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 - Kaelik

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10
1
D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder / Re: Is Warlock broken?
« on: September 23, 2016, 10:38:03 AM »
If your dungeons are trivialized by short range teleports, then your dungeons are the problem, not short range teleports. If you don't know the layout, short range teleports can't trivialize anything but "Here is a special locked door made of force that can never be broken or opened without the green key" which is just terrible design anyway. If they do know the layout, then teleports can maybe do slightly more, but they had to do something to get the layout, and even with the layout you can build your dungeon to not be trivialized just by having thick walls in some locations.

2
D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder / Re: Is Warlock broken?
« on: September 20, 2016, 04:14:39 PM »
Boy it sure is fun to read internet blowhards claim that one philosophical method of text interpretation is the only possible one and that other versions don't exist.

3
D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder / Re: Is Warlock broken?
« on: September 18, 2016, 09:40:26 PM »
Quote from: Maelphaxerazz on September 18, 2016, 09:22:59 PM
As for Nausea: I'm surprised that this one is your favourite, since it is plenty obvious that Freedom of Movement does not cure nausea. That would be silly.

And it was so obvious that if you never read the FAQ you would never for even a moment think that it cures Nausea. But then if you read the FAQ, the FAQ says "While stun taking away actions totally counts as 'magic that usually impedes movement' because taking away actions impedes movement, it's Mental magic that impedes movement so FoM doesn't stop it. But hey, if there were any physical magical that impeded movement by taking away actions, FoM should totally negate that!" so yeah, then suddenly, if you follow the (absolutely god fucking awful) FAQ FoM advice, Nausea is cured by FoM.

Almost like spouting things out of your ass without an editing process produces bad results.

4
D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder / Re: Is Warlock broken?
« on: September 18, 2016, 08:40:45 PM »
Quote from: Maelphaxerazz on September 18, 2016, 08:02:10 PM
And to Kaelik: this is a case of specific trumps general, within a single spell. It says that the person affected by Hold Person
1. is paralized,
2. cannot take any actions
3. may take another saving throw as a full-round action each round on his turn
So, the specific that he may take this full-round action trumps the general that he cannot take any actions. So, a person affected by Hold Person may take that full-round action and no other action whatsoever. And that's all within the spell text, no external sources required.

That is one of the many ways you can argue it should be read, but that also isn't what the FAQ says. So does the FAQ answer to a question about Freedom of Movement and Stun more specifically answer the question of what Hold Person does than the Hold Person spell says? Do you see why I brought up Hold Person as an example of how SorO's claim that "any debate about the rules is always ignoring the rules" is basically nonsense?

(Personally I would point out that "you can take no actions" does not contradict "if you take this action, you can remove the effect" whatsoever, so your ruling itself is based on declaring a contradiction that doesn't exist, and then picking the thing that you want as the more specific thing.)

Quote from: Maelphaxerazz on September 18, 2016, 08:02:10 PM
As for physical vs mental, that is not such an arduous task. Stun says you can't take any actions: unlike paralysis, which says you can take purely mental actions. That you cannot take mental actions shows that it is not a purely physical impediment. So, the author's use of Hold Person is apt: Hold Person and the Stunned condition both prevent you from taking any actions, physical or mental, and so are beyond Freedom of Movement's ability to help.

Making up whatever you want to justify the statements made by the two things mentioned in the FAQ entry isn't much work, but that's not what you have to do. What he recommends is specifically that you make up that distinction, and apply it to literally every effect in the entire game going forward. So right off the bat, you now have to decide what all of these are: http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/conditions.htm A particular favorite of mine is Nausea. Is that physical or mental, and is Freedom of Movement curing Nausea what the Sage was actually thinking about, or did he just make up a bullshit distinction in reference to stun with no possible idea what all the effects of his distinction are going to be?

Then do the same thing again to every spell that imposes a condition that isn't on that list, then do it again for every monster ability that isn't on that list. Man, this sure is a lot of work when it would have made a lot more sense to just say "Freedom of Movement doesn't allow you to take actions when you otherwise can't (And also prevents being Held by the Hold Person spell, which by the way, we totally incorporated into the 3.5 FAQ in the header which specifically says that FoM prevents being Held by the Hold Person spell)." But the reason they didn't say that is because one guy was spitballing some nonsense without thinking it through and no one ever read it and told him to think harder until after it was published.

5
D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder / Re: Is Warlock broken?
« on: September 18, 2016, 07:26:24 PM »
Quote from: Maelphaxerazz on September 18, 2016, 05:32:59 PM
To Kaelik: the FAQ was written by people who work for WotC, and were among those people who inputted in the creation of the rulebooks. Thus their additions are an extension of that same many-people process: it isn't that the FAQ is made by one and the books were made by many, it is that the FAQ is further work in the same line as the rulebooks.

If you just make up nonsense lies and declare them to be true, sure all that can be true. But back here in reality, I was making a factual statement about how the FAQ is produced. It's written by one guy with no editor, and when it's wrong, no one ever corrects (except sometimes that one guy, or the new single guy when he takes over) because why bother because it's just the FAQ. There is no quality control process, and the fact that one times Andy Collins wrote something dumb in the FAQ does not mean that a bunch of editors signed off on that, because they factually didn't read it.

Quote from: Maelphaxerazz on September 18, 2016, 05:32:59 PM
The idea that it has no person looking over their shoulder is nonsense: the FAQ gets read by thousands, and had updates: if it really did contradict what the editors wanted, the editors would say so. The Freedom of Movement example is a good one: Freedom of Movement is, in fact, too broad and unclear in its intent, and clarifying that it does not affect [mind-affecting] spells or petrification is a good improvement to the game. If your hang-up is over the segment "not spells that stop you from taking any action, as hold person does", on page 82, then your hang-up should not be with the FAQ but with the SRD, which says, and I quote:
Quote from: SRD, Hold Person spell description
The subject becomes paralyzed and freezes in place. It is aware and breathes normally but cannot take any actions, even speech.

You clearly didn't do a good job reading that entry. He was asked if stun is blocked by Freedom of Movement, and he said that it was just like Hold Person as a mental thing, since like, 99.999% of stuns are not mind affecting, that means it is now your job as a DM, as the FAQ writers have informed you, to invent a "mental vs physical" distinction that doesn't exist anywhere in the rules and doesn't have anything to do with Mind Affecting tags, and then classify everything in the game into one or the other.

That's crazy talk. Now, you can totally just write "Freedom of Movement lets your actions not be impeded, but doesn't give you actions when you wouldn't have them" and that would be a great thing to say, and hey, it would even work correctly with how one of the specifically named FoM effects is Paralysis immunity.

Now, as to Hold Person, Hold Person does say "1) You are Paralyzed. 2) You can't take actions." but also, in the very last sentence that apparently you didn't read, and the FAQ reader also obviously didn't read, it defines the action of taking a new saving throw as a full round action. Now, without any FAQ addressing it, you can argue lots of things, and it's clearly not perfect, and you can even argue that it should be addressed in the FAQ. But if it was, I want it to be addressed by a question about Hold Person, not by a guy fishing through his memory for "mental effects" that Freedom of Movement can't prevent (Even though, damn, you'd think a spell called Hold Person that specifically references Paralysis, a condition that Freedom of Movement specifically says it bypasses would be something you would want Freedom of Movement to cover. In Fact, the 3.0 FAQ specifically calls out "Held" as something that FoM negates.) WHO CLEARLY DIDN'T EVEN READ THE ENTIRE SPELL ENTRY! It says in the spell that you have to take actions to get the saving throw, so if you can't take actions, then you can't make that saving throw. Is that an intentional buff to Hold Person to completely negate the one and only change from 3.0 to 3.5 intentionally? Or is it just that some guy didn't even read the entire spell and just answered after reading two sentences a question that had nothing to do with Hold Person, using Hold Person as an example, and somehow magically cannonized that 3.5 Hold Person doesn't give you a new save?

6
D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder / Re: Is Warlock broken?
« on: September 18, 2016, 04:44:16 PM »
Quote from: Maelphaxerazz on September 18, 2016, 04:29:37 PM
I think I need some historical context. Is there any particular reason to ignore the FAQ? I don't mean "are there builds that ignore the FAQ or groups that ignore the FAQ," since I am sure there are, but unless somebody at WotC outright said that the FAQ should be ignored, then it shouldn't be. Because if the FAQ was not meant to be used, then why on Earth would Wizards of the Coast even write it?

Do you want to know why you should "ignore" the FAQ? (By which I mean, recognize that they are not official rules and only implement their suggestions as they deviate from the rules if they are good, just like every other houserule.)

Because the book sections are written by one person (usually) then reviewed and talked about by multiple people, then edited by other people, then go to publishing. Where the FAQ answers are written by one person with no editor but themselves and no one else looking over their shoulder and the published in the FAQ.

So unsurprisingly, the lower quality assurance produces shittier results in many circumstances, that's a great reason to recognize that they aren't rules.

So when one guy who didn't even write the spell in question answers a question about Freedom of Movement that contradicts the text of both Freedom of Movement and Hold Person, you should only implement that as a rule if it actually improves the game (Spoiler, it doesn't).

7
D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder / Re: Is Warlock broken?
« on: September 18, 2016, 02:02:57 PM »
Wait, I love how his argument is that the FAQ is rules because it's on the site with other Rules like the "Rules of the Game" articles.  :twitch  :twitch  :lmao

SorO, do you think the Rules of the Game articles are rules? Are they more specific and thus override general rules for, as an example, polymorph?

8
D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder / Re: Is Warlock broken?
« on: September 18, 2016, 12:29:13 PM »
Quote from: eggynack on September 18, 2016, 12:00:18 PM
Quote from: Kaelik on September 18, 2016, 11:34:39 AM
He thinks the FAQ are specific rules. So he thinks the line "more specific rule takes precedence when applied to the same activity." means that the FAQ always overrides all other rules.

When other people point out that the entire contentious point is that he has no evidence the FAQ are rules in the first place, that's when he resorts to insulting people because he has no argument.

Maybe. That's not all that far away from what I thought his stance was, but I'd like to hear his statement of his position, because we're dealing so much here with claimed misstatements of stance.

As for the claim that communication involves two people, that's true up to a point, but I think a lot more of the onus is on the communicator to be clear than on the listener to pick out meaning. While everyone in a conversation has incentive to understand what everyone else is saying, such that they get the discussion closer to truth, the person communicating their points has the greatest vested interest in those points being understood. To put it simply, if you don't care enough about what you're saying to say it with proper and unambiguous language, then why would you expect others to care enough about what you're saying to take the time to unscramble your language? I don't see why you wouldn't want to give yourself the best modifier possible when trying to be understood.

Don't get me wrong, his problems are all on him. I couldn't possibly have told you that was his stance with any certainty when he first made it, partially because he wrote a pile of gobblygook masquerading as words, and partially because it's an argument that completely ignores the primary complaint against his position, and why would anyone even bother to write that? I can only be sure because of his subsequent posts yelling about how everyone is a bad meany who lies about what he says that occasionally slightly narrow down his point by accident.

9
D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder / Re: Is Warlock broken?
« on: September 18, 2016, 11:34:39 AM »
Quote from: eggynack on September 18, 2016, 11:18:00 AM
How? Clarify for me.

He thinks the FAQ are specific rules. So he thinks the line "more specific rule takes precedence when applied to the same activity." means that the FAQ always overrides all other rules.

When other people point out that the entire contentious point is that he has no evidence the FAQ are rules in the first place, that's when he resorts to insulting people because he has no argument.

I still want to know whether he thinks Hold Person takes away a person's actions. Since no one could ever find any rule debatable, this should be really easy for him. I can't wait to find out which is more specific, the FAQ entry on Freedom of Movement, the first sentence of hold person, the second sentence of hold person, or the fourth sentence of hold person. Obviously since this isn't debatable at all because the there is no such thing as debatable rules, this should be easy, and whatever answer he gives definitely won't contradict his previous claims.

10
D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder / Re: Is Warlock broken?
« on: September 17, 2016, 06:02:32 PM »
I just want to know whether he thinks Hold Person takes away your actions.

11
D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder / Re: Is Warlock broken?
« on: September 17, 2016, 05:23:48 PM »
Quote from: SorO_Lost on September 17, 2016, 03:12:14 PM
Quote from: Kaelik on September 17, 2016, 10:27:45 AM
Still being that mature, not foul mouthed, never ad hominem user who doesn't carry baggage around into threads I see.
Still not seeing any rebuttals, just more ad hominem.

How am I supposed to rebut anything when you don't make any arguments? I made an argument, you refused to address it in any way and went on a long screed about how everyone but you is an asshole. I can't help it that every insult you leveled at anyone else clearly fits you better, just as soon as you present any argument at all I'll rebut it.

12
D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder / Re: Is Warlock broken?
« on: September 17, 2016, 10:27:45 AM »
Quote from: SorO_Lost on September 17, 2016, 09:36:27 AM
Just because you got two of our biggest trolls to argue so you can squeeze some semantics through doesn't make your claim right and it sure doesn't mean you get to hold your head high like you won something. . . Certain posters here with a large number on the left hand side have a very deep rooted personal and never-justified bias concerning the FAQ creates an undertone of uncertainty that prompts newer members to ask relativity simply questions that the official rule base has already taken the time out to clarify rather than getting into the better practice of quick checking a select few key sources. But out of them, you're the only one to jump into every single thread you can to bash the FAQ every single time it comes up. . . And perhaps you've never raised a kid, never jailed an inmate, dealt with a fucking moron, or dealt with a guy named Linklord on the MMX boards. But if you introduce the precedent that if you do not like a part of the rules, be it because it wasn't sold for $29.99 at Borders or because there is an uncitable section you disagree with, you can simply ignore it then the fall it leads to the other end of the spectrum with people like Eggy and Kealik who just argue every thing they can because if you can ignore something for year and get away with it then they can too. . . But instead you had to jump in here and push your bullshit onto them which brought the bandwagon of morons behind me which includes one very foul mouthed individual who inarguable disgraces every thread he touches. And the other, even after something is explained to him three or four times he still can't grasp the concept (srsly post #13 he thinks I'm saying the FAQ replaces the RC, I don't even know how the hell you could get to that point but he did). . . I could, and probably will, beat your ass in yet another FAQ thread if you like and you can go crying home to your mama bitter for the rest of your life if that's really what you want. But you need to stop carrying your disgusting baggage into threads. . . Grow the hell up, it's time to move on.

Still being that mature, not foul mouthed, never ad hominem user who doesn't carry baggage around into threads I see.

13
D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder / Re: Is Warlock broken?
« on: September 17, 2016, 01:47:48 AM »
Quote from: SorO_Lost on September 16, 2016, 04:11:14 PM
The FAQ is inherently part of the rules structure and the rule priority it has, trumping even the original entries, while implied is even more important directly called out through it's entries being specific rulings of interactions was granted to it by the Rules Compendium.

You know what it means when someone says something is "inherently X" it means they have no evidence that it is X. For example,  you claim that the RC directly calls out the FAQ, except for that thing where it totally doesn't. The FAQ aren't rules. The FAQ specifically says it's not rules. Citing a way of interpreting rules does not magically turn not rules into rules. If I write down a specific exception of a napkin, or ask Monte Cook a specific question, those are more specific than FAQs, but they don't supersede actual rules or FAQs, because they are less authoritative.

Quote from: SorO_Lost on September 16, 2016, 04:11:14 PM
calling any ruling debatable is ignoring the RC.

Yeah no, as a lawyer, trust me, all fucking kinds of things are debatable. For starters you can always argue that X and Y don't contradict, so it doesn't even matter which is more specific or general or supersedes or whatever.

Quote from: SorO_Lost on September 16, 2016, 04:11:14 PM
Here, have a wonderful comment by a former D&D 3.5 writer who worked on the MM3, SpC, Explorer's Handbook & Dungeonscape.
Quote from: Richard Burlew
But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?

The part where you are confused is that you assume that assuming the FAQ is special magical rules text that supersedes the actual rules of the game makes the game better. Read the FAQ entry for Freedom of Movement sometime. That shit is just terrible.

Ignoring the FAQ isn't something anyone actually does at all, much less to create problems, but we do recognize the FAQ isn't rules text to avoid the problems created by listen to some random asshole mash the keyboard and output garbage that actually contradicts the rules, and makes the game worse. When the FAQ is useful and outputs good results, no one has any problem just houseruling any change it makes. Or if it doesn't contradict the rules, then we can take the advice. But last I checked, Freedom of Movement does not require me to make up new classifications for all abilities and then apply those, and I'm glad it doesn't, and I'll make whatever assumptions I have to in order to avoid having to do that, because that is straight fucking nonsense.

I like Freedom of Movement preventing Paralysis, like it says it does, and I like Paralyzed creatures to be able to cast SLAs and component less spells like the rules say they can. And I really don't think having to change those because someone suggested that maybe paralysis actually takes away all your actions is a thing without reading the actual rules for paralysis because he was just making up an example to Freedom of Movement about a question that asked about stun.

Quote from: SorO_Lost on September 16, 2016, 04:11:14 PM
I promise you, if you can just take that to heart it'll work like a magical key to everything in life. It is one of the easy buttons for life. And yes I said life, not just your ability to debate a forum post solely using ad hominian attacks with no contrary evidence, but it'll actually make your sad life a lot better too.

The weirdest part is that you actually believe I'm the immature one who argues by way of ad hominem.

14
D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder / Re: Is Warlock broken?
« on: September 16, 2016, 12:14:20 PM »
Quote from: SorO_Lost on September 16, 2016, 11:31:41 AM
Quote from: linklord231 on September 16, 2016, 05:31:41 AM
While the question "does the FAQ supersede the books" is still debated
And here is that "debate" in a nut shell.
Quote from: RC
When a preexisting core book or supplement differs with the rules herein, Rules Compendium is meant to take precedence. ...
The D&D game assumes a specific order of rules application: General to specific to exception. A general rule is a basic guideline, but a more specific rule takes precedence when applied to the same activity.
vs
"But if I ignore rules text, quote out of context, commit a couple other logical fallacies, built the wrong idea, probably contradict my self at some point, and lull even dumber people into supporting my position, that doesn't mean I'm not right." See also Link calling it debatable because just to simply get that far you have to ignore the Rules Compendium and FAQ.

What the fuck are you smoking? You just quoted a Rules Compendium rule that literally never even mentions the FAQ as apparently support for the FAQ being somehow able to contradict the rules?

You get that when people say the FAQ can't contradict the rules, they are citing the actual FAQ for that proposition right?

No one is ignoring the Rules Compendium to get to the point of the debate where they disagree with an FAQ ruling.

15
D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder / Re: alt Tiers definition (?)
« on: September 15, 2016, 02:41:39 PM »
Quote from: eggynack on September 14, 2016, 03:22:08 PM
I'm not talking about encounters ill suited to one character's strengths. I'm talking about an encounter where the rogue would have a solid success chance, because the encounter was designed roughly around the rogue's power level, and the
wizard trivializes it through the massive power of casting. Or, conversely, an encounter designed around the wizard that trivializes the rogue. This isn't a matter of specialization, because the wizard has far far more ways to make that happen than the rogue does.

This is the Classic Tier fallacy in a not completely distilled form (The Distilled Form is Sorcerers). The fact that theoretically some Wizard might use Planar Binding Cheese is not relevant if the Wizard in question isn't using it. Classes are not in fact the potential to break the game in X ways. Classes are structures on which you build a character, if you build literally any fucking Wizard that you would expect to be allowed to play by a DM who was going to use the CR system to present opposition, then you would have to build a Wizard who doesn't Planar Binding Cheese/Dominate and instead does literally anything else, at which point, he works with the Rogue in the party, not against him.

Quote from: eggynack on September 14, 2016, 03:22:08 PM
That's a particularly bad comparison for the archivist, because the only cleric/druid archivist is going to wind up a bit worse at either the cleric or druid at their own shtick. Not that much worse, because they can scribe from their party members, but somewhat so. However, if you instead assume a party with only a wizard, or just without a divine caster, then the archivist may in fact be a better choice than either cleric or druid. You could get similar results to the ones you're claiming by comparing a wizard to an arbitrary other tier one in a party with wizards aplenty.

No, if you have a party of 3 Wizards, they 4th Wizard will always be as good as the other Wizards. It's the Archivists Fault that he is just a Worse version of the Cleric. But no, the comparison is not unfair, because it's literally the same comparison Tierers demand of the Beguiler the "THEY CAN'T GET EXTRA SPELLS! THAT'S CHEATING!" Comparison. If the Archivists do dumpsterdive, then yes, they can totally be worse Wizards instead of worse Clerics, but then the Beguiler can also add spells and be better Clerics instead.

Quote from: eggynack on September 14, 2016, 03:22:08 PM
It's not some personal opinion. It is objective fact that archivists have all the tools needed for spell acquisition natively available,  while beguilers do not. That divine scrolls exist in the world, specific ones at that, is a rule of the game.

HAHAHAHAHAHA! "It's objective fact that is just a rule of the game that Archivists can go find Warlocks to create Alternate Spell Source Trapsmith spells." Look, you know what is objectively a rule of the game? Taking feats and levels. The things that give Beguilers more spells. Those are native parts of all characters, and Beguilers get them too. The only difference is that Beguilers get more benefit than anyone else.

Quote from: eggynack on September 14, 2016, 03:22:08 PM
Complexity is the main metric I was talking about, as opposed to an absolute claim surrounding the game, so perhaps I misspoke in indicating a more general idea. And I think it's a pretty important metric. It doesn't tell other people what sort of character you have by any means, but it's not supposed to. It's more about what it's like to play a character, and how much thought and strategy go into it. I wasn't talking at all about total party make up there. That was relegated to the previous claim.

So again, you ignore that Dread Necromancer is more complex and requires more planning to play a character than any other character class, and that Beguiler is easily comparable to Clerics and Wizards, if not more complex. And yet we are supposed to believe that the Tier system is a great measure of the complexity of the classes. Even though Rogue and Barbarian are completely different.

So again, at the absolute best (and of course, you are still wrong) the Tiers say "Class X is more complex than Class Y."

Quote from: eggynack on September 14, 2016, 03:22:08 PM
The first claim I still contend is true.

Again, I can only laugh at the idea that Rogues should be in parties with Barbarians, where one is guaranteed to be the basic bitch while the other wins everything forever, instead of having a party with different talents.

Quote from: eggynack on September 14, 2016, 03:22:08 PM
I think also that a wizard is significantly more powerful than a rogue.

You are missing some words, specifically the ones where you say "except all the times they aren't which is most of the time."

16
D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder / Re: alt Tiers definition (?)
« on: September 14, 2016, 01:13:35 PM »
Quote from: eggynack on September 14, 2016, 10:26:57 AM
How is that misleading? A wizard is obviously incredibly useful to have around, but they can also trivialize an encounter that a rogue of equal level would be equipped to face. What are you even trying to say here? That a wizard won't sometimes invalidate the efforts of lower tier classes? Because I think they very much can do that, and at pretty moderate optimization levels at that.

I think literally none of the statements you make ever make sense at all because you seem to have literally no conception of equal application of standards. A Barbarian can trivialize encounters that a Rogue would not be equipped to face too. That's probably not even a bad thing to have different people have different strengths in the same party, but a Wizard and a Rogue in the same party is about how two people work together to complement each other with different strengths, where a Rogue/Barbarian is about how one is just better than the other (depending on build).

Sure you can claim that the Wizard Planar Binds 50 Glabrezu's to fight for him, but that's fine, because the Rogue just uses a staff of Holy Word ect. at Caster level 50.

Quote from: eggynack on September 14, 2016, 10:26:57 AM
Well, y'know, I just straight up disagree with your assessment of the archivist. The hoops you have to jump through for spell acquisition aren't that massive. You just have to know a caster of whatever variety you want the spell of, and have scribe scroll, which archivists do indeed have. Really straightforward stuff, especially for your more standard pool of cleric and druid spells. That any cleric or druid is going to have access to nearly all cleric and druid spells also means that you don't exactly need to be picky. And, if you're casting a broad subset of all cleric and druid spells that exist, particularly the best ones that exist, then you are a very powerful character, even if you can't pull out some super obscure crap.

But that's pretty close to worst-case, having to rely on found casters to get your spells working. In reality, based on the way finding magic items works, you can often just kinda, y'know, find scrolls. Like a wizard does. The thing about getting divine bard and trapsmith scrolls is great, sure. It really ups your power to be getting these spells at lower level. But it's not like those things are strictly necessary for your power. They're just nice to have. If you're only getting those cleric and druid spells, you're tier one already, and justifiably so, because those spell lists alone, hell, either spell list independently, is very much sufficient to get a huge edge over the beguiler list.

The difference between broader beguiler spell access and broader archivist spell access, incidentally, is that the archivist version is coming right from your class. This isn't some trick, as you implied. Everything you need to get a great spell list is right there in archivist, while beguiler needs to go book diving to get their power.

So let's see:

1) If an Archivist casts Cleric and Druid spells "but only the best ones!" aka the ones that he bothers to find scrolls of because his casting is objectively worse than Cleric and Druid casting, then he's a piece of shit next to the Wizard/Cleric/Druid and he's the clear worst person in the party. But he fits in with the other party well, since his fewer spells per day and/or worse save DCs is totally fine when he's providing a bunch of stuff that no one else is and has a clear place. Almost like he shouldn't be in the same party with a Wizard/Cleric/Druid, and should instead be in a party with other characters.

2) "I personally see spell acquisition tricks for the Archivist as just something Archivists do, but I don't know why any Beguiler would do it!" Yes I know you think that, because the entire internet culture has been saying that for 8 years straight because JaronK once told them it was true. But that's the point. The Beguiler has the best method for adding spells in existence, but everyone assumes it's just crazy talk to actually do that for... well basically no reason.

Quote from: eggynack on September 14, 2016, 10:26:57 AM
Are you seriously claiming that a wizard and a cleric aren't going to play more similarly than a fighter and monk, or that a warblade and a totemist also don't operate more similarly?

Are you seriously claiming that a Wizard and an Artificer and a Beguiler and a Warblade? Or a Barbarian and a Rogue?

Or is it perhaps the case that the Wizard and the Beguiler and the Warblade and the Barbarian are the most similar play style groupings of all that group, with the Archivist and the Rogue playing differently from all the others and each other?

You don't get points for accidentally stumbling upon the idea that Clerics and Wizards are similar in concept. If the system bats 50% then it is terrible for telling people to play Tier X because they have the same playstyle.

Quote from: eggynack on September 14, 2016, 10:26:57 AM
Wizards have access to thousands of spells that they can choose between on a roughly daily basis. Even if we ignore everything else and consider a wizard who has already decided to cast a particular summoning spell, there is still more complexity, just on a strictly combinatoric level, than a fighter gets from their entire class as applies to combat. A dread necromancer gets closer in terms of complexity and breadth of options, but they obviously aren't getting as many as a wizard. The former class is practically a subset of the latter in terms of capabilities. They can get closer if you consider non-class elements, but they're still not hitting that same level, and that's not really what the tier system is looking at anyway. And the warblade doesn't even hit that dread necro level of complexity.

And here you seem to be implying that the only possible metric of playstyle is complexity? Even though that is literally the least important metric, since most complexity is only a measure of your own character tracking, and has no imposition on the group, even though something like Chargadin has a huge effect on the group and basically demands playstyle accommodation.

Quote from: eggynack on September 14, 2016, 10:26:57 AM
Anyways, you're being really weird here. I thought you were genuinely curious about what implications the tier system could have if you think it works. But now, even though you had already assumed that premise in your question, you're just taking arbitrary pot shots at the thing. While I do think the tier system holds together pretty well in terms of its evaluations, that's not what my post was about at all. The post was about what it means if you think the evaluations hold true, and take the system to heart. Really, it seems like your whole argument is, "JaronK misevaluated the list casters, because he ignored effects that add spells to their list, so the entire system is bunk and anyone that uses it is an idiot." Which, personally, strikes me as something of a ridiculous argument.

The particular crazy thing you claim the Tiers are useful for is always going to reflect the problems with "using the Tier System" which is the point. The reason most sane people defending the Tier system prefer to be vague about it's benefits is precisely because as soon as you say "The Tier system tells us that it's better for Rogues to be in a party with a Barbarian than a Wizard" or "Isn't it interesting how Beguilers and Warblades have the same playstyle, but Sorcerers and Beguiler have completely different playstyles and so shouldn't be in the same party?" You sound like a crazy person.

17
D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder / Re: alt Tiers definition (?)
« on: September 14, 2016, 07:58:37 AM »
Quote from: eggynack on September 14, 2016, 12:50:35 AM
The most obvious ramification is that you generally don't want to bring a character in that's too far away tier-wise from the rest of the party, assuming roughly equal talent between you and the other players.

So the first implication is that it misleads and deludes people, by telling them that Rogue would really prefer a Barbarian in their party, not some kind of filthy Wizard that casts Glitterdust, because the no one wants a filthy Wizard around!

Yep, kind of proving the the point that the Tier system is bad and terrible and deludes fools.

Quote from: eggynack on September 14, 2016, 12:50:35 AM
So, using only that heuristic as a guide, as opposed to personal preference factors, one can say that they'd prefer to play an archivist to a beguiler in a party with a wizard, a cleric, and a druid, and they'd prefer the beguiler when the other party members are a warblade, a totemist, and a dread necromancer. party imbalance is one of the core things the tier system seeks to address, and following the system's rough guidelines will likely get you closer to that result than you would otherwise

So it sounds like what the Tier system is doing is making sure the party is imbalanced because of it's own dumb failures. If the same player could play either class, the same player would be more balanced in both parties of:

Beguiler/Wizard/Cleric/Druid and Archivist/Warblade/Totemist/Dread Necromancer

Than with Beguiler and Archivist reversed.

If they player isn't going to jump through hoops to spell acquisition, then the Beguiler bring trap finding, diplomacy, and spontaneous casting of pretty good spells, and maybe a minion army. Where the Archivist casts like a shitty Cleric who wakes up every day with fewer spells per day or worse save DCs, pick one.

If the player is going to jump through hoops to spell acquisition, then the Beguiler spontaneously casts from a huge list of really good spells and can easily keep up with Wizards and Clerics and Druid, and the Archivist is like a shitty Wizard who has fewer spells per day or lower DCs and also knows a couple good Druid spells, and an occasional other spell at a low level.

In both cases the Archivist is the odd man out in the Wizard party, where he doesn't contribute much, where the Beguiler always has something to do. In both cases the lower level party is a perfect fit for the Archivist, where the Beguiler would, if anything, remind everyone else how little he needs them.*

*Dread Necromancer excepted, since it's just like the Beguiler, but if the Dread Necro is a different player, it could be played at a lower optimization level.

And that's the point, the Archivist is just not a "higher tier" class than the Beguiler, it's a special snowflake class that JaronK liked, so he said "well obviously the DM is going to let you contract a 12th level Warlock make Divine Scrolls of Divine Bard Spells and Alternate Spell Source Assassin and Trapsmith Spells because it's a special Tier 1 class, and Tier 1 classes are VERSATILE!" But then he didn't like Beguilers so he turned around and said "What of course not, no Beguiler every spends feats or PrCs for more spells to cast, they definitely don't get their first Prestige Domain at level 2 and then use the Substitute Domain Spell to repick domains whenever they want and then spontaneously cast off the entire Cleric list! That's optimization, and filthy bad Tier 3 classes don't do optimization to expand their spell list!"

Which then leads to people, 8 years later, claiming with a straight face that if a single player has a choice between Beguiler and Archivist, that the exact same player will someone optimize the Archivist a different amount than the Beguiler, because the Beguiler expanded spell list tricks are "Just totally out there man" and the Archivist tricks are "Just something you do if you are an Archivist."

Quote from: eggynack on September 14, 2016, 12:50:35 AM
The other ramification touches on the kinda thing you were talking about, except people don't necessarily place a premium on higher tier. Some people like the sort of game play that tier one promotes, highly deep and complex on a mechanical level with a ton of counterplay, some prefer something around tier three, where you have a solid but not overwhelming quantity of options and can often find a way to participate, and some prefer one of the lower tiers

I think you are basically just proving Soro_Lost's point. You actually believe that different tiers produce different playstyles. This is literally you falling for "Lancer is the best piece" hook line and sinker. There is nothing about being a Dread Necromancer or Sorcerer or Wizard that creates a different playstyle. And playstyle choice comes later when you choose to band Planar Binding from the Dread Necro in your head cannon because he's not Tier 1!

18
D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder / Re: alt Tiers definition (?)
« on: September 13, 2016, 09:42:58 PM »
Quote from: PlzBreakMyCampaign on September 13, 2016, 06:40:22 PM
Wrong sense of 'follow'. I was vague there. I mean "believe" rather than "execute instructions."

The tier system kind of does. It's the reason I'd prefer an archivist to a lurk as an ally.

1) I still want to know what actual effects "believing" in the Tiers has. If the answer is "literally none" then it seems pretty pointless. If the answer is anything at all, I want to know what it is.

2) If the real reason you would prefer an Archivist to a Lurk is "because the Tier system ranks them higher" then a) you might be a huge idiot.
b) Does that mean that you would prefer an Archivist to a Beguiler?
c) Does that mean that you would prefer a Sorcerer to a Beguiler or Dread Necro?

19
D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder / Re: alt Tiers definition (?)
« on: September 13, 2016, 11:31:47 AM »
Quote from: PlzBreakMyCampaign on September 11, 2016, 11:42:32 AM
You also seem to be a bit vague about how the tiers are misleading those who follow their guidelines.

How on earth does one "follow the guidelines" of the Tier system? What possible alterations of play do these "guidelines" people "follow" actually result in?

Quote from: PlzBreakMyCampaign on September 11, 2016, 11:42:32 AM
These are both 'expectations' of course, but that doesn't mean that the question 'on average, which one is more useful' is pointless.

Do you mean to tell me that the Tier system is supposed to say one average which class is more useful? Because they sure do a terrible job of that.

Quote from: PlzBreakMyCampaign on September 11, 2016, 11:42:32 AM
people often protest to builds like that for the same reason they think reverse gravity isn't overpowering: few, if any, flat featureless plains.

"Area:   Up to one 10-ft. cube per two levels (S)"

Not sure how floating 10-100ft up if you can't fly is supposed to be overpowered for failing a Reflex save on a 7th level spell. I mean, you could also literally be swallowed by the earth for that, to say nothing of fort or will saves which literally kill you.

Presumably if you can't fly as a level 13 character you have ranged attacks.

20
D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder / Re: What are the toughest encounters for each CR ?
« on: August 12, 2016, 02:44:28 AM »
Just seems really weird to see this thread be literally entirely about pulling CR shenanigans to the exclusion of using any actual monsters or anything that might be seen in any kind of actual game. I'd much rather see a list of monsters at different CRs that are tough fights, or pairs that work together well, rather than seeing a list of monsters with the largest HD with "non-associated" Cleric levels so they cast as Clerics of their CR or "Phaerim with X Sorcerer levels" at every CR.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10