deal only in absolutes because you're a sith. Ha!

And some more-

True, but displays of power are so rarely worth making (and they don't help the fighter, either, because the enemy can see that he's wielding a sword anyway) that it's generally not particularly great anyway.

Spoken as a man who's never faced the opposite end of something that could ruin your character. I've stood next to things that could one-round me after surviving only by luck. I've faced spellcasters I thought could blow the party apart in a couple rounds. These affected my decisions and how I felt about them- if the DM isn't playing the monsters in a way that they respect the knowledge that they're only live due to luck, well that's some bad roleplaying I guess.

You have a very peculiar combination of "combat is war" mentality with an expectation that the mechanics will enforce "combat as sport." Which is the exact opposite of 3.5.

Edit: collapsed posts, didn't think I'd manage to double.

[Jormengand]

As for Jor and the refusal to see anything but successful attacks as "plays," well he's kinda tipped his hand there by mentioning that he works on games.

The internet, where the men are men, the women are men, and everyone else is men for good measure.

A game designer is going to hold the strongest possible views on game design, and if they decide something is bad there's little point in trying to convince them. Jor thinks players have to be actively succeeding every round, makes games with mechanics to ensure that's always happening, and doesn't consider tactical positioning capable of being a play all its own (which is funny, because in most sports there's only one ball and the entire rest of the team is just tactically positioning themselves).

To be clear, tactical positioning can and should be a play, but it isn't in 3.5 because all you get is attacks of opportunity, and if you can't hit with them...

EDIT: Also, nice stereotype that I'm inherently unreasonable about game design because I design games. Weirdly, scientists are more reasonable about science than most people, and game designers have to be reasonable about game design or they make more fantasy heartbreakers.

I don't make games for a living, but I have been staring at 3.5 for years to the point that I realized I'm just as qualified to analyze it as any other homebrewer (thus began my brewing and tinkering), and I've torn it down until I found answers for why it is the way it is that made sense with the rules rather than complaining about them. Just because I'd rather do something actively doesn't mean I don't see the value if my active action fails (I have used both full defense and failed at actions and been okay). I have a passing enough knowledge of statistics to know that just because this roll failed doesn't mean that it was a waste, regardless of how my gut may feel, and enough distance to respect the wargaming roots where positioning one guy had to have been a crucial move at times even if they couldn't succeed at an attack. I am okay with there being a party role for "guy that might not be able to do anything but stand in the way" sometimes, the same way I'm okay with some monsters being immune to magic (not this pansy "immune to everthing but conjuration," but actual immunity).

See, IME, most players don't have fun when their action does nothing. Maybe you can enjoy doing nothing, but most players can't.

You asked for a mediocre swordsman, I gave you one. Turns out its pretty hard to make a mediocre swordsman without losing some BAB

Let me stop you right there. No, it isn't. A mediocre swordsman (with 18 STR, 1 BAB/level, and nothing else) is still hitting goblins about half the time (slightly more), even if I didn't remember their AC off the top of my head (for shame!), which is pretty clearly mediocre.

The standard fighter has +3 or +4 at 1st level before racial choices

Then the standard fighter is mediocre. If you can't do your job at least fairly reliably, then you're bad. To be quite honest.

It's one thing not to succeed at storming the courtyard, killing the king's knights, and taking the princess hostage because there are a lot of them and they know tactics and swords too. It's another thing to miss the king's knights because you're no good with a sword.

[Max Caysey]

And shouldn't the ideal optimized character be based on available source material? Speaking for myself, the books for 3.5 that are available are from the PHB, DMG and MM. Now, how to optimize a character with that material. Some of you would say it can't be done, I believe. But we work with what we've got!

There is about 100 official books published for D&D 3.x! Including two settings! They are all readily available online! There are 5 Monster Manuals! There are books for divine, rogues, melee, nature, arcane and mixes! I feel so sorry for you guys!!!

[Deophaun]

So actually, he's done nothing but give the opponents useful information, which is even worse than doing nothing!

The point is that every action has a consequence even if the dice go against you. You should always ask what your action will mean even if you roll a 1. Not asking that question is how you waste a turn by missing.

And this is very much a form of optimization. Let's term it zero-point optimization, because this is how effective your character is when sucking completely.

[Jormengand]

The point is that every action has a consequence even if the dice go against you. You should always ask what your action will mean even if you roll a 1. Not asking that question is how you waste a turn by missing.

And this is very much a form of optimization. Let's term it zero-point optimization, because this is how effective your character is when sucking completely.

I mean, yes, you should consider what you character will achieve even if they flunk it - but in the case of a fighter using a sword that the enemies know he has, the answer is "Nothing".

[Malimar]

I'd like to point out that only a total roll of 10 or lower (mechanically, the base of 10 AC) is "you missed". If you fail to hit with a roll higher than that, then it's because your opponent's armor or shield or force field got in the way, or they dodged or otherwise evaded your blow, or your weapon only hit too glancingly to penetrate their thick hide, or most likely a combination of those things.

Which is to say: the fault of not hitting is your own failure 50% of the time only if you have a -1 total attack modifier. If you have at least a +9, then every time you don't hit, it's because your enemy is competent (or you had a stroke of extremely poor luck, which is what a natural 1 represents).

[Fizban]

The internet, where the men are men, the women are men, and everyone else is men for good measure.

You don't have a gender specificed on your profile, and your avatar is at best ambiguous. If you're going to complain about a man defaulting to male pronouns, maybe specify something beforehand? Then I'd have reason to apologize.

To be clear, tactical positioning can and should be a play, but it isn't in 3.5 because all you get is attacks of opportunity, and if you can't hit with them...

And you block the charge specials from hitting anyone but yourself, and on an open field you should generally by an extra round by forcing them to go around you. The value varies depending on how tactically the DM is running the monster, but you seem to argue as if everything has maximum tactics.

EDIT: Also, nice stereotype that I'm inherently unreasonable about game design because I design games. Weirdly, scientists are more reasonable about science than most people, and game designers have to be reasonable about game design or they make more fantasy heartbreakers.

You clearly think you can do the job better and refuse to budge on your positions: that's not a stereotype, that's just what you're saying. From where comes such certainty? Gee, a game designer probably knows game design, has confidence in their analysis.

See, IME, most players don't have fun when their action does nothing. Maybe you can enjoy doing nothing, but most players can't.

Are we finally getting somewhere? Could it be that dnd is not designed to perfectly cater only to active players, but instead has its own goals?

Then the standard fighter is mediocre. If you can't do your job at least fairly reliably, then you're bad. To be quite honest.

Actually 1st level monsters have abnormally high AC. Later on both the normal and mediocre fighter will be rolling against AC 20 or less on many monsters while having +10 or more attack. At least when the monsters aren't being optimized.

It's one thing not to succeed at storming the courtyard, killing the king's knights, and taking the princess hostage because there are a lot of them and they know tactics and swords too. It's another thing to miss the king's knights because you're no good with a sword.

A 1st level character should not be able to hit a "knight" reliably, assuming that "knight" implies any amount of elite ability or equipment. If the "knights" are 1st level NPCs with no class features, non-elite stats, and bad armor, then sure- a 1st level hero can hit them just fine. I wouldn't advise fighting more than one at a time though, for safety, because much like real life a 1st level character loses 2v1.

I mean, yes, you should consider what you character will achieve even if they flunk it - but in the case of a fighter using a sword that the enemies know he has, the answer is "Nothing".

Rise, and be known as Darth Jormengand.

[Jormengand]

I'd like to point out that only a total roll of 10 or lower (mechanically, the base of 10 AC) is "you missed". If you fail to hit with a roll higher than that, then it's because your opponent's armor or shield or force field got in the way, or they dodged or otherwise evaded your blow, or your weapon only hit too glancingly to penetrate their thick hide, or most likely a combination of those things.

Which is to say: the fault of not hitting is your own failure 50% of the time only if you have a -1 total attack modifier. If you have at least a +9, then every time you don't hit, it's because your enemy is competent (or you had a stroke of extremely poor luck, which is what a natural 1 represents).

But it's also because you're bad at hitting people in armour; bad at hitting fast people, bad at hitting people with forcefields. It's not just that the enemy had good armour, it's that their good armour was enough to stop the masterful swordsman who isn't so masterful after all.

You don't have a gender specificed on your profile, and your avatar is at best ambiguous. If you're going to complain about a man defaulting to male pronouns, maybe specify something beforehand? Then I'd have reason to apologize.

And you block the charge specials from hitting anyone but yourself, and on an open field you should generally by an extra round by forcing them to go around you. The value varies depending on how tactically the DM is running the monster, but you seem to argue as if everything has maximum tactics.

You clearly think you can do the job better and refuse to budge on your positions: that's not a stereotype, that's just what you're saying. From where comes such certainty? Gee, a game designer probably knows game design, has confidence in their analysis.

Are we finally getting somewhere? Could it be that dnd is not designed to perfectly cater only to active players, but instead has its own goals?

Actually 1st level monsters have abnormally high AC. Later on both the normal and mediocre fighter will be rolling against AC 20 or less on many monsters while having +10 or more attack. At least when the monsters aren't being optimized.

A 1st level character should not be able to hit a "knight" reliably, assuming that "knight" implies any amount of elite ability or equipment. If the "knights" are 1st level NPCs with no class features, non-elite stats, and bad armor, then sure- a 1st level hero can hit them just fine. I wouldn't advise fighting more than one at a time though, for safety, because much like real life a 1st level character loses 2v1.

Assuming is bad anyway, you can't usually actually block a charge because they can still charge past you and end up adjacent, yes I do think I'm right about stuff or I wouldn't be saying it, D&D has pretty bad goals and doesn't even fulfil them properly, your mediocre fighter can't hit a pit fiend except by the natural 20 rule and an actual mediocre fighter can (if not reliably), and I'm not talking about level 1 characters in particular in that example. Now can we please quit with the textwalls?

[Fizban]

But it's also because you're bad at hitting people in armour; bad at hitting fast people, bad at hitting people with forcefields. It's not just that the enemy had good armour, it's that their good armour was enough to stop the masterful swordsman who isn't so masterful after all.

The difference between an object and a creature with no bonuses of the same size is 5, you demand a starting attack bonus of at least +5 -coincidence? Maybe what you hate is just the AC system that starts you out with a 25% chance of missing a practice dummy?

(Gotta go to work now, in case anyone misses me).

One more:

Assuming is bad anyway, you can't usually actually block a charge because they can still charge past you and end up adjacent, yes I do think I'm right about stuff or I wouldn't be saying it, D&D has pretty bad goals and doesn't even fulfil them properly, your mediocre fighter can't hit a pit fiend except by the natural 20 rule and an actual mediocre fighter can (if not reliably), and I'm not talking about level 1 characters in particular in that example. Now can we please quit with the textwalls?

Charging must go in a straight line, if you aren't standing directly in their way then you did it wrong.

The pit fiend claim is and has always been patently, demonstrably un-true, but I really don't have time to repost the basic freaking math that you're refusing to do.

Oh, and if you want to stop arguing then stop claiming everything you say is true instead of an opinion. At least I'm looking for answers that explain why the rules they are instead of whining about it.

Edit from the far future: huh, went back to check some of my old arguments and found I left out the un from untrue. Didn't really matter since my stance was so clear I guess.

[Jormengand]

The difference between an object and a creature with no bonuses of the same size is 5, you demand a starting attack bonus of at least +5 -coincidence? Maybe what you hate is just the AC system that starts you out with a 25% chance of missing a practice dummy?

(Gotta go to work now, in case anyone misses me).

Objects take an additional -2 penalty for being objects on top of the -5 dex penalty, as it happens, so anyone with any BAB should be hitting them on 2s anyway, and you can take a full action to line up an attack that never misses. You can, more understandably, miss a target at range (though conversely it's kinda odd that a commoner with a longbow can hit a human-sized 100 feet away on a 7 [attack -4 AC 3] - you'd think it would be harder than that).

Charging must go in a straight line, if you aren't standing directly in their way then you did it wrong.

The pit fiend claim is and has always been patently, demonstrably true, but I really don't have time to repost the basic freaking math that you're refusing to do.

Oh, and if you want to stop arguing then stop claiming everything you say is true instead of an opinion. At least I'm looking for answers that explain why the rules they are instead of whining about it.

You can end up diagonally adjacent to the wizard if you make a straight-line charge around the fighter - or did you think that you can only make a charge in any of the 8 compass directions? Due to the idiosyncracies of the way the grid system works, it's actually impossible to stand in a charger's way without a wall on at least one side of you.

Your not-full-bab no-STR-bonus "Mediocre fighter" cannot hit the pit fiend without the natural 20s rule (17+20<40) but the actual mediocre fighter with full-bab and max-STR can (20+6 or more+20>40), but not reliably (20+8, for example+10<40). What's to argue with?

I mean, the fact that "If your attack doesn't do anything it doesn't do anything" is kinda factual. As to why the rules are the way they are? Because Wizards of the Coast don't understand how their own game works.

[jedikiller]

A character needn't be optimized if its fun to play

[skunk3]

Jormengand, not to sound insulting or anything, but please stop. You're making some bad points and clearly most of the people here do not agree with you, myself included. I understand the points you are attempting to make but no amount of argumentation is going to change the fact that your opinions are not objective facts.

[Jormengand]

Jormengand, not to sound insulting or anything, but please stop. You're making some bad points and clearly most of the people here do not agree with you, myself included. I understand the points you are attempting to make but no amount of argumentation is going to change the fact that your opinions are not objective facts.

Ah yes, "You're wrong in some nonspecific way, your facts are only opinions, and people disagree so you're wrong." What a brilliant non-argument. Also "I don't mean to be insulting, but I'm going to insult you."

Come back when you've learnt what a real argument looks like.

[Arbane]

A character needn't be optimized if its fun to play

Yeah, the problem there is just what amount of Happy Fun Miserable Failure Hour people want to tolerate in their elfgames. According to Darth Ultron, his disgusting munchkin players can't stand losing at anything, ever. Most people have a slightly higher 'whiff tolerance' than that. And sometimes people want to play a character idea they know is suboptimal, for whatever reason. The problem then becomes, how much failure is still fun?

I played Exalted once with a guy who wanted play play a Heroic Mortal in a bunch of Solars. The GM had to jump through a few hoops to keep that character alive on a few occasions, but he seemed to be having fun. Tastes differ.

[Crake]

Welp, go to sleep for 8 hours, 3 pages later....

[skunk3]

Ah yes, "You're wrong in some nonspecific way, your facts are only opinions, and people disagree so you're wrong." What a brilliant non-argument. Also "I don't mean to be insulting, but I'm going to insult you."

Come back when you've learnt what a real argument looks like.

First of all, it wasn't an insult. If you take it as an insult (even though I clearly indicated that it was not), that's on you, not on me. Personally, I think that's an indication of lack of character. (No pun intended.) There is a little thing called the "principle of charity" which suggests that it is best to assume that people are being honest, and to interpret what they say in the best possible light and discern what they truly meant to say rather than SPECIFICALLY what they said. You assumed that I was insulting you when really all I was doing is agreeing with what others have already said.

You have stated many OPINIONS as facts, and even (above) said that we are wrongfully interpreting the 'facts' you are presenting as 'opinions.' There's no arguing against that. I don't feel like going through this whole thread and snipping out tons of quotes but it is all there for everyone to see. I'm not saying that you haven't made some valid points, but other things you've stated simply are not objectively true. Speaking of arguments, you are assuming from the onset that your opinions are facts, which is in and of itself fallacious. I am not making any arguments, and if I wanted to, I could. I do have a Philosophy degree (among others) and studied informal and formal logic quite a bit, so if I wanted to argue a point into the ground, I could WITHOUT committing logical fallacies.

[unseenmage]

...
I played Exalted once with a guy who wanted play play a Heroic Mortal in a bunch of Solars. The GM had to jump through a few hoops to keep that character alive on a few occasions, but he seemed to be having fun. Tastes differ.

Heh, that's exactly my plan when I ever get to play Exalted.

However, even I, with my high whiff tolerance, understand that failure does not equal fun.

Thinking back, if the failure is my choice, or at least my fault, I find it more palatable.

Failures borne solely from a half baked system that makes false promises of balance, failures borne of That Guy GMs and their desire to put players in their place, and failures borne from unexpected PvP have been the most distastefully memorable.

[Jormengand]

First of all, it wasn't an insult. If you take it as an insult (even though I clearly indicated that it was not), that's on you, not on me.

Oh come on. You can't just pull a Farage-style "I don't mean to be rude, but you have the charisma of a damp rag and the appearance of a low-grade bank clerk" on me. Just because you say "No offense" doesn't actually change whether or not what you're saying is offensive.

Personally, I think that's an indication of lack of character. (No pun intended.) There is a little thing called the "principle of charity" which suggests that it is best to assume that people are being honest, and to interpret what they say in the best possible light and discern what they truly meant to say rather than SPECIFICALLY what they said. You assumed that I was insulting you when really all I was doing is agreeing with what others have already said.

Just for fun, I checked with someone else first to make sure I wasn't the only one reading it that way before posting.

You have stated many OPINIONS as facts,

Examples please.

and even (above) said that we are wrongfully interpreting the 'facts' you are presenting as 'opinions.' There's no arguing against that.

Someone literally said that the fact that missed attack rolls have no mechanical effect in 3.5 was just my opinion. I think I have the right to say that.

I don't feel like going through this whole thread and snipping out tons of quotes but it is all there for everyone to see. I'm not saying that you haven't made some valid points, but other things you've stated simply are not objectively true. Speaking of arguments, you are assuming from the onset that your opinions are facts, which is in and of itself fallacious. I am not making any arguments, and if I wanted to, I could. I do have a Philosophy degree (among others) and studied informal and formal logic quite a bit, so if I wanted to argue a point into the ground, I could WITHOUT committing logical fallacies.

Oh? Then cut the freaking ad hominem, matey.