mistaken implications of IP-proofing

[veekie]

Narratively, post-ante also helps a bit, a lot of people have an instinctive sense that completely avoiding a fatal condition is a bit cheap(the no-sell principle), whereas suffering it, however briefly, is more acceptable.

[ariasderros]

*ahem*  The Gentleman's Agreement

If only it would be that simple...

[/sigh] I have never agreed with you more.

[Rejakor]

I personally use a gentleman's agreement, in some kind of form, by discussing and creating an accepted power level at the start of any game that isn't intended to be a oneshot.  For a oneshot I just write characters because it takes too long to set up compelling hooks otherwise.

Then anyone building outside the accepted level of power can be assumed to have made a mistake and be corrected or if they persist and insist, asked to leave as they are outside the power level they previously agreed to.  Consensus is wonderful like that.

EDIT:  But basically the 'mistaken implication of IP proofing' in my mind is that level of IP proofing is somehow separated from relative character power, and (critically) that there is a specific level of power/IP proofing that it is necessary to build to, rather than a scaling level of IP proofing or 'power' that changes from game to game.

[ariasderros]

I personally use a gentleman's agreement, in some kind of form, by discussing and creating an accepted power level at the start of any game that isn't intended to be a oneshot. 

That is one of the major points of the article that I repetitiously link. Though maybe it is TL;DR, and can be quite roundabout with some of its points, that is one that does get harped on quite thoroughly.

[Unbeliever]

I personally use a gentleman's agreement, in some kind of form, by discussing and creating an accepted power level at the start of any game that isn't intended to be a oneshot.  For a oneshot I just write characters because it takes too long to set up compelling hooks otherwise.

Then anyone building outside the accepted level of power can be assumed to have made a mistake and be corrected or if they persist and insist, asked to leave as they are outside the power level they previously agreed to.  Consensus is wonderful like that.

EDIT:  But basically the 'mistaken implication of IP proofing' in my mind is that level of IP proofing is somehow separated from relative character power, and (critically) that there is a specific level of power/IP proofing that it is necessary to build to, rather than a scaling level of IP proofing or 'power' that changes from game to game.

As I've indicated, this thread was in part started as a response to IP-proofing being used as a bludgeon against pretty much any and all character builds.  And, further the implication that if you're not IP-invincible, you're failing at D&D, though I think we've moved beyond that and am more than happy to. 

There's been some cross-polination between this thread and the Gentleman's Agreement thread recently started.  One particular value of this thread and the ideas presented is to be more transparent about the dangers posed by save-or-die effects, and the like.  I believe these are iconic in D&D, at least up until 3.5E.  And, they become more ubiquitous as you get higher level.  As I've mentioned above, I think newer players, especially those that haven't cut their teeth on the paper shredder of character sheets that was high-level AD&D, may not be aware of this.  And, a very good, conscientious DM may find themselves just using standard MM monsters and ending up with a TPK because of it.  Surely a DM could adjust things to suit, you could fix this on either side of the table, though I think it's probably easier to fix for the players given a few magic items, a house rule for revivify, and so on. 

[veekie]

^^
Actually, much easier to fix for the GM, you just need to avoid using specifically SoD based monsters and don't run custom casters. Given the size of the monster pool, you can legitimately go from 1-20 without ever meeting one straight out SoD creature.

[Unbeliever]

My sense was that at a certain point, especially above like CR 13, lots of monsters come pre-equipped with SoDs or save or sucks.  That's (a) probably more the case in MM1 and the SRD than it is in later MMs as they started paring down the number of random spell-like abilities they loaded monsters up with, and (b) only based on a gut feeling, so I could be completely wrong.

I do, however, generally default to making the DM's life as easy as possible, and so tend to try and rely on charopp/character creation solutions to D&D system problems.  This is a personal preference, and in part a way of making the CR system sort of kind of work, but it is nothing but a personal preference. 

At any rate, people should be attentive of the potential pitfalls, so long as it's acknowledged and dealt with to everyone's satisfaction -- which as other posters have noted can be making sure you are vulnerable to some things -- then game on. 

[ariasderros]

^^
Actually, much easier to fix for the GM, you just need to avoid using specifically SoD based monsters and don't run custom casters. Given the size of the monster pool, you can legitimately go from 1-20 without ever meeting one straight out SoD creature.

@ Veekie:
IP-proofing is CharOp. Any CharOP can be made pointless by DM style.
A DM could run an entire campaign wherein there is never a saving throw (everyone is a fighter, you, the NPC's, BBEG's, no stunning fist). A DM could run a single session wherein there are so many saves rolled vs SoD that the party will be TPK'ed.
This does not change the concept. And to say that you could change the entire system to have a padded sumo effect so that IP-proofing is irrelevant is how you get 4E.
You can not, legitimately, say that every campaign will go 1-20 w/o a SoD being used, so this doesn't have an impact on the topic of IP-proofing as a CO point.

[veekie]

That is correct from the optimization point of view, but in terms of overall effort needed to remove the most critical problem, the GM-solution requires one player(the GM) to refrain from doing one particular action(using creatures with built in SoDs), while the Player-solution requires four players to obtain a series of No-Sell immunities, saving throw replacements(such as replacing them with a skill check that doesn't fail on a 1), and modifier boosts, which is a non-trivial effort even for experienced optimizers and can still fail.

That, and, if properly protected...save-or-die monsters aren't going to be particularly interesting because their effects are negated entirely, so they just fire blanks.

[ariasderros]

I think, Veekie, that the main thing is that we're looking at it from different viewpoints.
You are coming at this from the "problem" of IP. The fact that you will eventually lose as a "problem".
I look at it as a feature of the challenge of the game.

(click to show/hide)

You reference being totally immune to things, which is TO. This has no place in any game.
You reference never using SoD at all on the GM side, which I agree with for the most part, but you also can use them sparingly. A D&D campaign just isn't a campaign unless a Basilisk, Beholder, Mind Flayer, and Umber Hulk have appeared. Many of whom have SoD or SoL abilities. But you can use these as one-time oh-crap scenarios. So what if a character, or two, dies or gets petrified. There are spells to reverse that for a reason. Insert coin to continue P2.

IP-proofing is CO. Character Optimization is about reducing the challenge of the game. Theoretical Optimization is removing the challenge from the game.

How much the challenge of the game can / should be reduced is going to vary from group to group, table to table, and game to game. This includes the DM's side of that equation. But this does not change, reduce, or negate the concept or IP-proofing as one goal of CharOp.

As an example of your point.
I do not, as a player, seek to optimize my saves until or unless the DM has done something to make me feel like I had to.
In a recent game, the DM had us go against an enemy who hit us with a DC 57 SoL fear-effect. None of the players had a save above 32. Only the few people who were immune or those out of range were still in the fight. 4 sessions later, no one has a Will save lower than 50 before they roll now.
The DM was the problem, CO was the solution. The DM not being the problem would've been an easier solution. Cie la Vie.

However, never fighting a Basilisk is not a D&D I want to play. But I want that fight to be a hard one. One that depletes a significant portion of the party's resources. Before, during and after the fight. The effort of carrying your team-mates statue back to town to get them back is always good times. A challenge of the game that is just part of the game.

Edit: I spoiler'ed the argumentation, since it was a bit TL and I wanted the main point, at the top to have more of an importance in my post.

[Jackinthegreen]

Echoing a bit of what I said in that way-too-long tier discussion thread, a DM shouldn't have qualms about outright killing a character or two once in a while.  Hell, one of my first games started out with us getting ambushed, someone getting killed, and we had to go to town and make a deal with a not-so-good cleric to get the character back.  So long as the DM can make it interesting it's usually not a problem unless someone at the table has a hissy fit over the character dying.

[midnight_v]

  So... Ip'ing "is" needed on some level be it build or "ye old magic shoppe" or... only if the Dm uses "strong" monsters "Outsiders and Dragons etc... oh my"?
  I really get weary of the "Your teammates can cover for you argument", yeah they can, but okay thats a granted in a four man party.
They "CAN" but they'd at some point be like "Look James, you're getting dominated and turning on the party like every 3rd session its becoming a meme. Sometimes you get put to sleep in the first round and never wake up till its over. We really have to do something about your will saves"
Or...
"Okay we spending a huge amount of our funding raising you every time we go out. So forgive us but we're not going to take you on this trip to the elemental plane of fire with us, bro. Honestly, its not the money its just... we're tired of seeing you hurt.

The implication that:
"These things aren't a problem if you have a competent DM, and decent players" is an insult, and Fuck you if this is your official stance. Your generally being an arrogant prick with that.
There are plenty of "Competent DM's", and "Decent" player who look a this objectively and mathematically and say. . . "This situation needs to addressed".
  Playing the game on easy, because the world isn't really trying... I find it to make worse stories, and produce just as ignorant or more assumptions about the game.

[zugschef]

+ fucking 1

[Jackinthegreen]

The implication that:
"These things aren't a problem if you have a competent DM, and decent players" is an insult, and Fuck you if this is your official stance. Your generally being an arrogant prick with that.
There are plenty of "Competent DM's", and "Decent" player who look a this objectively and mathematically and say. . . "This situation needs to addressed".
  Playing the game on easy, because the world isn't really trying... I find it to make worse stories, and produce just as ignorant or more assumptions about the game.

Being insulted is one of those "I can't stand it" problems.  If the person doesn't pass negative judgment on the statement then the insult effectively doesn't matter.  Criticisms are a different story which means participants need to know where to draw the line between it and insults.

Mentioning that someone else is being an arrogant prick tends to call into question whether the accuser is being an arrogant prick, and of course the chain continues until everyone is an arrogant prick.  It is not conductive to a reasonable discussion for anyone to insult another.

"These things aren't a problem if you have a competent DM and players" usually means they have addressed or will address the issue through their own means.  Will those means work at every table?  No, but they don't have to.  Every game is different.

[ariasderros]

@midnight: can you clarify your stance a little, as I can't even tell if I'm in the "fuck you" category.
I don't see the "mathematically needs to be addressed" part.
I do think that IP-proofing can be necessitated if you have a crappy DM, just because that means you can survive when he makes a mistake with what he throws at you.
I do think that IP-proofing can be necessitated if you are in a high-difficulty campaign.
Beyond that, you should not ever have to IP proof IMO.

That said, if one person is draining the party resources to consistently raise the same guy over and over, that is a problem with one person not being a "decent player".
The "your teammates can cover for you" argument assumes that it is rare that they'd have to, and its not the same person each time.
i.e. While fighting a BBEG of an adventure, (character A) goes down, and has to be rezzed. 17 sessions later, the party has wandered into the layer of the aforementioned basilisk, and (character B) get petrified, and has to be "soft'd".
Not Monk got pwned, 2 sessions later, still the same adventure, got pwned again, next session, guess what? got pwned. Hey, BBEG, pwned again.


If that makes it clearer (for determining if I am / am not what you are referring to as an arrogant prick).


@ jack: meh, I think he's entitled to his opinion. It's not worth arguing about. Sure he comes off as overly-intense, but that's just how he's expressing himself.

[midnight_v]

@ Jack.
Negative Critisim: Considering your way to be better with no real variance, by implication someone must  have "Incompetent Dm's" and "indecent players" because they don't follow the "gentlemens" agreement (which is honestly a varied thing despite the ability to link to it, its defined by the gentlemen involved).
Is a bad thing (tm), its bad because there are indeed more ways to go about it than saying "These things are not a problem, becaues I don't see a problem with it". Though that appears to be of the few actual clearly defined stances in this thread.

[Arrogance: The Pricking] Thats a slippery slope argument. It doesn't "End" in anything resembling what you suggest. Determining if someone is arrogant prick should be pretty straight foward.
Do you express that your way the only way and that all of ther ways are bad wrong fun, do to others playing with inferior stock, of people? Arrogant.
Do you shit on others to do it... Trying to snide remarks while not fully enganging the conversation. Shouting down your opponent because you happen to be on the side of the majority? Yea... you're a prick.

On the topic of insult:
"is not conductive to a reasonable discussion for anyone to insult another." This thread stopped being "reasonable" quite a while ago frankly.
Along with my assertions above, the emphasis of "Fuck you" and "you are an arrogant prick" are used to fully illustrate that your position offends people, and isn't an acceptable one. The punishment for that is that people are ALLOWED to stop being civil with you, and aren't really required to take you with any degree of seriousness or engage you in discourse really, untill you have broadend your perspective or come back to the negotiation table.

These things aren't a problem if you have a competent DM and players" usually means they have addressed or will address the issue through their own means.  Will those means work at every table?  No, but they don't have to.  Every game is different.

No. Thats not what it means, Jack. It means to-wit= "You and your table are doing something WRONG". It could THEORTICALLY mean what you suggest but we have to look at the context of it to determine.
If I say:
"Everyone at my table is playing a full caster, and I'm looking for challenges that would make my game better, I'm having a problem here, help?"
and the respone is "Competent Dm/Decent players..." the implication OBVIOUS. Frankly thats whats implied in this thread above.

@ jack: meh, I think he's entitled to his opinion.

My point is that really everyone is entittled to their opinion to a point. Some of whats in this thread isn't even about Ip'ing. Its about shitting on Basket Burner, and trying to make it okay to do that.

So lets talk ip'ing for a second.
If someones playing the game at as you say hard difficulty (fighting outsiders and dragons, and leveled npcs) and someone is playing Easy Difficulty, (non leveled humanoide npcs, and casters taken right out of the book)  mostly it can be attributed to "Dm intervention"/"Dm variance".

The thing to keep in mind is that those people are playing very different games, Ip'ing might not be needed in a "Core 4" setting if the dm doesn't call on you to fight the iconic D*D monsters.
Beholder, Aboleth, Illithid, Dragon, Demon, leveled humanoid (Wizard in his tower, Githyanki/Drow with class levels)
You can go your whole D&D life and not encounter any of those things and you'll likely never need to ip.
 However, for those people who are acually called to fight against such threats as they appear in the monster manuals, and in published adventures, at the appropriate challenge levels some degree of ip'ing is probbaly needed.

You're only an arrogant prick about it if you pretend that there is a "right" way to play, and that people who do it the other way are "Doing it wrong". I've played in both of the above scenarios and both can be equally fun (if I know what I'm in for) but holding either as an absolute is a mistake and I think that this thread attempts to ask for an "absolute defense" of ip'ing as a whole.
It is needed where its needed. *shrug* you have to determine the power level of your campaign.
The devs certainly didn't know what the fuck they were doing, and didn't playtest beyond a mid level so... yeah Ip'ing: Go.

[Mooncrow]

So, what you're saying is that when someone acts like an arrogant prick, it's ok to call them on it?

Well, I can certainly agree with that at least. 

I would join the conversation in the thread, but you guys are using "IP proofing" to mean about four different, albeit related, concepts.  Before the flames start up again, maybe you should sit down and define your terms. 

[Rejakor]

Yep.

How about 'not being able to die to level appropriate save or die abilities' as a starting point?  I.e. mathematically extremely unlikely >1% to die on a SoD used by an equal CR SoD-based monster (such as the beholder).

Midnight_v:  You seem to be taking the tack that 'ip-proofing' is any kind of optimization - i'm pretty sure it isn't.  The actual term as bandied about by Roy/Sunic back in the day I understood to mean not being ABLE to fail against SoD DC's/common optimization tactics (chain-trip etc).  I.e. on a 2, you're fine, and even on a 1 you have rerolls or whatever.  It's entirely possible to go up against a wizard in a tower or a beholder without maxed saves and immunities.  That is not a guarantee of an 'instant TPK' or even 'instant kill' by any means.  Even properly prepared fighters can kill a beholder at equal CR.  Hell, a properly prepared group of fighters could probably kill a sudden surprise beholder, although the odds of one of them dying would be high.

[ariasderros]

@ jack: meh, I think he's entitled to his opinion.

My point is that really everyone is entittled to their opinion to a point. Some of whats in this thread isn't even about Ip'ing. Its about shitting on Basket Burner, and trying to make it okay to do that.

It hasn't been that for quite a while, I went out of my way to end that. Thank you for bringing that back up. I find it ironic that the first half of your post is trying to make an argument with Jack.
Allow me to clarify. It was not okay then. That is why the mods stepped in. That is why I stepped in. Do, Not, Start, This, Again.
That is to both of you.

So lets talk ip'ing for a second.
If someones playing the game at as you say hard difficulty (fighting outsiders and dragons, and leveled npcs) and someone is playing Easy Difficulty, (non leveled humanoide npcs, and casters taken right out of the book)  mostly it can be attributed to "Dm intervention"/"Dm variance".

The thing to keep in mind is that those people are playing very different games, Ip'ing might not be needed in a "Core 4" setting if the dm doesn't call on you to fight the iconic D*D monsters.
Beholder, Aboleth, Illithid, Dragon, Demon, leveled humanoid (Wizard in his tower, Githyanki/Drow with class levels)
You can go your whole D&D life and not encounter any of those things and you'll likely never need to ip.
 However, for those people who are acually called to fight against such threats as they appear in the monster manuals, and in published adventures, at the appropriate challenge levels some degree of ip'ing is probbaly needed.

You're only an arrogant prick about it if you pretend that there is a "right" way to play, and that people who do it the other way are "Doing it wrong". I've played in both of the above scenarios and both can be equally fun (if I know what I'm in for) but holding either as an absolute is a mistake and I think that this thread attempts to ask for an "absolute defense" of ip'ing as a whole.
It is needed where its needed. *shrug* you have to determine the power level of your campaign.
The devs certainly didn't know what the fuck they were doing, and didn't playtest beyond a mid level so... yeah Ip'ing: Go.

Okay, so we are in agreement, except I don't think anyone is still around who thinks the "absolute defense" is necessary.

As I've said, it is a CharOp concept, and can be scaled up or down as necessary. Some times it can be scaled so far down that all you have or need is already included (base saves). Some games it needs to be scaled up to "cheater of Mystra" or "Twice-betrayer of Shar" levels (read gygaxian grindfest).

The main points I agree with you are:
I never believe in absolutes, everything is a question of scale. (Though I don't think anyone is still arguing the absolutes anymore, I think everyone is now arguing about how to measure the scale. At least that's what I've been arguing about.)

"Devs did not know what they were doing." For all of your overstating, that is one hell of an understatement. Sometime I think a Schizophrenic Epileptic Monkey could have written better while dancing to Techno.

@ Mooncrow

I would join the conversation in the thread, but you guys are using "IP proofing" to mean about four different, albeit related, concepts.  Before the flames start up again, maybe you should sit down and define your terms. 

 Primarily meaning guarding yourself from SoD / SoL / SoS effects.

[midnight_v]

So, what you're saying is that when someone acts like an arrogant prick, it's ok to call them on it?

Well, I can certainly agree with that at least. 

I would join the conversation in the thread, but you guys are using "IP proofing" to mean about four different, albeit related, concepts.  Before the flames start up again, maybe you should sit down and define your terms.

Thanks. Yeah I am saying that but all that, letting things be about "JUST" that to the point where the ideas are missed in the hate for each other is worthless.
  I note you're all about that and yes BB can be that, but if this is really about Ip Profing you're right.
  I'm not trying to guide the discussion mind you I'm just saying.

Iterative Probability Proofing: Laymans terms.
With the posit being Hit with enough varied attacks eventually 1 of them will kill you. Potentially with some degree of regularity.
The only way to stop/slow/prevent this is to inexorably do as much as you can to gain immunities and substantial defenses to as many as the varied effects as possible.
---------------------------

A good example of this is any boss monster. Most "boss" monsters in video games for instance have a giant list of immunites, and you are force to actually wittle down thier hit-point total, or like megaman use thier specific "bane" to kill them.

  However they have the good fortune of not having to express how they got to be boss monsters, unlike pc's who are expected to reach that level of might reaching higher levels. While being subjected live to hundreds or thosands of attacks in route to being level 20.

To further illustrate this point one can look at "God" or "battlefild control casters" what makes them so effective is in many ways the things they do apply effects that bypass most iterative probablity defenses.

Above I made the illustration "We're tired of James being dominated" I wasn't making that up so much as alluding to comic books: I was refering to James Howlett aka Wolverine. Here we have a primary warrior who is varied and  relavent enough so as to be  dangerous, but who is overwhelmingly the choice for supervillians using dominiate like effects against.
"Dominated ... again, logan?" it reached the point where it was played for laughs.

The simple answer is to shore up the will saves, but with the 1/20 fail chance, its better for some to simple become immune to mind affecting effects.

2. Above posts slipped in while I was typing.
I read sunic and roy's posts there I agreed with them to  degree...
I don't recall it saying that You need to be "invicible" so much as you need to start collecting immunites to certain things at a certain point, or have access to them (which went a lot in to caster imbalance talks etc).
In my head I can't help but specifically think of Ip'ing to mean something like: Beyond a certain level you really need freedom of movement(or an equivelant "heart of water") to keep playing... (or bullshit ensues).
Thats all without having of course a dm that doesnt' run X monster for x reasons. "Oozes" had the dubious honor, of being the unusable groan monster in many of my groups, but using but you know...
WE can get a working and agreed upon definiton as we need one for the sake of conversation.