Author Topic: mistaken implications of IP-proofing  (Read 32018 times)

Offline Mooncrow

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ***
  • Posts: 983
  • The man who will be Pirate King
    • View Profile
Re: mistaken implications of IP-proofing
« Reply #80 on: March 12, 2012, 09:07:08 PM »
Primarily meaning guarding yourself from SoD / SoL / SoS effects.

How?  Guarding to what extent?  You mention "statistically insignificant" in earlier posts; what threshold meets that standard?  And even without answering those questions, that's still a different slightly different definition than the original IP Proofing concept.

So, yeah.  You might want to think through what you really mean, and what others might really mean before you start arguing (or agreeing for that matter) on the same phrase used to mean different things. 

edit: and sorry Midnight_v - the last line was meant as a general "you" and not you specifically.  My poor wording there. 

I have more things to add after I get back from grabbing food.
« Last Edit: March 12, 2012, 09:10:20 PM by Mooncrow »

Offline ariasderros

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2507
  • PM me what you're giving Kudos for please.
    • View Profile
Re: mistaken implications of IP-proofing
« Reply #81 on: March 12, 2012, 09:25:51 PM »
Primarily meaning guarding yourself from SoD / SoL / SoS effects.

How?  Guarding to what extent?  You mention "statistically insignificant" in earlier posts; what threshold meets that standard?  And even without answering those questions, that's still a different slightly different definition than the original IP Proofing concept.
1) "How?" is one of the things we are discussing. Therefore I can't answer that.
2) "Extent?", ditto.
3) Actually, I did not. I responded to someone else who did. Therefore I can't speak for them.

Slightly. The base meaning is still the same though, I just defined it in a less extreme extent of the same concept. Which I think everyone here who read the old thread has agreed that the original was too extreme of an extent.


Quote
So, yeah.  You might want to think through what you really mean, and what others might really mean before you start arguing (or agreeing for that matter) on the same phrase used to mean different things. 

edit: and sorry Midnight_v - the last line was meant as a general "you" and not you specifically.  My poor wording there.
You would be as right as usual Mooncrow, except you seem to have missed the part wherein we have been attempting to discern how to define / redefine the term.

Basically, what has been happening here is that we are trying to figure out how to answer the questions you've put forth.
My new Sig
Hi, Welcome

Offline Rejakor

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 341
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: mistaken implications of IP-proofing
« Reply #82 on: March 12, 2012, 09:55:32 PM »
Midnight_V - yeah, see, i'm pretty sure IP-proofing isn't 'you need freedom of movement around 13th to even keep playing', it's more like 'you need to not die to an optimized finger of death by 13th, ever, in order to keep playing'.  Sunic went into gratuitous amounts of detail about it and specifically raged at people who ever tried to define it as a list of 'must haves' like freedom of movement, flight, a way to do damage/hurt people etc.

I agree at higher level and especially at higher tiers/levels of optimization there are certain 'must haves' that without them you can very easily be sidelined in even routine encounters - freedom of movement, flight, damage/lockdown, darkvision/see invisible, mind blank - but I don't agree that in the course of most normal play you must be able to make every save you are expected to make on a 1 and have rerolls when you roll a 1, be immune to dazing, stunning, poison, will saves, all elements, sneak attack and crits, etcetera etcetera, be able to avoid any attack, not just full attacks but charges and w/e, avoid lockdown completely, fly perfect, teleport, be able to escape forcecage, etc etc which is what I eventually dragged out of Roy/Sunic what he meant by 'IP proofing'.  At it's most basic, 'being immune to the roll of the dice killing you'.  I don't agree that that level of optimization is 'necessary' for any game at all.

Must haves, though, I do agree exist in DnD 3.5.  Especially at higher levels for beatstick/fightertypes, and especially at higher levels of optimization.  At low levels/low op a 'must have' might be a good suit of armour and weapon on a fighter, or preparing a couple of good buffs/utilities on a cleric and not just heal spells.

Offline Jackinthegreen

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 6176
  • I like green.
    • View Profile
Re: mistaken implications of IP-proofing
« Reply #83 on: March 12, 2012, 10:05:41 PM »
Let me clarify one of my positions:

I believe "These things aren't a problem if you have a competent DM, and decent players" is very context-sensitive.  "These things" needs a context after all.  For example, most people say (and I agree with them) that a DM who doesn't allow Tome of Battle at all because "it's too powerful" isn't competent enough to know that it really isn't.  Thus ToB isn't a problem if the DM is competent, correct? 

On the other hand, a competent DM has every right to say "no Pun-Pun" because that by its nature would be a problem in almost all campaigns.  It doesn't matter if the DM or players are competent: Pun-Pun causes problems.


I'm not sure what to think of the example with trying to challenge a party of full casters.  If I was to see that I definitely wouldn't say "Competent DM/decent players" because the context is definitely not right.  Even competent people have questions every now and then.



As far as IP goes, I'm of the mindset that if certain things will be a statistically major threat then guarding against them should be intuitive.  Lots of SoDs going around?  Up the saves, get rerolls, acquire Evasion and/or Mettle, and if they go out often enough something like Steadfast Determination to prevent auto fails will definitely help on preparing.  Lots of attacks targeting AC?  Up the AC, get miss chances, figure out ways to avoid getting attacked, etc.

On the statistics side of things, only failing on a 1 is pretty decent, normally  A problem comes when it's repeated SoD's since the chance to fail just once rises past 50% once we hit 14 iterations.  Over the course of a 1-20 campaign the characters will be subject to scores, if not hundreds, of saves.  The chance of rolling a single 1 is well past 99% at that time.

If the extent of needing protection is "succeed or die, do not pass Go, do not exist, nothing can reverse it" then making sure success is the only option is rather important.  If the extent is "fail the save and suck for a bit" then it's more manageable.
« Last Edit: March 12, 2012, 10:14:31 PM by Jackinthegreen »

Offline RedWarlock

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 628
  • Crimson-colored caster of calamity
    • View Profile
    • Red Blade Studios
Re: mistaken implications of IP-proofing
« Reply #84 on: March 12, 2012, 10:39:28 PM »
So basically it sounds like we need to define quantities of competence, for saves and the like.

Here's my rough scheme, per type of challenge (the main reference here is saves, but it could be extended to a bunch of different problems):

Rank 5: Incompetent. A character incapable of dealing with the challenge, no compensation feats/buffs and no counter-actions, is failing more than 50% of the time. Prime example would be a Fighter being targeted by a SoD Will save, without Iron Will or like feats, defensive items or secondary solutions, including no team members able to reverse it after the fact.

Rank 4: Minimally competent. A character that would by default be unable to deal with the challenge, but with some compensation or counter-solutions. This could include team buffs, team reversals/cures, or even just optimization of build to try to reduce the weak point in the build. Succeeds against a given challenge more than 50% of the time. (With full party aid, this can be raised to near 100%, but that's true of everything at this rank and above.)

Rank 3: Averagely competent. A character that has built to explicitly negate the fact that this challenge is a weakness in the default structure of the character, OR a character who has a listed strength against this challenge, but has done nothing to secure this strength, like having a good save but an associated ability penalty. Succeeds more than 75% of the time.

Rank 2: Highly competent. A character built to fight this challenge, including at least one layer of reinforcement. This could be keeping the counter-challenge features properly supported thought stats and feats, or keeping a 'get out of jail free' option at hand, even if that option is held by another allied player. Succeeds more than 90% of the time.

Rank 1: Extremely competent. A character geared towards laughing at this challenge, treating it as a non-issue. (keep in mind this scale says nothing about other challenges, IE saves, but this character might be rank 1 in this avenue but rank 4 or 5 in another.) This character has maximized the features to beat this challenge, and can't possibly fail, because even if they do, there are multiple countermeasures in place which keep it from becoming a problem. Succeeds more than 99% of the time, and if they do, it's only because the DM specifically created circumstances to defeat the character.

So (in my history) most characters have a mix of rank 4 to rank 2 for various saves, and someone who went out of their way to have a rank 1 in one challenge method would have a rank 5 in another. A hypothetical TO full-IP-proofing character would be rank 1 vs all available challenges, whereas I think most people's estimation of IP proofing mentioned in this thread would have between a rank 2 or 3.
WarCraft post-d20: A new take on the World of WarCraft for tabletop. I need your eyes and comments!

Offline veekie

  • Spinner of Fortunes
  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5423
  • Chaos Dice
    • View Profile
Re: mistaken implications of IP-proofing
« Reply #85 on: March 13, 2012, 06:05:48 AM »
^^
More than that, the metrics run on both sides of the screen.
The 'correct' solution is a synthesis of frequency, optimization and challenge varieties.

GM side variables, based on the campaign. If you're a player, this determines what kind of preparedness you need. If you're the GM, this determines what degree do your players need to be protected to function in your game. Preparedness more than 1 step above or below the campaign can be contrary to fun, since you wind up just ignoring pretty much everything incoming, invest more than you would have lost to begin with, or wind up being Kenny from South Park.

Usage of 'true' Save or Die - The metric here is whether they show up at all.
-None: Business as usual.
-Low frequency(1 in 12 encounters): Pack post-ante recovery like Break Enchantment, Stone to Flesh, Revenance+Revivify, etc. Your regular defenses can deal with them for the most part. It costs a bit of xp and wealth, but fits easily into disposable wealth. Presuming 1-2 encounters per session, this represents a sizable chunk of a campaign arc(and if you are any good at offense/defense, you probably won't lose anyone). If you're going by entirely random monster picks, you'd probably end up here.
-Medium frequency(1 in 8 encounters): Frequent enough that generic rerolls or short duration immunities should be used. You don't need to walk around all day warded against death, but its cost effective to have a few scrolls or potions to reroll bad saves or put up Death Ward for a fight rather than just getting splatted on a regular basis. Contingencies and contingent style effects like Heart of Water may be useful at this point to negate particularly nasty examples.
-High frequency(1 in 4 encounters): Once a day IC, something may flat out kill you. You're going to need immunities, long term ones, and contingencies for things that bypass those(e.g. Implosion). Immediate action options like Wings of Cover or the Celerity series to outright avoid having to save to begin with are vital as well, along with surprise negating senses like Mindsight, and high initiatives.
-Nintendo Hard(every encounter): Every fight has something of this variety(did you attack a mage academy or something?). Using extreme no-sell tactics like tinfoil hats, shaped antimagic fields, Astral Projected adventuring and the like to provide persistent all-inclusive immunities would be needed to survive at all.
These effects include death, disintegration, permanent transformation, permanent mental alteration, permanent immobility, etc. As long as an effect is permanent until removed, and invalidates a character's ability to participate, it counts here. So severe debuffs like Bestow Curse/Blindness don't count, as you can participate, if in a crippled manner, but being polymorphed into a bunny would.

Usage of Save or Lose - The metric here is how many characters they might eliminate. Turncoat effects count for twice as much. Worst enemy of a PC is another PC.
-None: No worries
-Low(1/4 characters): Most even marginally optimized parties can kick the enemy's ass just fine with one man down. If the party is sufficiently optimized to be able to take out half(or more) of an equal CR enemy in one round, they can just let the fallen dude stay there and finish the enemy off anyway.
-Medium(2/4 characters): Some trouble here, as it implies AoE effects with a good DC(taking out the weak saves in one shot) or mind control. Straight offense is still an option, but you'd need to reliably oneshot the enemy. Recovery is significant here, undoing the removal or breaking mind control needs to be available, and more importantly, available to multiple characters(potions) or available without actions(contingents).
-High(3/4 characters): Unless you have wholly embraced rocket tag and is able to destroy everything solo in a single round, you're looking at a TPK here. Mass recovery is helpful, but generally not all that available unless you can do it with Dispel Magic or Magic Circle. So immunities on at least half the party is a good idea. About the same as a SoD of one step lower(see above).
-All(Everyone):  This is just an Save or TPK, and should be treated like an SoD of one step higher(see above). Post ante methods do not work on this. Also note that frequency here relates to odds of success, unless the DC is improbably high or theres no save at all, it is extremely improbable to face one that can successfully wipe a whole party.
These are the non-permanent defeat effects like Stun, Sleep, involuntary teleportation, mind control, etc.  They might be worse for a given encounter, but

Nonstandard Loss Track - The criteria here is the number of hits you can take before you are out.
None: Nothing to see here.
Low(Requires upwards of 3 rounds) - As with SoL, you can just damage race them easily.
Medium(2 rounds) - Damage racing is still an option, but effective recovery(canceling out as much variant damage as at least 1 round of the enemy can inflict) is good as most of these are also debuffs.
High(1 round) - Save or Die/Lose by another name. See above.
These are the alternate non-hp tracks you can go down from. Ability damage, Negative levels, etc. The danger is mainly from having crippling overspecialization leave you with a vulnerability, such as the famous Dragon vs Shivering Touch example. Ego whip is another nasty sample.

Statistics Race - This is just damage vs hp and DR, to hit vs AC. Standard optimization applies and I doubt I need to elaborate.

Armed with this information, you can then have a DM pick the desired hazard level of each, and ensure the party is ready to the appropriate degrees.
EDIT: Readable
« Last Edit: March 13, 2012, 06:09:26 AM by veekie »
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.