Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - PlzBreakMyCampaign

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... 99
141
The PBMC Metacompendium / Job Diversity
« on: March 22, 2018, 02:05:59 PM »
Quote
My argument is not meant to be a negative rant, but rather a positive exhortation to all those who play d20 to recognize the wonderful flavor possible when you embrace diversity. Play with every splatbook, web enhacement, dragon or dungeon you can get your hands on! YES, there will always be broken builds in d20 - but limiting supplements won't get rid of that imbalance. ALLOWING MORE supplements and sources will create opportunities to be powerful, yet not limited in choice - to be able to create a truly CREATIVE character who can hold his own.

Broken is all up to the group. My argument is that if the group is fully informed and knows what it's doing, that it will see that things like the Half-Minotaur AREN'T broken, whereas things like DRUIDS are.

An example:

NineInchNall, the author of the Shadowcraft Mage Handbook, and I are old pals. We are playing in a PbP game on another forum, and the DM there allowed only PHB, Completes, and Races. I wanted to make a non-caster, and without ToB found myself crippled. Non-casters need a variety of good stats; casters need only one. Non-casters need a lot of supplements to make their meager class abilities work for them; casters need only the SRD. Non-casters need a large range of PrCs; casters don't need PrCs at all, but can do just fine with one or two if they feel like it.

I asked to play a Dragonfire Adept - it's my thing, you know.

The DM's reply?

"I'm worried it would be broken."

NineInchNall was meanwhile happily statting out a 10th level SHADOWCRAFT MAGE - a character who is constantly invisible, can cast spontaneously cast ridiculously heightened evocation and conjuration spells SILENTLY all day long, and is generally a huge pain in the butt.

But the DM was worried about ME. Because I wanted to play something that had "at-will" abilities.

My point, in essence, is that limiting supplements does NOT prevent broken-ness; limiting supplements simply screws many players out of fun, playable options for the kinds of characters they like to run. Templates are the same way - it may sound overpowered for a +1, but give me another caster level ANY DAY and I'll show you REAL power.

142
The PBMC Metacompendium / Adventuring Day Buffs
« on: March 22, 2018, 02:05:12 PM »
Monte Cook speaking on the 3.5 revision:

Quote
The duration for ability score enhancing spells has been drastically shortened. Talk about changing the way the game is played. Cat's grace used to last an hour per level, mostly so you could cast it, adjust your stats, and not have to worry about it until you rested (again, it was that way to make game play easier and more fun). Now it lasts one minute per level, which means it sees you through one encounter, or two if you rush in between them. These spells have been rendered nearly worthless

Clearly long duration buffs make the game funner and simpler. They also remove weird playstyles like players casting buffs on themselves while the big bad gives a speech. Yes, I've actually seen this fly during a real 3.5 game.

143
The PBMC Metacompendium / Stormwind (rollplay vs roleplay) Fallacy
« on: March 22, 2018, 02:02:50 PM »
Originally posted by Tempest Stormwind
05-15-06, 03:58 PM
Quote
I still stand by the argument that this is a fundamental difference between old school (basic D&D: 1 race/class, AD&D: very limited multi-classing) vrs new school (I buy a book and there is a class in their and I want it gimmie gimmie). The trend I see is old school = roleplayers, new school = optimizers.

Note to New school people: Don't listen to what you hear, you aren't a dork if you roleplay. It is ok to indulge in what D&D is all about, roleplay. If you try it and have a good DM, I guarantee you'll have a blast and won't care so much about optomizing.
Okay, that's it.

I'm hereby proposing a new logical fallacy. It's not a new idea, but maybe with a catchy name (like the Oberoni Fallacy) it will catch on.

The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy
Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa.

Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game.

Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse roleplayer if he optimizes, and vice versa.
Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically roleplayed better than an optimized one, and vice versa.

(I admit that there are some diehards on both sides -- the RP fanatics who refuse to optimize as if strong characters were the mark of the Devil and the min/max munchkins who couldn't RP their way out of a paper bag without setting it on fire -- though I see these as extreme examples. The vast majority of people are in between, and thus the generalizations hold. The key word is 'automatically')

Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's gameplay. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Roleplaying deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else.
A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other.

Claiming that an optimizer cannot roleplay (or is participating in a playstyle that isn't supportive of roleplaying) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.

How does this impact "builds"? Simple.

In one extreme (say, Pun-Pun), they are thought experiments. Optimization tests that are not intended to see actual gameplay. Because they do not see gameplay, they do not commit the fallacy.

In the other extreme, you get the drama queens. They could care less about the rules, and are, essentially, playing free-form RP. Because the game is not necessary to this particular character, it doesn't fall into the fallacy.

By playing D&D, you opt in to an agreement of sorts -- the rules describe the world you live in, including yourself. To get the most out of those rules, in the same way you would get the most out of yourself, you must optimize in some respect (and don't look at me funny; you do it already, you just don't like to admit it. You don't need multiclassing or splatbooks to optimize). However, because it is a role-playing game, you also agree to play a role. This is dependent completely on you, and is independent of the rules.

And no, this isn't dependent on edition, or even what roleplaying game you're doing. If you are playing a roleplaying game with any form of rules or regulation, this fallacy can apply. The only difference is the nature of the optimization (based on the rules of that game; Tri-Stat optimizes differently than d20) or the flavor of the roleplay (based on the setting; Exalted feels different from Cthulu).

Conclusion: D&D, like it or not, has elements of both optimization AND roleplay in it. Any game that involves rules has optimization, and any role-playing game has roleplay. These are inherent to the game.

They go hand-in-hand in this sort of game. Deal with it.

144
The PBMC Metacompendium / Races Diversity
« on: March 22, 2018, 02:01:27 PM »
Quote
So what does a template or LA do for you? It gives you a STATIC benefit that does not increase as your level increases (there are a few notable exceptions to this rule, what with the arguments for even class HD improving Feral and Phrenic abilities, but I think that in general all templated abilities run off racial HD . . . maybe that argument belongs in the Book of Heavily Debated Topics!). Class levels, on the other hand, provide a SCALING benefit - for every level you gain, you gain abilities appropriate to your level.

Granted, it's easy to lose sight of the immense profit possible with scaling, class-based benefits when you're building a melee character. Melee characters (and indeed, non-casters as a whole) don't really get scaling benefits - instead, they get +1 BaB per level and some mediocre (generally speaking) plusses. When all you get for going up a level is a +1 to hit, +4 to Strength starts looking REALLY sexy.

Casters, on the other hand, gain scaling benefits that become immensely useful rather quickly. Sure, there are "dead levels" in which PCs only gain one more slot of an existing spell level per day, but with wisely chosen spells that's one more encounter per day without breaking a sweat.

My point is simply this: let the man have his fun with the Half-Minotaur. For non-ToB melee types (and even FOR ToB melee types, for that matter!), that LA makes playing more fun, more flavorful, and doesn't really do that much for them. Better yet, they get to have the rewarding FEELING that they're rough and buff and tough and stuff, and can get their satisfying one-hit one-kill moments in while the casters do the hard work (catching flyers, incorporeal creatures, etc.). In fact, allowing templates that are "broken" like the Half-Minotaur can make a DM's job MUCH easier - when the PC gets terrified by a fear aura, dominated, charmed, area-of-effect-ed (think GREASE, Impeding Stones from Cityscape, or the Frostburn equivalent of Grease that puts down an ice slick), nuked by blasphemy, holy word, imprisoned, etc. etc., you can always just say:

"Hey dude - I gave you that template. What are you whining about?"

You have to understand that this comes from a very passionate place. You see, I LOVE non-casters. What's more, I HATE casters - I hate playing them, building them, fighting them - just plain straight HATE 'em. But the problem is that in this game non-casters DON'T GET NICE THINGS - and for some reason everybody seems to be okay with that. It's unclear to me whether it has something to do with most folks making ineffective and weak casters (focusing on direct damage spells and other non-Aoo, non-save or lose, non-battlefield control spells) or that the fantasy gaming community, as a whole, has accepted the idea that fighters swing swords and wizards ALTER THE FABRIC OF REALITY.

Can you see the imbalance there?

Anyhoo, this is the same argument I make for ToB. Most folks who don't like ToB quibble with two things: 1) a misguided perception of too much power and/or 2) the argument that "if you can do it all day, it's borked." Neither of these arguments hold up under close scrutiny, of course - the abilities of a 20th level Tome character don't measure up to those of a well-built 20th level caster, and "at-will abilities" sounds great until you realize that 99.9% of them are single-target, require an attack roll, and often allow a save. With the same standard action it takes a Tome of Battle character to fire off a 9th level maneuver and take a single enemy down, a caster can eliminate an entire squadron. Tome characters NEED to have at-will abilities; without them, they'd be STUCK.

So my bottom line as a DM has been the following: take an LA if you want to - go for it! Enjoy the hell out of your freaky-deeky melee monsters. You're not even CLOSE to being overpowered - hell, a 1st level color spray will take you out all the way to ECL 5, and by that time casters have 3rd level spells - you're just not in the same league. But if that's your playstyle and it makes you happy, go to town - it doesn't break, bend, or even mildly unbalance the game.

Systematically, little to nothing changes.

In terms of fun, it can make someone's day.

To me, that's just the definition of "role" playing. ;)

145
The PBMC Metacompendium / Flavor is Mutable
« on: March 22, 2018, 02:00:04 PM »
Quote
Flavor is entirely mutable.

I just made a Factotum build that perfectly did what a person wanted Bruce Lee to be. Better than a Monk. Did the flavor get in the way? HELL no. He heals with his hands? Knowledge of ki and power points. He can add Int mod to AC? Extreme kung-fu speed and reaction time. Punches harder and faster using Cunning Surge and Cunning Knowledge? Well then, hits like a truck due to kung-fu training. Has Autohypnosis? Mentally focused and trained in shrugging off effects. Adds Int mod to Str and Dex based skills? Super-athlete, capable of pulling off Hong-Kong action flick feats of the physical.

FUNCTION DEFINES FLAVOR.

A character is not the sum of other people's assumptions about what he SHOULD be, but exists in the game SOLELY in TWO DIMENSIONS:

What he is capable of doing, and
what you decide his backstory, character, and flavor are.

...

Flavor is only what you make it. Classes that impose flavor restrictions on characters, though they can have decent abilities, are, in my opinion, rather obnoxious; pre-requisites like feats and skill ranks make sense, but random flavor-stuff is exactly what the DM and players are there to figure out. I think flavor restrictions for play are designed to do one thing and one thing only: help those who can't write stories without having someone lead them by the nose. Why should the Barbarian have to be uncivilized? Maybe he's a brutal street-fighter who learned to enter a fierce fury in tavern brawls and pit-fights! Why should you have to be a member of some sort of society to get into a PrC - couldn't a rogue member of that society have trained you? Hell, couldn't you just figure out a way to develop those skills on your own - somebody had to in order to create the damn class, didn't he?
You seem to be missing a big part of what I'm saying. I mentioned specifically that such a reconciliation is possible. I believe wholeheartedly in the ability to find common ground between disparate classes and build on it towards some final end. HOWEVER, such a feat requires, as you yourself mentioned, imagination and planning, areas in which not all players are as skilled as you might be.

Look, of all the dozens of players I've gamed with, almost none have ever attempted to radically alter a class's flavour text. Beginner players almost invariably look at the class list, look at the race list, look at the alignment list, and choose a combination that sounds good. Intermediate players tend to play around with the concepts more, multiclass more freely, and challenge cliches by having police detective rogues, ranged-specialist barbarians, and other combinations that, while counterintuitive to the beginner, are still within the range of flavour given in the class itself. It's only expert players who ever really break down the given flavour and reshape it to their whim. And while I applaud you for getting to that point, I believe you are in the minority, and that most players simply don't have that comfort level. If they level up at Psychic Warrior, to them that means their new powers are psychic in nature. And while that's not strictly necessary, I've never yet gamed with a player who challenges that. You're talking what's possible for an expert player to do; I'm talking about what actual casual players do on a regular basis.
But this isn't about making PLAYERS comfortable - it's about DMs.

If you want to cobble together an interesting character concept out of a bunch of different classes, there shouldn't be anything flavor-wise stopping you - you just have to make sure the character HAS a flavor that encompasses all of his abilities! Your argument was that if flavor doesn't fit then you understand the DM's hesitation - but that's completely unreasonable if the player is providing an inclusive, sensible flavor (a la my examples).

In other words, punishing an imaginative player who wants to make a creative, effective build that does some unique things by NOT allowing him to make his own flavor for his abilities is not only WRONG, it violates one of the prime imperatives of gaming: to have FUN. If a player is only choosing classes, feats, and abilities for mechanical benefit, ignoring their flavor restrictions, there should be no problem - ESPECIALLY if that player has done the thoughtful, careful, STORY-ORIENTED and ROLE-PLAYING work of figuring out a unifying theme for his character's abilities!

Ergo, your counter-argument did not support your original contention.
You originally suggested that mis-matched flavors could disrupt suspension of disbelief.
I countered that you could create a flavor for a character that could unite any number of disparate abilities under a coherent, creative design.
You replied by suggesting that many players could not do so, and that only "experts" had the imagination to create detailed, inclusive backstories for their PCs.
Argument 3 has nothing to do with Argument 1.


You seem to be seeing what I'm saying in black-and-white terms. You're right, I suggested that mis-matched flavours could disrupt suspension of disbelieve. You quite correctly pointed out that mis-matched flavours do not necessarily violate suspension of disbelief, if done well. I replied saying that I agreed, but repeating my original contention, which I'll restate thusly: "Powergaming can, in at least some instances, come at the cost of roleplaying". Or, closer to what I said in my second post: "elaborate powergaming requires elaborate justification." An Orc Barbarian who hits things until they fall over requires no special creative gift to play, an Orc Barbarian/Fighter/Rogue requires only slightly more, while many of the examples both of us have brought up do require a significant degree of creativity. If that creativity is lacking, then verisimilitude and believability suffers.

One of the points I made in my second post was that, from personal experience, the average player rarely has the comfort level to be that creative in redefining flavour. You mention seeing a Shapeshifter Druid as potentially a new form of martial arts, and I applaud you for that, but please realize that when your average player sees "Druid" on the paper, they assume the powers come from nature, and often would have difficulty making that mental leap that you make so effortlessly. If they can, great, and I encourage them to play that way. But if they can't, I believe they should stick to more conventional options.
I agree that using flavor to define function is easier for new players and DMs. My point is that, logically speaking, flavor CANNOT define function unless the game is built that way. It's not. Swordsages are better ninjas than Ninjas. Crusaders and Warblades are better Paladins and Fighters than Paladins and Fighters. My problem is with people - DMs and players - who force flavor onto function.

Here's an example thread.

That's kind of an extreme example, but not really understanding the rules or being creative enough to read past flavor isn't a good reason to limit others - it's a good reason to rely on flavor yourself, though.

... Limiting others due to something non-rules based (flavor, not function) is illogical. ... Limitations by the DM based solely on flavor feel, to me, as though they're based on inherently flawed logic:

"This has title A, so therefore it must function as A."
"Hmmm - it doesn't seem to be doing what A should . . . but since it's still CALLED A I guess I can't complain!"
"What's that? You want to build A? Okay, here's A! . . . What do you mean, it doesn't do what A should do. No, you can't play C and call it A - it's C! Well, yes, it may do everything A SHOULD do - and better - but hell, it's C, dammit!"

.... Nothing sucks more than seeing your Fighter run into combat and routinely get hacked to shreds because he:

gets hit easily and can't defend himself;
can't get inside monsters' reach;
gets grappled all the time;
can't deal squat for damage;

146
The PBMC Metacompendium / On the Fly Rulings
« on: March 22, 2018, 01:57:23 PM »
Quote
The reason I was going to play a DFA was that I was asked to by a number of fellow players. Personally, I had several other characters in mind, but there was enough clamor for a DFA that I gave in. I was going to play this character, however, in an INCREDIBLY high-powered game; as a result, I had to design carefully so that the DFA, though weak, could at least KEEP UP with the full casters. I designed a character that was completely legal and sensible; you ruled him out on a whim ("I don't think a Dragonwrought kobold SHOULD be able to be Dragonborn, even though they are, within the rules, able to be"). He would not work even HALF as well without the Dragonborn template, and would have been, in that group, a lame duck.

I could have made a different character, true. But in general I find that if a DM makes a ruling like yours (one that is, in essence, a house rule that affects ONLY one character and does so not to prevent extreme power but rather due to a personal image preference), chances are more such rulings may follow.

Example:

I was in a game with NineInchNall from the CO boards. He was playing a Psion who used Metamorphosis to shift into a Stiched Devil (for fun with clawing and rending). The first time he did so, the DM told him the act of turning into a devil was "evil" and that his alignment would change if he persisted. He also told NiN that the occupants of Waterdeep, one of the most magically active cities in the heavily magical world of Faerun, would assume that he was a devil who had assumed human form (rather than being able, with time and interaction, to be persuaded that he was merely using his power to assume that form for combat).

He left the game.

Sure, he could have turned into a Dwarven Ancestor instead. The point he made to me, however, was that if the DM was the kind who would, on the fly, make up completely new rules that changed or limited his character (which he had, as I did for archrpwr, explained in detail before play), that he wouldn't be able to enjoy the game.

Part of enjoying the game for a CO type is knowing the rules and playing by them. Sure, I'm okay with a DM occasionally saying "Nah, you can't do that because it would wreck what I'm trying to set up" - that's collective story-telling in action. I am, however, most certainly NOT okay with a DM who breaks the rules or changes them because, when something is brought up, he or she "just doesn't like it."

As a CO player, I like the rules. I enjoy playing by them. I enjoy knowing them, using them to my advantage, and even the sense of "gotcha!" when a DM uses them to get me back. Part of my enjoyment of the game is based on an UNDERSTANDING of the game. If I cannot understand the game anymore because the rules keep changing to suit a DM's whim (not to preserve balance or ensure that everyone has fun AND without consideration for the players), then I might as well be playing Calvinball.

If I'm willing to change the flavor but need the function of a given template or rule, why on earth would you prevent me from using it? If it's not something game-breaking or earth-shattering, how does it hurt you, as a DM?

It doesn't. All it does is remove some fun from the game for me. And if a DM is not willing to work with his or her players to make the game more fun for everybody, chances are that game will not be a fun one

147
The PBMC Metacompendium / Oberoni (Rule 0) Fallacy
« on: March 22, 2018, 01:55:09 PM »
Originally posted by Oberoni on the (now dead, WotC) D&D general board July 23, 2002:

Quote
This my my take on the issue
Let’s say Bob the board member makes the assertion:

-“There is an inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X.”Several correct replies can be given:
-“I agree, there is an inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X.”
-“I agree, and it is easily solvable by changing the following part of Rule X.”
-“I disagree, you’ve merely misinterpreted part of Rule X. If you reread this part of Rule X, you will see there is no inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue.”

Okay, I hope you’re with me so far.
There is, however, an incorrect reply:

-“There is no inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X, because you can always Rule 0 the inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue.“

Now, this incorrect reply does not in truth agree with or dispute the original statement in any way, shape, or form.

It actually contradicts itself–the first part of the statement says there is no problem, while the last part proposes a generic fix to the “non-problem.”
It doesn’t follow the rules of debate and discussion, and thus should never be used.
Simple enough.

So for clarity the summary statement is:

It is a fallacy to state that: “There is no inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X, because you can always Rule 0 the inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue.“

148
The PBMC Metacompendium / Re: Subforum Readme
« on: March 22, 2018, 01:43:18 PM »
bumped for sticky ordering

149
The PBMC Metacompendium / Re: Subforum Responces
« on: March 22, 2018, 01:41:59 PM »
I'll start with the first question: do you guys care if the readme is the button sticky or the Table of Contents (I can change it with bumps)? This thread is going to be on top due to how the forum orders bumped threads.

150
The PBMC Metacompendium / Subforum Responces
« on: March 22, 2018, 01:25:45 PM »
Posting in this centralized response thread is easy and desired!

Step 0) Leave a tab with this thread up.
Step 1) Go read the other threads to find something you want to respond to, starting with the stickied Table Of Contents (or this one, if you're really thorough).
Step 2) Once that knee-jerk "must respond" urge hits, click the quote button on whatever thread, like normal.
Step 3) Highlight and cut the quotes you want to respond to. Now you have empty white space that you can't post. This is good, because it stops you from bumping resource threads so people can just see what's new by looking at the thread order.
Step 4) Come back to this thread, and click reply here!
Step 5) Paste that quote so everyone sees what you are talking about, specifically.
Step 6) Type your fervored response out. The more impulsive the better.
Step 7) Who needs to reread from grammar, anyway?
Step 8) Slam down a click on that "Post" button.

And yes, if you post in a thread besides this one, I will reply by just quoting this entire post, maybe with a "see the sticky" line in there somewhere.

151
The PBMC Metacompendium / Re: Subforum Table of Contents
« on: March 22, 2018, 01:02:17 PM »
I would say this post is reserved, but it's not really. Go post in my centralized response thread, please. Just cut what you get when you hit the quote button, and paste it over there after you hit reply.

Halfway done with the fixes (yes the caster nerfs are 50+% of the total entries). 15 pages of fixes should be complete when I spend another twelve hours on this. And then the 3 browsers full of tabs. Then the other threads & posts. Then the folder of amassed D&D stuff. Oy.
      

Firing back up the engines #2:
It's been a month since I was told "I should stop caring so much" about this. I figured a month was a nice example of how I've still got the freight train stopped. It's still easy to hop off, for me.

Firing back up the engines #1:
Aaand test thread deleted. Getting shit on before I even start... So much for a light mood. And a migraine to boot. During the few hour wait, queue 30 posts of "THIS IS ALL YOU GOT?". Despite 600 files in the fixes section of what was already released... So I figured I'd start it off myself.

Actually that makes me want to purposely plop in all the non-metacompendium stuff first so to see how vulgar and over the top the responses get. Thanks for the demotivation osl

152
The PBMC Metacompendium / Re: Subforum Table of Contents
« on: March 22, 2018, 01:01:12 PM »
Lastly here are quotes and unposted builds of mine (that I guess I'll slowly move to separate threads):


153
The PBMC Metacompendium / Re: Subforum Table of Contents
« on: March 22, 2018, 12:58:01 PM »
Full-text reproductions of copyrighted material are of course not available here, nor am I also not going to be rehosting all the WotC crunch webpages, nor am I going to try to host my copies of all the useful Handbooks already housed here.

So outside the metacompendium, here is an index of my useful threads:


154
The PBMC Metacompendium / Re: Subforum Table of Contents
« on: March 22, 2018, 12:53:17 PM »
Resources Index

Attack Things:

Caster Lists:
Spellcasting Requirements

Class Handbooks:

Class Indexes:

Empty Files:

Feat Things:

Form Changing:

GP Things:

Initiative:

Miscellaneous:

Noncaster Lists:

Other Handbooks:

Miscellaneous Indexes:

PrC Stuff:

Prereqs:

Race things:

Rolling:

Source Things:

Template things:

XP Things:

155
It's a trap! You need to dispel buffs up to the RAI max of 40CL. But the dispel check is really hard to get there even when casting the dispel yourself. Items just don't get enough benefits.

tl;dr No. Casters still rule, mundanes still drool.

156
That would be fun to watch. Succubus versus Erinyes would be even better.
Mud is required.

D&D has always be very meh on afterlife stuff. Just ignore all of it and assign mortals based off alignment.

157
D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder / Re: moving spells from School A to School B
« on: February 21, 2018, 12:38:16 PM »
A stickler DM will say, "Sure you treat it as a transmutation, but its still a divination spell or whatever. So you can't share it as a transmutation. After all its still a divination spell. You just get to pretend it isn't because you have a class feature doing a man-in-the-middle attack on it. You haven't actually altered the spell."

This line of thought also instantly fixes erudites et al gaining all teh spellz.

158
D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder / Re: "Feats are nice but should not be necessary."
« on: February 21, 2018, 12:34:38 PM »
Feats should not be needed for basic mechanical function. And for everything above t4, that's true.
Let's reverse this. Tier 3 and up should require feats to function. Tier 4 and below shouldn't. You want more power? Build harder. That's fair.

But also everyone should know off the top of their head a few feats to pick up when chosing their characters. Druids? Natural spell.  Psions? Overchannel. Totemist? Split Chakra. Paladin? Serenity. Monk? SUAS. The problem isn't just that lower tiers have too many feat taxes (they do, see my Free Feats thread) but that higher tiers have too many ways to get around having to take feats because their class features are superior right out of the gate. For instance rangers need those +3 levels to their animal companion, but druids don't really because they have better advancement. Wizards don't have to take Eschew Materials because of a broken core item.

It gets even worse when lower tier classes want to take feats, but they only work on higher tier versions. See overchannel for Wilder vs Psion.

159
You Break it You Buy it / Re: Breaking the Dungeon
« on: February 21, 2018, 03:26:05 AM »
I'm suddenly thinking of that one giant walking construct dungeon in Final Fantasy 4.
Final Fantasy IV had the Giant of Bab-il (SNES American translation).
And it was basically a planet-attacking monstrosity requiring multiple kingdom's of high tech armies to check it before you to infiltrate. It's basically an elder evil, but old school.

That Mogo picture makes me wonder if he had an evil counterpart? Like Atropus, the elder evil. I wonder if we could reverse-engineer the actual atropus stats from the aspect stats. The little (gargantuan) aspect has 58 strength... The real deal is 700miles in diameter.

Hmm. reverse engineering the "aspect" template via FCI web enh:
(click to show/hide)

Reversing that is tricky since applying the pseudo template removes information similar to derivatives. So when we integrate back the original (x^1 +C -> x^0+0), it won't be exact. Still it's close enough if you assume the original to not have absurd starting values in the grey area. Here's the real Atropus' stats:
(click to show/hide)
It also has low gravity, can eat you, and has a non-impulse engines speed of 40,000 ft (2,438 m/s)

160
You Break it You Buy it / Re: Non-Evil, Non-Leadership Massive Stat Cheese
« on: February 21, 2018, 12:05:57 AM »
So does the boards allow anonymous posts now? If so, that's cool aside from spambots. The "guest" title was what caught my eye.

My question is, how does your DM intend on challenging your party (without instant TPKing, atleast)? Just your action economy alone, would make 1 round of combat a nightmare.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... 99