Author Topic: mistaken implications of IP-proofing  (Read 32000 times)

Offline RobbyPants

  • Female rat ninja
  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8323
    • View Profile
Re: mistaken implications of IP-proofing
« Reply #20 on: March 09, 2012, 01:27:27 PM »
Don't complain that someone posts in a thread because they were dragged into it specifically by name, and don't complain about someone being there when they say they are leaving.
If you disagree with the OP, then say why you disagree. Jumping in just to say "I don't agree, but I'm not going to tell you why, so nya!" is thread-shitting. Stop it.
My creations

Please direct moderation-related PMs to Forum Staff.

Offline Unbeliever

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2288
  • gentleman gamer
    • View Profile
Re: mistaken implications of IP-proofing
« Reply #21 on: March 09, 2012, 01:28:53 PM »
Thank you Ariasderros. 
You do realize he accused you of trolling, right?
Obviously not ...  or, I was apparently I was reading it very charitably.  Specifically, I started this thread in an attempt to grapple with, and explain my responses to, this IP-proofing concept that I think is used as a bludgeon inappropriately. 

I think the readers can make the necessary inferences from how it's gone in just a couple of hours. 

Offline Basket Burner

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1072
  • I break Basket Weavers.
    • View Profile
Re: mistaken implications of IP-proofing
« Reply #22 on: March 09, 2012, 01:30:23 PM »
"Someone doesn't understand probability very well. Even though most of the other details were accurate, the conclusions weren't, and the lack of understanding of probability and its impact really means you should leave discussing that concept to us... or I should say me, since no one else that gets it is here.

While I could easily set you straight now that I'm here if you were willing to be set straight it's obvious this is one of those threads created in order to argue against a caricature of an idea, one that misrepresents, misses, or loses its actual meaning and then calls that a win.


If I care enough and think there's people here that would learn I'll correct you later in another thread."

This isn't an explanation? Particularly the second paragraph, everything after the first few words?

Protip: If you want me to stop posting here all you have to do is stop responding to my posts. That's the only reason I'm still here.

Offline phaedrusxy

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 10717
  • The iconic spambot
    • View Profile
Re: mistaken implications of IP-proofing
« Reply #23 on: March 09, 2012, 01:31:41 PM »
OK... this could be a fairly useful resource. How about the OP does something constructive, and takes what he originally wrote, removes the name-calling, and starts a handbook based on it? And we forget this thread existed...
I don't pee messages into the snow often , but when I do , it's in Cyrillic with Fake Viagra.  Stay frosty my friends.

Offline ariasderros

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2507
  • PM me what you're giving Kudos for please.
    • View Profile
Re: mistaken implications of IP-proofing
« Reply #24 on: March 09, 2012, 01:32:17 PM »
Thank you Ariasderros.

You're quite welcome.

Actually, thank you for making this thread with the intent of calming this down and actually being educational.

I just wish there was more actual debate and math.

Or any since your first post.

@ ImpK:
(click to show/hide)

@ BB: In the original post only, can you please quote and highlight what part makes you think Unbeliever wasn't trying to meet you for conversation? Can you please ignore the crap that is here aimed at you and just contribute what you have of value? If nothing else, think of the lurkers who aren't posting. Which is all I'd have been if I hadn't thought this was in such need of someone pointing out the ridiculousness.
My new Sig
Hi, Welcome

Offline RobbyPants

  • Female rat ninja
  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8323
    • View Profile
Re: mistaken implications of IP-proofing
« Reply #25 on: March 09, 2012, 01:32:31 PM »
Protip: If you want me to stop posting here all you have to do is stop responding to my posts. That's the only reason I'm still here.
My complaint isn't your continued posting here. It's the nature of those first three posts. These new posts aren't changing that.
My creations

Please direct moderation-related PMs to Forum Staff.

Offline ariasderros

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2507
  • PM me what you're giving Kudos for please.
    • View Profile
Re: mistaken implications of IP-proofing
« Reply #26 on: March 09, 2012, 01:34:16 PM »
OK... this could be a fairly useful resource. How about the OP does something constructive, and takes what he originally wrote, removes the name-calling, and starts a handbook based on it? And we forget this thread existed...

+ 10,000
My new Sig
Hi, Welcome

Offline Unbeliever

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2288
  • gentleman gamer
    • View Profile
Re: mistaken implications of IP-proofing
« Reply #27 on: March 09, 2012, 01:39:25 PM »
OK... this could be a fairly useful resource. How about the OP does something constructive, and takes what he originally wrote, removes the name-calling, and starts a handbook based on it? And we forget this thread existed...

+ 10,000
I will try and get around to doing so.  It's going to have to fall behind my actual work as well as actual gaming, however.  I've never written one before, instead just free-riding on the work of others.  I can also use it to describe what I think the appropriate role of healing/condition removal is. 

This thread was also started to make sure I wasn't missing some deeper or subtler point to this IP-proofing argument.  If I have, someone please take this opportunity to explain it. 

Offline veekie

  • Spinner of Fortunes
  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5423
  • Chaos Dice
    • View Profile
Re: mistaken implications of IP-proofing
« Reply #28 on: March 09, 2012, 01:46:57 PM »
One factor on scalability of encounters. Rate of level advancement has little to do with the plot itself. Gaining levels in even a third as many sessions(e.g. regularly dealing with CR-1 encounters instead of CR) has a negligible effect on plot, so you do not automatically require more probability risks if you're fighting weaker foes. Plot advancement =/= power advancement.
Everything is edible. Just that there are things only edible once per lifetime.
It's a god-eat-god world.

Procrastination is the thief of time; Year after year it steals, till all are fled,
And to the mercies of a moment leaves; The vast concerns of an eternal scene.

Offline ariasderros

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2507
  • PM me what you're giving Kudos for please.
    • View Profile
Re: mistaken implications of IP-proofing
« Reply #29 on: March 09, 2012, 01:48:32 PM »
(click to show/hide)

@ UB: Nope, at its simplest: IP-proofing is about what to do about that 1 you are going to roll, as well as making sure that the 1 is the only number you have to worry about.
My new Sig
Hi, Welcome

Offline Tiltowait

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 214
  • Werdna advances!
    • View Profile
Re: mistaken implications of IP-proofing
« Reply #30 on: March 09, 2012, 04:38:27 PM »
I could be completely off base here, but shouldn't this concept be getting explained by the person or people that developed it? I don't know or care about the dick waving drama here but by the OPer's own admission he doesn't even know if his own understanding of it is correct and if it did spawn several arguments that means there are plenty of other people that are also having a hard time with it. If so many are having a hard time understanding it then trying to have the blind leading the blind is just going to make everyone trip and fall into a ditch.

If the answer is that they don't want to explain the concept, then shouldn't it just be left well enough alone? It's clearly some sort of hot button topic so that might be best regardless.

Offline ImperatorK

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2313
  • Chara did nothing wrong.
    • View Profile
    • Kristof Imperator YouTube Channel
Re: mistaken implications of IP-proofing
« Reply #31 on: March 09, 2012, 04:42:29 PM »
I could be completely off base here, but shouldn't this concept be getting explained by the person or people that developed it? I don't know or care about the dick waving drama here but by the OPer's own admission he doesn't even know if his own understanding of it is correct and if it did spawn several arguments that means there are plenty of other people that are also having a hard time with it. If so many are having a hard time understanding it then trying to have the blind leading the blind is just going to make everyone trip and fall into a ditch.

If the answer is that they don't want to explain the concept, then shouldn't it just be left well enough alone? It's clearly some sort of hot button topic so that might be best regardless.
Well, then tell BB to stop throwing it around like he knows what it means.
Magic is for weaklings.

Alucard: "*snif snif* Huh? Suddenly it reeks of hypocrisy in here. Oh, if it isn't the Catholic Church. And what's this? No little Timmy glued to your crotch. Progress!"
My YT channel - LoL gameplay

Offline Jackinthegreen

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 6176
  • I like green.
    • View Profile
Re: mistaken implications of IP-proofing
« Reply #32 on: March 10, 2012, 04:11:38 AM »
The interpretation and presentation of data is often just as important as the data itself.  If we're going to get anywhere with this, the statistics need to be presented clearly and without bias.
« Last Edit: March 10, 2012, 04:19:35 AM by Jackinthegreen »

Offline ariasderros

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2507
  • PM me what you're giving Kudos for please.
    • View Profile
Re: mistaken implications of IP-proofing
« Reply #33 on: March 10, 2012, 09:25:25 AM »
The interpretation and presentation of data is often just as important as the data itself.  If we're going to get anywhere with this, the statistics need to be presented clearly and without bias.

+1
My new Sig
Hi, Welcome

Offline Unbeliever

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2288
  • gentleman gamer
    • View Profile
Re: mistaken implications of IP-proofing
« Reply #34 on: March 10, 2012, 01:15:57 PM »
The interpretation and presentation of data is often just as important as the data itself.  If we're going to get anywhere with this, the statistics need to be presented clearly and without bias.

I don't have much time this weekend, so I will be brief.  I don't think the basic idea of IP concerns are all that much in dispute.  At least not as far as I'm aware.  There might be a big question as to the probabilities in question:  i.e., how frequently you are likely to suffer a catastrophic event and how frequently you are subject to them.  And, if those probabilities were low enough, then this might get filed under "why care?" b/c it's so infrequent over the course of an ordinary campaign.

At the expense of stating the obvious given the thread title, the reason I started this thread was the implications of this concept.  And, b/c it has cropped up in numerous threads, lurking behind the arguments so that around page 12 or so the reader finds that is the real idea at play.  It's kind of like the whole magic v. mundanes thing in that regard.  In particular, it seems to be used as a bludgeon against a whole swath of builds, classes, and archetypes, which given the materials available in 3.5 D&D seems surprising to me.  So, creating a separate space for such a discussion seemed useful. 

I'm strapped for time, but in brief here's my thoughts on the implications:

IP-proofing is a good idea -- adventuring is a hard and dangerous line of work.  Assuming the relevant probabilities aren't too low, and my gut tells me they scale upwards as level does, you're going to suffer enough catastrophic events that you're likely to fail ... eventually.

IP-proofing ain't that hard to get* -- much of it is actually de rigeur in D&D.  Getting good saves, a good AC, and so on helps lower those probabilities, making the instance of catastrophic failure less frequent.  However, it's still worth investing in a few magic items, spells, or class abilities that give you some rerolls, avoid attacks, or other "get out of jail free" cards.  And, it's nice for everyone at the table if you do -- the DM can go at you harder knowing you can take it, and everyone doesn't have to worry so much about each other.

IP-proofing tends to be talked about in too limited a fashion, to wit, it can be done ex ante, ex post, on a temporary basis, or by another character* -- this is just a personal impression, but usually when IP-proofing comes up in another thread the implication is that once you've failed that critical save, etc. it's "game over."  So, the only way to make it in D&D is, by implication, to never fail that critical save, etc.  While it may generally be the case that ex ante forms of IP-proofing, i.e., those that avoid the hazard entirely like a reroll for the dreaded save, are more effective, there are still ex post ones.  A delay death may be just as good in some circumstances, especially if the fight is near over, and the same can be said for the humble remove paralysis.  You're expending resources one way or the other:  whether you get a wand of greater mirror image or delay death it's still committing resources to the issue.  Likewise, the 8000 gp on an Amulet of Second Chances needs to be weighed against the 1000 gp cost of Revivify.  If the probabilities are fairly low, then 1k every time you fail catastrophically ends up being more efficient. 

Perhaps more important, though, is that in the usual course of discussions troupe play seems to have been lost.  IP-proofing can be the responsibility of some subset of the party.  I've long contended that the healer's real job in D&D is usually condition removal.  Sometimes it's damage mitigation -- although in-combat healing is usually not a good idea, it's sometimes handy or necessary -- but really it's condition removal to keep the party in fighting strength against the terrible things enemies can do.  This may end up being more efficient in the long run, or more fun, especially since some people enjoy the "medic!" role.

House rules to make the IP issue either more transparent or more easily dealt with for a variety of character classes -- I think most of us are well beyond playing vanilla 3.5 D&D.  I know I am, and each gaming group develops their own corpus of house rules over time.  There are house rules that would allow a wider variety of characters to better cope with IP-proofing, since nowadays like everything else it's typically the so-called Tier 1 and Tier 2 spellcasters that manage it best, if only b/c there are more spells in D&D than there are anything else.  This would also make the IP thing more obvious and transparent, as well as sparing people the effort of diving through books finding the right magic item for it. 

Such house rules could include changing the material components on spells (my gaming group has not used material components for years now, and doing so make revivify much handier and so on.  Other options include Trailblazer's action points suggestion or Mutants & Masterminds' hero points, both of which are very similar.

*I expect these to be controversial.

Offline X-Codes

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 2001
  • White, Fuzzy, Sniper Rifle.
    • View Profile
Re: mistaken implications of IP-proofing
« Reply #35 on: March 10, 2012, 01:57:11 PM »
1) IP proofing is absolutely a good idea.

2) IP proofing is not hard to get.  Recitation is an easy spell to pick up, Cloaks of Resistance are core items and have the same cost/benefit curve as the Resistance chain of spells, Vests of Resistance are in Complete Arcane and are basically Cloaks of Resistance with less competition from other items in the same slot, and many low-tier classes have abilities that give Charisma to saving throws.  Furthermore, Luck feats in Complete Scoundrel are an easy source of rerolls.  Spells like Alter Fortune, which is on virtually every class' spell list AND is a Divination, and items like the Luckstone are others.

3) Actually, on the ex ante vs. ex post idea, the fact is that a truly IP-proofed 3.5e character has both methods of proofing built in.  No matter how awesome your saving throws are, most characters will ALWAYS have a 1/20 chance of catastrophic failure each time they're hit with a Save-or-Lose.  As such, investing in rerolls is mandatory to have an IP proofed character, and the cost/benefit analysis of this has multiple dependencies (how many effects you come across in a day, how much the next, marginal +X to saves costs you, how much the next reroll per day costs you, etc.).  Also, many of the best methods of IP proofing aren't just done by another character, but can even be done by another character more-or-less on accident (being in the AoE of a Cleric's Persistent Recitation spell, for example).

Offline RedWarlock

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 628
  • Crimson-colored caster of calamity
    • View Profile
    • Red Blade Studios
Re: mistaken implications of IP-proofing
« Reply #36 on: March 10, 2012, 07:25:01 PM »
IP proofing as discussed here is a perfectly fine concept, it's basically just making sure your numbers are high enough to either beat the save more often, or making sure you've got get-out-of-jail-free cards of a sort. I have no problem with that, it's just a good strategy for play.

The IP proofing concept I read in a thread on the old boards, and the way it was presented more recently outside of this thread, seemed to be of an extremely selective sort, with the idea that you keep yourself off the RNG for all possible rolls, and negate any and every failure at any chance given. If you didn't, you were 'failing' at D&D. That's what I objected to in my SoDs thread, the idea that any single failure was considered an immediate total loss. (Edit: Especially when it was being discussed in a thread talking about the elimination of SoD effects from the game. That's the whole point?!)
« Last Edit: March 10, 2012, 07:29:27 PM by RedWarlock »
WarCraft post-d20: A new take on the World of WarCraft for tabletop. I need your eyes and comments!

Offline X-Codes

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 2001
  • White, Fuzzy, Sniper Rifle.
    • View Profile
Re: mistaken implications of IP-proofing
« Reply #37 on: March 10, 2012, 07:44:34 PM »
Lots of people have become increasingly inflexible when it comes to the "right" way to play D&D.  For the most part, these people are actually not that well versed in the game mechanics themselves, but rather just parrot their interpretation of the CO Boards' theorems that magic always wins and mundanes can't have nice things.  It eventually becomes the 3.5e equivalent of this, where several perfectly viable solutions to wide ranges of challenges are discounted because you can buy a candle of invocation and chain-gate solars (not really, but there are other things to be done with the candle, anyway).

If you ever see me complaining about this community, that's pretty much the reason right there.  Frankly, for the typical D&D game, Tier 1 is overkill.

Offline zugschef

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ***
  • Posts: 699
    • View Profile
Re: mistaken implications of IP-proofing
« Reply #38 on: March 11, 2012, 07:14:09 PM »
the point is that you just can't survive without tier 1 characters in your party if your dm uses level appropriate monsters...

and i really don't get all the hate for basket burner... some other members are out of line and don't get the modbat on their heads.
« Last Edit: March 11, 2012, 07:17:03 PM by zugschef »

Offline wotmaniac

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1586
  • Procrastinator in Chief
    • View Profile
Re: mistaken implications of IP-proofing
« Reply #39 on: March 11, 2012, 07:27:26 PM »
The IP proofing concept I read in a thread on the old boards, and the way it was presented more recently outside of this thread, seemed to be of an extremely selective sort, with the idea that you keep yourself off the RNG for all possible rolls, and negate any and every failure at any chance given. If you didn't, you were 'failing' at D&D.
This.
And the guy responsible for that is no longer here. 
Nonetheless, that other thread (and poster) is why I just can't help but to (in quite the Pavlovian fashion) roll my eyes and promptly move on at the first mention of "IP proofing".