Why hate optimization?

[skunk3]

Jor, if you take offense to something that isn't even offensive in the slightest - especially given the fact that I *specifically* said (just in case) that it was not intended to be offensive - that's on you, pal.

I'm not going to take the time to cut and paste a bunch of stuff to make a point. I don't feel like playing that game right now, so go ahead and continue feeling like you've 'won' this thread or whatever. I said what I felt like saying and I'm done until something interesting gets posted.

[quark12000]

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!!!

They're not free, friend.

[Jormengand]

Jor, if you take offense to something that isn't even offensive in the slightest - especially given the fact that I *specifically* said (just in case) that it was not intended to be offensive - that's on you, pal.

I'm not going to take the time to cut and paste a bunch of stuff to make a point. I don't feel like playing that game right now, so go ahead and continue feeling like you've 'won' this thread or whatever. I said what I felt like saying and I'm done until something interesting gets posted.

You can't just say something isn't offensive and it magically stops being.

What's the bloody point in making a point you can't and don't want to defend?

[Deophaun]

Jor, if you take offense to something that isn't even offensive in the slightest - especially given the fact that I *specifically* said (just in case) that it was not intended to be offensive - that's on you, pal.

Wait, if it wasn't offensive in the slightest, why the disclaimer?

"I mean no offense, but that was the most thoughtful post I ever read."

"No offense, but that meal was delicious."

"Don't take this the wrong way, but the cube root of 1601613 is 117."

[death390]

actually i think Jor makes several good points. my thing is that i had to work last night and have now only gotten though the wall of text (3 pages) that i had to read to make it back to where we currently are.

many of the mechanics in Dnd don't work that great. Jor is right that you can charge at a diagonal. hell i would rather do that 90% of the time as while i have to worry more about AoO's if i run near other people at least i can move around my blockage (not to mention there are ways to turn in a charge). Jor honestly one of the few people backing up what they are saying rather than the "your wrong, somehow, i can't say how though" people.



as i stated earlier the rules are not the end all be all for a game like this that is why there are DM's if the first place. but that said DM's need to know what they are doing and what they do has major effect of the game in how their players react. if you use sunder all the time then why invest in things that can be broken? i will end up as a sorc with eschew materials, a wizard with eidetic spellcasting, or worse just to avoid you breaking all my stuff.

if you continue to find ways to "break" my character that makes me want to beat you at your own game. and that is a problem. because if i am locked in an arms race with the DM neither of us is playing the game anymore it turns into a system mastery arms race or DM fiat problem.

[skunk3]

Wait, if it wasn't offensive in the slightest, why the disclaimer?

"I mean no offense, but that was the most thoughtful post I ever read."

"No offense, but that meal was delicious."

"Don't take this the wrong way, but the cube root of 1601613 is 117."

Because we are on the internet and it is 2017. People get bent out of shape over anything and everything. If you say anything that is contradictory or oppositional in the slightest, people feel like they are being personally attacked. I didn't say anything offensive, and even though it COULD BE construed as slightly offensive by the most thin-skinned, I added the disclaimer just to make it absolutely clear that was not the intent.

[Deophaun]

Because we are on the internet and it is 2017. People get bent out of shape over anything and everything. If you say anything that is contradictory or oppositional in the slightest, people feel like they are being personally attacked. I didn't say anything offensive, and even though it COULD BE construed as slightly offensive by the most thin-skinned, I added the disclaimer just to make it absolutely clear that was not the intent.

There had been 8 pages of contradictory and oppositional posts in this thread, and no one thought or felt the need to preface any of it until the slightly more politely worded "shut up" post. So I'm calling BS on that explanation.

[Jormengand]

Because we are on the internet and it is 2017. People get bent out of shape over anything and everything.

Oh, I see! You're one of those people who sits on 4chan posting "Triggered" memes while getting irrationally angry and telling people to stop posting just because they disagree with you!

Never mind, then.

[JNAProductions]

I enjoy optimization. Both theoretical (make a level 3 Artificer with Permanent Boots of Haste, for instance, and probably a LOT MORE besides) and practical (24 Con DFA, baby!).

I do think that 3.5 has some issues in that you need to work harder than you should to make sure everyone is playing on the same or on a similar level, but it's a fun game.

And I understand people who aren't fans of optimization. To those people, though, I would recommend probably playing another system. Half the fun of 3.5 is optimization, whereas something like Fate, for instance, the focus is more on the narrative.

[skunk3]

There had been 8 pages of contradictory and oppositional posts in this thread, and no one thought or felt the need to preface any of it until the slightly more politely worded "shut up" post. So I'm calling BS on that explanation.

If I had not said "no offense" what really would be different? Nothing I said was offensive and I invite anyone to argue that it was. Stating opinions as facts and arguing ad nauseum is far more offensive to my sensibilities. "Please stop" is a far cry from "shut up," so don't even take that there. Buy my story or not, that is fine, but I stand by what I said and apologize for nothing.

[JNAProductions]

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.

Care to back that post up? Because, even if Jor and I don't always agree, they are a SMART COOKIE. If you have a specific example of what they said that was an opinion but stated as a fact or vice-versa, by all means, post it. But that post is just vacuous nonsense at the moment.

[Pleh]

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.

Unless the charge special has any form of 3 dimensional movement (fly, swim, earthglide, jump checks), trample, incorporeality, sufficient reach, etc.

The real way a fighter stops charge specials is with Improved Trip+Combat Reflexes on a Spiked Chain to threaten a much wider area, stopping charges with Trip attacks of opportunity.

But it does require you can actually make your attacks reliably.

[death390]

Unless the charge special has any form of 3 dimensional movement (fly, swim, earthglide, jump checks), trample, incorporeality, sufficient reach, etc.

The real way a fighter stops charge specials is with Improved Trip+Combat Reflexes on a Spiked Chain to threaten a much wider area, stopping charges with Trip attacks of opportunity.

But it does require you can actually make your attacks reliably.

don't forget just plain tumble checks (-10 for full speed) can negate a road block and AoO's DC 15 to go thru threatened squares, 25 to go thru enemies square. hell do it at half speed, charge moves you as if double move action meaning you can still move standard speed.

[Deophaun]

Nothing I said was offensive and I invite anyone to argue that it was.

Is this opinion or fact? Because what's offensive is opinion, but that's started like a fact.

Stating opinions as facts and arguing ad nauseum is far more offensive to my sensibilities.

Does that mean you just offended yourself?

It takes two to tango. Strange that you would single out Jor for arguing ad nauseum.

But you definitely aren't telling him to shut up. You just want him to not argue anymore.

[Darth Ultron]

Like, seriously guys, stop and read the actual words he is saying.

When Darth Ultron "breaks" an optimizer, it's by actually adjusting the adventure to compensate for their build. The assumption is that he breaks the rules to screw with people, but the examples are always the exact same sort of thing optimizers say DMs need to do in order to reign in their overpowered characters.

It's freaking hilarious once you realize it.

I do agree that a DM has to optimize as much as the Players do to keep the game balanced.

But using something like say Sunder is not really ''adjusting'' anything. I'm simply having foes use an ability.

And if they don't understand then how exactly have you made yourself clear?

If you aren't clear about your game expectations then you should be.

Though it is becoming more and more clear that your goal is to trick "optimizers" and not to facilitate shared fun between yourself and anyone else you might be caught playing with.

Well, it is impossible to make someone understand anything. And it's not like optimizers want to do ''shared fun'', like most jerk moves optimization is all about just the lone individual.

Anything else. Please explain.

Maybe the first one? I run a Status Que type game, so the DC of everything is set and does not change with character level. Though in a vague, general sense the PC's will mostly encounter things ''around'' their level...but not always.

So, it's not that the DC's of things increase, like farmer Bob's shed has a DC 10 lock, but it does not suddenly become a DC 30 lock just as the PC's are 10th level. But, then the 10th level characters are not picking the lock on farmer Bob's shed....they are picking the Living Elemental Fire Ethereal Lock on the Treasure Vault of the Fire Giant Sultan.

Can you see why this could be fun, in its own way?

Well, your making the huge jump to ''do I think it's a good idea and fun for the players to gather intelligence and plan ahead?'' And that would be yes.

But your making the huge jump away from:

A Game: You accept failure as something that happens. It is not a desirable thing, but even if it happens you accept it and keep playing the game and learn to live with it.

A Real Life: You don't ever want to fail at anything ever.

Except that a non-optimized mundane doesn't have a lot of mechanical options. He could attack again--or he could try "something else", with no mechanics to support it--he's supposed to be this big badass hero, but his chances of accomplishing "something else" are the same as any random peasant, or as the NPC the party taking on the escort mission. So in real games, you attack again. Hopefully you hit this time, or your character's relevance in this story is really suspect.

Well, your assuming the character has no skills or abilities other then combat and that they are a ''hero'', for no reason.

First off, you don't just ''start off automatically as a hero'' at 1st level and even if you do just ''being a hero'' does not make a character a demigod. Yes the hype of a hero does have them like yawn and save the world, but the more ''true'' story tells the struggle of the hero that is not so glamorous.

Second, if a character is a dull one trick pony that can ''only do combat'', that is all on the player that made the character.

Let's say you want to role play a sword-and-shield fighter. That is a reasonable thing to expect to do in a sword-and-sorcery game--slaying monsters, protecting allies, etc. Except the mechanics don't support that--your damage output quickly falls behind a two-handed weapon fighter, you can't do much mechanically to "tank" for your squishy allies.

But you make an odd jump here. Your saying ''every fighter type MUST do exactly the same amount of damage''. But why? There is more to a fight then just ''damage''.

Is not a sword and shield fighter half attack/half defense....you know the ''shield'' part. So it makes sense that a sword/shield fighter has less of an attack, but more defense then a two handed weapon fighter. Right? And that IS the way it should be.

you have to look through other sources--other books, guidebooks on forums like this one, PDFs legal and otherwise.

I don't think anyone has ever said ''Core D&D is enough''.

[johnbragg]

Well, your assuming the character has no skills or abilities other then combat and that they are a ''hero'', for no reason.

It's hard to remember after so much quoting, since the forum software doesnt' retain what you're replying to, but the example was "missing an attack roll". You (I think it was you) said it's not the end of the world, he could attack again next round, or "do something else." I pointed out that there isn't much mechanical support for "do something else." It's a bad time to start talking, and a fighter/barbarian/ranger doesn't have Bluff/Diplomacy/Sense Motive as class skills anyway.

First off, you don't just ''start off automatically as a hero'' at 1st level and even if you do just ''being a hero'' does not make a character a demigod. Yes the hype of a hero does have them like yawn and save the world, but the more ''true'' story tells the struggle of the hero that is not so glamorous.

Not all campaigns start at first level. (I start mine there, but not everybody does.)

Second, if a character is a dull one trick pony that can ''only do combat'', that is all on the player that made the character.

But you make an odd jump here. Your saying ''every fighter type MUST do exactly the same amount of damage''. But why? There is more to a fight then just ''damage''.

Is not a sword and shield fighter half attack/half defense....you know the ''shield'' part. So it makes sense that a sword/shield fighter has less of an attack, but more defense then a two handed weapon fighter. Right? And that IS the way it should be.

It's not the way it should be, because the math doesn't work. At 10th level, STR 20, full power-attack gives Sir Sword-and-Board +15 to damage per attack, while it gives Theobald Two-Hander +30. But Sir Sword-and-Board gets only +7 to his AC with the best shield the rules allow, if he spends half his WBL on it.

I don't think anyone has ever said ''Core D&D is enough''.

I don't want to scare you, but splatbook-diving for character options to make your build better is--optimizing.

Actually, I don't understand the rest of our conversation now.

[Nifft]

I don't think anyone has ever said ''Core D&D is enough''.

Core D&D is certainly enough to firmly and (sadly) irrevocably establish the impregnable inequality of mundane vs. casters.

[Crake]

A Game: You accept failure as something that happens. It is not a desirable thing, but even if it happens you accept it and keep playing the game and learn to live with it.

A Real Life: You don't ever want to fail at anything ever.

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.

Now, would optimizing that skill enough to the point where they can take 10 to pass the sailor check be munchkinery? I don't think so honestly, because being able to reliably pass that check isn't a matter of inconvenience, it's a matter of life and death. Currently, they have max ranks (9), +1 wisdom, +2 from the seaworthiness from thier boat, and yes, they even invested +3 by picking up skill focus, for a total of +15. With 2 asssists (there's only 3 players) with each of the others investing max ranks for an automatic assist, and a take 10, that still only gets the 29, so the player is investing in the old salt feat, which gets him that final +1 he needs to hit DC30 reliably and not have to worry about a failure chance.

Personally, I don't think that's a bad investment, and makes his character good at what he's setting out to do, he can successfully sail through some of the hardest storms in the game without issue, unless he's caught in some kind of naval battle, or one of his crew members is out of action for some reason.

[Darth Ultron]

, but Sunder ; it's an adversarial tactic that should be used sparingly if at all.

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.

Either case regardless leads to the exact arms race you claim to abhor. If you overuse Sunder as a PC **** you tactic, PCs will optimize CMD, or saves with the SoD/S example.

Few players do this in my experience. It just sounds good in theory. After all, even if they did, I can just use one of the other 100 things most DM's don't use and still effect the character somehow...

Your expectations do not match the game, which does not mean the game is wrong: it means you are playing the game differently from how it was intended.

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.

DU, what this sounds like is that you optimize your encounters. So you are yourself an optimizer, by the common definition being used in this thread.

Well, what I ''do'' is really unique enough to need it's own word :)

However, I believe you are mistaking some limited correlation for causation - you are seeing optimization as the cause of the jerkish behavior rather than seeing the players' jerkish behavior as the cause of the jerkish "optimization" (which, in my opinion, is not actually optimization but is rather more akin to true munchkining or even cheating at the game). I am sorry that is the case, and I would love to figure out a way to show you that optimization (as it is intended by most of the posters in this thread, myself included) is not the cause of the behavior you have experienced. I am sorry that you have had such players; I know what a burden they can be.

Most optimizers are already jerks and the optimizatin just lets their jerkiness flow through them and shine.

From what I can glean, it's about more power, including the ability to avoid trap options. More power = more fun, since, in most cases, failure is not fun. The places where the line as drawn seem to vary from person to person on how much is Too Much optimization, but the vibe I'm getting is more power = more fun.

Am I missing something?

Yes.

1)Power is not everything.
2)Power does not equal more fun, no matter how many times it is said.
3)Failure, in a game, is fun.

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.

It is fun to win and succeed in a game....but it's just false hot air unless it is a challenge with a chance of failure. Like you could make a 40th level demigod character and then fight only monsters that have less then one hit dice and ''have fun'', of a sort. It feels good, but it's a false fun. It's like when someone uses an invincible cheat code in a video game and ''beats'' the game in a couple minutes .

And in a game, failure can be fun. To ''just always win'' is boring. Most people would not even play a game they know they will win. Normal, well adjusted people can still have tons of fun and a good time...even if they loose and don't win.

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.

Well, I'm no Jedi Jake :)

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.

It's hard to remember after so much quoting, since the forum software doesnt' retain what you're replying to, but the example was "missing an attack roll". You (I think it was you) said it's not the end of the world, he could attack again next round, or "do something else." I pointed out that there isn't much mechanical support for "do something else." It's a bad time to start talking, and a fighter/barbarian/ranger doesn't have Bluff/Diplomacy/Sense Motive as class skills anyway.

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).

Though it is up to the player to use the mechanics: If you want a character to do X, you need to take skills/feats/abilities/such to do that.

Not all campaigns start at first level. (I start mine there, but not everybody does.)

True, but level alone does not make one a hero.

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...even more so when it's like ''there are innocents in trouble and your greedy character is looting dead bodies ".

It's not the way it should be, because the math doesn't work. At 10th level, STR 20, full power-attack gives Sir Sword-and-Board +15 to damage per attack, while it gives Theobald Two-Hander +30. But Sir Sword-and-Board gets only +7 to his AC with the best shield the rules allow, if he spends half his WBL on it.

But you missed the Theobald Two-Hander's AC. Is it equal to or greater then Sirs?

[Fizban]

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.

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.

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?

What's to argue with is someone who claims to understand 3.5 DnD and then ignores the expected magic items and character progression.

17 BAB, +2 minimum 14 base strength (10+4 level ups), +3 belt of 6 strength, +5 weapon, = +27, and those two items are less than 1/3 of WBL for 17th (the full suite of AC boosting is 1/2 that WBL, if they're already maxed). The actual baseline for attack focus would start with 14 strength, for +29. A mildly optimized fighter who wants to hit would take Weapon Focus and Greater Weapon focus, for +31. Their remaining items could includes tomes of str, potions of heroics, outsider bane. . . And before you claim having the correct gear is optimizing, it's not. Magic items are under the purview of the DM and its their job to make sure the PCs get what they need.

The same way I said the last time someone tried this, the math is easy, if you do the math. I have had people turn arguments around on me by actually doing the math. This is not. And its not the game's fault if char-op refuses to buy weapons with greater than +1 enhancement bonus or take Weapon Focus or DMs refuse to give out the expected loot (well a little on the second, but just like class roles they didn't want to go too heavy handed, makes sense).

The eagle eyed may notice that even with double weapon focus the baseline only has 60% accuracy on the first attack against the pit fiend, and indeed that's not great- which I'm pretty sure is why PHB2 has Weapon Mastery for an extra +2/+2, so you can match the barbarian. That'd get you to

Examples please.

Yes, examples please. Because you've given no evidence to support your opinion as factual. Prove to me that it is actually impossible to play 3.5 DnD the way the designers intended, or that my interpretation of their design expectations (drawn from the history of the game and the very books themselves), is false. Prove it, or admit you're just trying to force your playstyle on others.

'Cause I shoot stuff down all day, just like I keep doing, but you don't seem to actually care about understanding my position, so why bother? I already understand yours, I did as soon as I saw it like every other optimizer that's been on the internet. And then I got over it and tried to figure out why things are the way they are so I could actually fix them, unlike so many "fixes" that are just grafting that person's own new game over the top.

I'm not going to take the time to cut and paste a bunch of stuff to make a point. I don't feel like playing that game right now, so go ahead and continue feeling like you've 'won' this thread or whatever. I said what I felt like saying and I'm done until something interesting gets posted.

Evil only wins if the good do nothing, we're still here. I am pretty sour that after spending the holiday weekend hammering this into a good thread, it's suddenly buried under two pages of whining again.

Unless the charge special has any form of 3 dimensional movement (fly, swim, earthglide, jump checks), trample, incorporeality, sufficient reach, etc.

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. Pouncers in particular. They do print flying pouncers, but they're not as threatening as grounders, and pouncing monsters usually can't one-round anyone but the squishiest wizards (why else would char-op demand 14 con on everything?). Aquatic creatures are even weaker, jump checks are fail-able checks until about when you can start flying (and don' stop you from blocking the charge by standing next to your ward instead of away from them), trample is its own full round action which also deals less damage than a full attack, and even if you count from the tall squares of a large (tall) creature you still provide soft cover for people behind you if you're in between.

Incorporeal creatures are beastly, yes- and they're not the fighter's job. As previously, they're an EIHP encounter hinging on the cleric. That said, until you hit the Dread Wraith they also have terrible AC and not great hit points, magic weapons and turn undead are expected, and they can't one shot people except on a lucky critical . By the time you hit the Dread Wraith you have enough Death Wards for the whole party

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).

I don't think anyone has ever said ''Core D&D is enough''.

We have multiple people who've been posting threads the last couple weeks who play core only or desire to play the simplest core-only character. That's two already.

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 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.

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

Ha! I only slept for four hours you cheating optimizer you!

[Jormengand]

17 BAB, +2 minimum 14 base strength (10+4 level ups), +3 belt of 6 strength, +5 weapon, = +27, and those two items are less than 1/3 of WBL for 17th (the full suite of AC boosting is 1/2 that WBL, if they're already maxed).

Putting points into strength? Getting a magic item that boosts attacks?

Dirty rudisplorking optimiser.

[Lans]

For attacking, full attacks should be taken into account. I think the last attack should have a chance of missing, the second to last should have a marginal chance of hitting.

[Fizban]

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.

All life's a game, and when you get on the forum you're playing. You can post in homebrew or comment on funny stories or forum games, but "dicsussion" threads are about arguing your point.

And if you don't attack and succeed every turn, you fail.

So whenever someone says something you disagree with, you must contradict them, even if you don't have any new insights or evidence to provide, even if you don't realize why it is you're doing it.

And suddenly it's all crystal clear. The type of person who can't settle for sitting back or failing an attack roll is the person who optimizes, who goes into optimization threads and can't settle for saying nothing or conceding a point. Maybe that's why it synchs up that way.


And no, that's not a condemnation. The drive to always actively succeed is absolutely an evolutionary advantage and there are plenty of games that are great for people like that, as Jor has mentioned designing them themseves.

DnD 3.5 is not designed for these people, not at its core. It is indeed, a game with rules that support "combat as war," but which is meant to be run with "combat as sport." And just like team sports in real life where there's half a dozen team members and half of them are just blocking people while the rest fight over the ball, it's perfectly acceptable in standard 3.5 to have turns where all you did for sure was tactical positioning. People who must be actively attacking and succeeding every turn to have fun are going to optimize, optimizing too much messes with the core balance, and they'll argue about it on the internet because they need to optimize or they won't have fun and need to argue else they won't have fun.

You may begin raging.

[death390]

~snip~

oh god where to start with this. again # = paragraph you stated's response.

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.

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.

4: this is nothing but Pride and contributes nothing to the conversation. especially since you think that what you do does not count as DMing, but instead something else.

5:that means you had a bad set of people to play with. all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares. at this point though it sounds like you have created a self-fulfilling prophesy with your playstyle. at least to me.

6: power alone does not mean more fun, but more versatile power makes more player agency. more player agency is fun. just look at all the players that don't like to be railroaded in their campaigns. that doesn't mean that everyone wants free reign some like a tightly wound story, others don't. failure in a game CAN be fun, but it has to be handled right. a fight that is designed to capture the PC's to advance the story is fun if they know its coming at some point (not literally saying this session you will fight a battle you cant win, just at the start of the campaign say that there will eventually be a point YOU WILL BE CAPTURED to advance the plot). but failure with leads to TPK is not fun most of the time.

7: no comment on the joke.

8: yes you can take cross class skills but when the low int fighter only gets 1/level it kinda hurts if you don't put it in something helpful. cross class skills don't see a benefit until you put 2 ranks in (in 3.5) that +5 to diplomacy comes at the cost of 4 points at level 1 and a point a level until level 6, earliest. pathfinder kinda fixed this by making class skills give +3 and training (points) overcomes it later on (much much later since 1pt/lvl max so lvl 4 to match a lvl 1 class skill trained person)

9: level is a general indication of power. true it is not the end all be all but at that point it is supposed to reflect competency. there is a reason E6 exists, its lower power for those who want to play with higher stakes. more chance of failure, and less system mastery.

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.

[Fizban]

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.

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.

[Florian]

@Fizban:

Ain´t it interesting that a certain kind of "supporting evidence" and "baseline argumentative chain" actually only works by ignoring the rules, ignoring that there's a gm involved and only ever works when creating example scenarios that are so far removed from what we see in modules, encounters or entre APs (basically showcasing how the designers of the rules intended the rules to be used)?

So, yeah, no-one can block a charge, ever, because it happens on a featureless plain, fellow party members don't use the front-liner as soft cover (they're all perm-flying, remember?), and so on and so on. I´d recommend reading the (for me) now classic discussion Fighter vs. Pit Fiend to see an ever expanding set of new conditions and moving goalposts ;)

[death390]

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.

[Fizban]

@Florian

Oh man, I checked out of that thread so fast. People wanna say I never stop arguing? I know how to pick my battles, and you've summed it up well enough.

[Florian]

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.

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)

[Jormengand]

I´d recommend reading the (for me) now classic discussion Fighter vs. Pit Fiend to see an ever expanding set of new conditions and moving goalposts ;)

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.