mistaken implications of IP-proofing

[littha]

the point is that you just can't survive without tier 1 characters in your party if your dm uses level appropriate monsters...

You can, Tier 2 is just as powerful (but not at as many things). Psions, Sorcerers and Favored Souls are perfectly capable party members, even if you have no tier 1 in your party, provided they are built correctly.

Tier 3 can handle a lot of issues again, Dread Necromancers can solve a lot of problems with their Rebuked/Summoned/Controlled undead and a couple of other bits off their spell list. Same with Factotum.

It is only when you start getting to lower tiers that the options dry up, but then that is why they are... yknow... low tier...

[ariasderros]

the point is that you just can't survive without tier 1 characters in your party if your dm uses level appropriate monsters...

That isn't it. You can survive with T2, or optimized T3. The point is that the RNG is against the players. So the players need to fight the RNG. It's like Chainmail Bikini says, "the enemy isn't the monsters, the DM or the other players, the enemy is the rules."

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.

The original issue is that people wanted to know what his stance was, and he is unwilling to publicly share his information with many because of arguments with a few.

[Rejakor]

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.

The rules are actually pretty specific.  As long as you're talking about the thing you can disagree, swear, say people are wrong, whatever you like.  If you are in the thread just to troll (and yes, appearing and saying that you have information but you're not going to share it is just appearing to troll), that is against the rules.

That's the difference between wanting actual discussion and the fake bullshit passive aggressive social politeness that people like you whine about.


As for level appropriate monsters, i've seen T5 parties handle equal CR encounters and CR+1/+2 encounters taken direct from the monster manuals with the greatest of ease, no nerfing of any kind.  So that statement is at best qualitatively true, i.e. only for SOME groups or SOME encounters.

[ariasderros]

As for level appropriate monsters, i've seen T5 parties handle equal CR encounters and CR+1/+2 encounters taken direct from the monster manuals with the greatest of ease, no nerfing of any kind.  So that statement is at best qualitatively true, i.e. only for SOME groups or SOME encounters.

Ignoring the first part for reasons already stated.

Yes, a T5 can pass through an encounter, or three, or ten. But the point of IP is that eventually, they will need help out of everything.

[Rejakor]

If the 'eventually' is longer than the length of a campaign, I don't care.

In infinite iterations, even T1 parties die.  That's the point of infinite iterations.

[dman11235]

This is very true, and one of the main reasons I don't subscribe to IP proofing.  Your build has to be good enough to 1) be fun, and 2) get through the campaign, and 3) be fun.

[ariasderros]

This is very true, and one of the main reasons I don't subscribe to IP proofing.  Your build has to be good enough to 1) be fun, and 2) get through the campaign, and 3) be fun.

EXACTLY.

IP is about a statistical probability.
"Statistics mean nothing to the individual." - Dr. Cox

[veekie]

As for level appropriate monsters, i've seen T5 parties handle equal CR encounters and CR+1/+2 encounters taken direct from the monster manuals with the greatest of ease, no nerfing of any kind.  So that statement is at best qualitatively true, i.e. only for SOME groups or SOME encounters.

Ignoring the first part for reasons already stated.

Yes, a T5 can pass through an encounter, or three, or ten. But the point of IP is that eventually, they will need help out of everything.

Mainly if you take only stock encounters straight from the Monster Manual, they don't need the help. The stock creatures are just that weak that a T4 party could simply alpha strike them in a neutral environment.
Most test cases that 'prove' the need for assistance requires A) class leveled NPCs(using optimized builds) B) spellcasting creatures with customized spell selection C) author intentioned 'powerful for CR monsters'(never mind that they miss the whole idea of what CR is for) D) unfavorable environment.

Of these, A and B are optimization issues, and we all know optimized characters can with ease, count as significantly higher leveled characters without significant optimization. Case in point, a focused Fighter dedicated to reach zone control or ubercharging against the stock NPC Fighter who split his attention between archery and sword & board. The former would outperform and out-fight the latter in most scenarios.

C is simply misuse of CR by the authors, or lousy proofreading. Doesn't really say anything except the some of them shouldn't be publishing.

D is significant, extremely so. For T3 and higher characters, unfavorable terrain can generally be simply rewritten to be favorable, but below T3, theres very little battlefield alteration or bypass methods available. Take the simple scenario of "you have to fight in waist deep water against a tentacle monster", the environment would be more challenging than even combating twice or thrice as many of the monster in open ground. Or if you're higher tier, you rewrite yourself or the environment, dive in and turn the thing into calamari.

Monster manual creatures are generally speaking, weak. Optimized T4 would face practically no danger from a monstrous foe, barring specialist creatures that have a primary save-or-die or one sided environments.

[phaedrusxy]

In infinite iterations, even T1 parties die.  That's the point of infinite iterations.

This is pointless. There is no such thing as infinite D&D encounters, so why bring it up? Statistically insignificant is quite good enough, and easily achievable with rerolls.

Edit: I guess that's basically the same as dman's "good enough to get through the campaign", but I tend to be more on the paranoid side when it comes to betting. So I like to have some insurance against those statistical mishaps (i.e. natural 1s).

[veekie]

Just need enough survivability to cover major campaign arcs then. Though maybe we could put up a poll to ask about average number of sessions/encounters in a campaign arc.

[ImperatorK]

Don't forget that some of your weaknesses can be covered by your teammates.

[ariasderros]

@ Veekie
A & B shouldn't apply to this discussion. They are, as you said, another kind of game issue.
D is supposed to be taken into account for CR, though no actual formula is ever given.
C I'd agree with you, except: the point is, if a Gynosphinx manages to hit you with it's Symbol of Death, and you roll low / a 1, this has nothing to do with CR high or CR low, that is what the problem with IP is.

Monster manual creatures are generally speaking, weak. Optimized T4 would face practically no danger from a monstrous foe, barring specialist creatures that have a primary save-or-die or one sided environments.

This is the point of the IP argument. It would be easy enough to say "don't use these creatures", "don't have those creatures use that ability", or "modify / nerf the ability to work differently". Except that those are fixes that go beyond RAW, and the "IP debate" is a CO point. Thus is meant to follow RAW.

@ Phaedrus
umm... the point is that IP-proofing is a CO point. The idea is levels of statistical insignificance, and the concept of wondering if there is ever a way to fully safeguard yourself. In other words, can you survive the infinite? Which would be / require TO, like pun-pun.

@ all
Just in case my personal stance wasn't clear, what actually matters is the game.
"The most powerful character is the one you actually get to play."
All of this is just a CO thought exercise.
The only real point is what level of IP proofing is "required" for that particular games power level.
*ahem*  The Gentleman's Agreement

[phaedrusxy]

@ Phaedrus
umm... the point is that IP-proofing is a CO point. The idea is levels of statistical insignificance, and the concept of wondering if there is ever a way to fully safeguard yourself. In other words, can you survive the infinite? Which would be / require TO, like pun-pun.

Is it? That's not what I've gotten out of the discussion so far. It looks like to me its just about thinking ahead to the point in time when you inevitably roll a 1 on a save (or whatever), and coming up with a plan on how to deal with that other than hoping your team mates can (and will) resurrect you after the fact. I almost always insist that parties I'm in buy at least one scroll each of Revenance and Revivify as "insurance". Is that not "IP proofing"? That's hardly in TO territory.

Edit: Sorry, I may have misinterpreted. I meant statistical insignificance as in "unlikely to happen during the lifetime of the campaign", not "unlikely to happen during the lifetime of the universe". Having high saving throw mods (so that you really only fail on a 1) and the ability to reroll ones gives you a statistically insignificant chance of dying to a failed saving throw, in my opinion.

[veekie]

On the save or die end the Beholder is a textbook monster for that, with weak defenses, and multiple save or die attacks against multiple characters in a single salvo. Welcome to the 10d20 roulette. First 1 dies!

Most monsters don't work that way, but calculating the statistical probability that a DM would use a save or die monster AND that someone would flub a save on its basic ability can be a bit tricky.

[zugschef]

On the save or die end the Beholder is a textbook monster for that, with weak defenses, and multiple save or die attacks against multiple characters in a single salvo. Welcome to the 10d20 roulette. First 1 dies!

Most monsters don't work that way, but calculating the statistical probability that a DM would use a save or die monster AND that someone would flub a save on its basic ability can be a bit tricky.

hezrou?

[dman11235]

You know...you all basically said that you agreed with each other, while defending your point against someone else....

[veekie]

Hmm, maybe we can deploy statistics on this, just digging through the SRD for monsters with true save or die effects(save or lose don't count for as much, since the party can still act and bring the PC back without significant expenditure), then comparing the DCs with expected low saves for their levels to establish the odds.

[Whisper]

One factor that you all are either forgetting or not mentioning is the way that offensive capabilities effect the number of SoDs or other IP-relevant effects one gets hit with. The better your offense, the fewer IP-relevant effects one will face in each encounter. There is a tradeoff between the utility of beefing defenses, and the utility of resources to finish combat quickly.

[ariasderros]

You know...you all basically said that you agreed with each other, while defending your point against someone else....

Somewhat. The argument right now is not whether one should preemptively or re-actively IP-proof, or whether you should at all. Right now the debate has devolved to an opinion of scale. There is the exception of Phaedrus whom did merely misstate his point of what he meant by his earlier comment. Which has been cleared up now.

Yet Whisper has made a good point. About how the easiest way to eliminate the problem with defense is to annihilate what you're defending against first. Also: We all know that immunities are another way to IP-proof, yet none of us had discussed it.

I still say:

*ahem*  The Gentleman's Agreement.

because the level of IP-proofing that is appropriate will change from table to table, and even game to game. Just like any other form of CO.

[ImperatorK]

*ahem*  The Gentleman's Agreement

If only it would be that simple...