Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Remuthra]

It might be an interesting adventure to have to fight an exploity character like that. Stop the evil outsider gliding down from the sky from reaching the ground and throwing the planet into the sun.

[Harbingerjm]

Aye, but let's not go too far down the improvised weapon optimization path.  Down that road lies the Warhulking Hurler, and that's even more ridiculous than bringing TF2's Heavy into D&D.

He's designing the character around using a bottle, that's a pretty solid cap on what he can do, unless he's going for a "He uses a bottle to hit things! And also gets his 60 wizard minions to animate bottle minions for him" kind of build.
Hmmm...

[LeoLeonardoIII]

Well it doesn't require two light maces, it requires a light mace in each or in both hands (forget which, I'm away from my books at the moment).  In any case, a bone-headed literal reading notices that all available hands are full of great crossbow, and activates the feat.

This seems like the feat text. It has a prerequisite of Two Weapon Fighting, and flavor text which says it's meant for two light maces. It says "a light mace in each hand" which would either mean you must use a single light mace which is held in both hands (a singular light mace) and it couldn't work with two light maces, or would mean one light mace in one hand and one light mace in the other hand, and it couldn't work with one light mace.
Taking the prereq and flavor text into account, I don't see how even Clinton could argue this feat is for a two-handed weapon.

EDIT: Furthermore, since a light mace is too small for almost anybody to use in two hands, it seems unlikely the feat was written to accomodate Leprechaun macefighters.

So, simply pick up the weapon property Do Thing (+1), which lets you do whatever you want.

In this particular game we were allowed to go pretty crazy because it was to be the last 3.5 game played before switching to 4E.

DM didn't care. Answered my question.

[Nerjin]

Well honestly the bottle is just for a laugh. I tend to Role-play one type of character: Me. So I've decided I want to try being an absolute drunk who can't really afford decent weapons cause he's gotta have them boozes. The way I figure it he's in his late 50's or early 60's. I dunno yet. I'm still waiting to hear whether this is PBP or not.

[weenog]

You stop taking flavor text seriously when you read nonsense like "Fighter is the best fighting class".  And you stop making arguments about writer intent when you notice that many times the rules contradict themselves even within the same book (for example, undead creatures that lose particular organs can no longer use the senses associated with those organs, but skeletons are neither blind nor deaf).

A lot of the writers didn't know what the other writers working on the same projects were doing.  Flavor text and mechanics text seldom agree with each other.  Besides, ultimately the point of a game is to have fun with it.  If extrapolating literal interpretations of what you're given to bizarre conclusions is what you enjoy, you're no better nor worse than a player who uses the texts as a mere guideline framework to build their own shakespearean drama cause that's what they enjoy.

[weenog]

Well honestly the bottle is just for a laugh. I tend to Role-play one type of character: Me. So I've decided I want to try being an absolute drunk who can't really afford decent weapons cause he's gotta have them boozes. The way I figure it he's in his late 50's or early 60's. I dunno yet. I'm still waiting to hear whether this is PBP or not.

Your contribution doesn't have to be Destroy All Enemies.  You do need to not be dead weight in a fight, but you needn't be the one striking disabling blows.  I actually played a character for a couple of years who was strictly support -- he had virtually no personal killing power, but in combat he used auras and other subtle magic to empower allies and weaken enemies, and outside of combat he was an effective diplomat who ensured allies and reinforcements were never far away.  He wasn't a boozehound, but he could have worked the same way if he had been.

[Remuthra]

Bards are rather useful for that sort of thing.

[weenog]

Bards are rather useful for that sort of thing.

Last time I played a constantly intoxicated character, he was actually a sorcerer -- innate talent, no study required.  He didn't understand what he was doing, he didn't cast spells intentionally, the world just went along with his delusions sometimes.

I could see a drunk who adventures because he's addicted and penniless wanting to amass a lot of spell power.  Just think, with enough practice, he could conjure up gallons of grain alcohol.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

You stop taking flavor text seriously when you read nonsense like "Fighter is the best fighting class".  And you stop making arguments about writer intent when you notice that many times the rules contradict themselves even within the same book (for example, undead creatures that lose particular organs can no longer use the senses associated with those organs, but skeletons are neither blind nor deaf).

A lot of the writers didn't know what the other writers working on the same projects were doing.  Flavor text and mechanics text seldom agree with each other.  Besides, ultimately the point of a game is to have fun with it.  If extrapolating literal interpretations of what you're given to bizarre conclusions is what you enjoy, you're no better nor worse than a player who uses the texts as a mere guideline framework to build their own shakespearean drama cause that's what they enjoy.

Exactly my point. I agree with you that your extrapolation of literal interpretations to bizarre conclusions was probably enjoyable for you. I'm sure the game you described was fun for everyone involved. You guys played that way because you liked it. But if your mini-game is rules-lawyering a bunch of loopholes, and you find satisfaction in game-breaking bugs, those bugs have to be legitimate - and not willful misinterpretations.

I also agree with you that the writers of these books clearly didn't know what was going on in other books, and/or didn't care to explore all of the rules interactions. Although I fail to see how someone could write up Aptitude without thinking of how dumb it would be to have people using grappling feats with a blowgun. Or the game balance problems with letting people use feats that were supposed to go on a light mace (low damage, low crit chance, sucky weapon) on a great crossbow instead (missile, high damage, high crit, cool exotic weapon). Just bad game design.

And I agree that you can't use flavor text with the same weight as rule text. I'd call flavor text and writer intent "persuasive authority" and refer to it when there's confusion over what the rule says. Like in this case.

Finally, while I'd agree that literal interpretation to bizarre conclusions and freeform shakespearean drama are possible extreme play styles, there are plenty of (more legitimate) play styles in between. As with many things, extremism is dumb and life is better in the middle. If a DM vetoes all the worst loopholes and abuses I'd say it improves the game.

[weenog]

How extreme I get depends partly on what I'm using as my basic build chassis.  Something that's already very capable with a little know-how, like a sorcerer or a psychic warrior, I don't really do much optimization there -- there's no need, no challenge, and little fun.  Something that's so low-powered it can't keep up when played straightforwardly, like a fighter or a warmage, that's where I choose to flex my optimization muscles and produce something crazy and awesome.

A lot of the time I look at the mechanical side of D&D as a puzzle to be solved.  There are so many pieces, many of them mismatched, all of them incomplete, and it takes a lot of turning, rearranging and review to convert them from a box of scraps to an image of something beautiful.

That's not to say that I neglect or dislike story.  Story is actually why I got into optimization in the first place.  I feel, as many optimizers do, that a character's abilities should reinforce his story, not expose it for a farce.  I think it's disappointing, embarrassing, and poor roleplay when a character's background writes checks his statistics can't cash.

A couple of examples.

A friend of mine had a character called Jorlin Bearcrusher.  He'd gotten his name because, as a youth, he'd gotten lost in the wilderness, encountered a wild bear, and by the time he was located they found him battered but triumphant atop the mangled corpse of the beast.  A situation came up in the game where he actually was required to engage a brown bear unarmed, solo.  He was expected to be fine, because he'd done it before in his backstory, and he was hardier and more experienced now.  Jorlin couldn't get it done in the grappling department, and died.  It wasn't even sad, it was just lame.

I had a character called Lerris Wyrmspeaker.  As a youth, he'd heard of a dragon sage near his homeland, scaled a mile high stone pillar to her lair seeking guidance, calmly struck up a conversation, and she became his friend and mentor.  When Lerris was called upon during the game to replicate these feats, he could do all of them -- he was a strong, charismatic, highly skilled climber and diplomat, with immunity to Frightful Presence and to fire (including breath weapons of that type), and with enough hit points to withstand a true dragon's physical onslaught if necessary, for a while.  When the party was ambushed by a black dragon in a swamp, Lerris tanked it until he could talk it out of attacking.  When they were required to slay a blue dragon by one of its rivals, Lerris led the party into combat and they defeated it handily.  He scaled walls and cliffs like a squirrel up a tree, and when a rescue was needed in the blazing inferno of a vandalized temple, he rolled right in with fireproof confidence and no hesitation.  Lerris was very popular with NPCs and with the other players, and he lived long enough to retire, rich, celebrated as a hero, married to an ice queen type he'd gradually won over, and founding a new religion dedicated to the (now ascended) dragon that had started his whole career.

Jorlin wasn't optimized.  Lerris was optimized, not for real ultimate power, but to be able to do what his story said he was supposed to.  Jorlin didn't last long, and nobody really cared when he went.  Lerris went the distance, and everybody liked the character.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

I agree that handling the mechanics and making a "build" is part of 3E, as many people play it, and it's as much a mini-game as managing encumbrance is in some games.

And if everyone is the group is "optimizing" (I'll use your terminology), there isn't a huge game balance problem. Your 3rd level PCs will just be taking on 8th level adventures - or else just mindlessly crushing 3rd level adventures, if that's your bag.

I see problems when (1) only one or two players are optimizing, which throws the game way off, and (2) when some players are just uninterested in optimizing or unable to do it, which leads to the same problems. Again, if your group is all at the same level of optimization, nobody's going to be superpowered or underpowered, depending on how you look at it.

However, in terms of "writing checks your character can't cash", I'd say four things.

(1) If your backstory is awesome, don't expect your character to be able to do those things. Sure the DM doesn't care if your backstory is that you're a master swordsman. But don't expect to be allowed to roll up a 6th level character so that it's true in-game - or optimize to the point that your 1st level character is as tough as a 6th level one. I don't think it's legitimate to expect that a low-level character can do the extreme things that anybody could think up in a backstory. What makes you think you should survive a dragon that's 10+ CR above you? Where in the world does that thinking even come from? That's some shakespearean drama bullshit there.

(2) Should you have a backstory full of interesting things? Or should you do interesting things in the game? You could say everything from level 1-3 is your backstory. If you encounter some rabid wild dogs and hide in the trees while your party pelts them with arrows and drives them off, then that's your story. If you want your character to be the guy who scaled the mountain and charmed the dragon, then DO THAT STUFF. Don't cop out and say you already did it. And if you can't do it, your story is that you valiantly tried but failed.

(3) If you start out cool, where do you go from there? It sounds like the dragon-whisperer in your example didn't do much in his career that was a whole lot better than his backstory.

(4) Of course the optimized character was successful and lived a life of wonder. He was optimized, so he was overpowered for whatever challenges came his way. The dragon-whisperer was Easy Mode. That means, while you may have had fun playing him, there's an asterisk next to his accomplishments like a baseball player on steroids and a corked bat. Take any 1st level character, give him the stats of a 10th level character, and brag that you killed a bear singlehanded. Whoop-de-freakin' doo.

1st level characters are supposed to be beginner dumbasses who can take on some goblins and giant rats. Through clever play and persistence you work your way up to trolls and dragons and stuff. If you wanna be able to take on dragons right away, just roll up 10th level characters.

You know what's disappointing, embarrassing, and poor role-play? Rolling up a 1st level character who already did 10th level crap but can't do it anymore because he's actually only 1st level. He's just a lying bum.

In reality, yesterday, I helped someone push a big junked car up a ramp and onto a trailer. There was gravel, so little traction, and the ramp was steep. We had three people pushing but it was difficult. One of us simply could not have pushed that car into the trailer. I may have wanted to push the car, but my desires are immaterial: the car was too heavy. Similarly, you may desire your 1st level character to be as badass as a 6th level, but alas, it is not meant to be. And it should not be! And if a funky loophole lets you fire 40 shots at level 6, a good DM will put the kibosh on it.

Might as well play with weighted dice. 

All of this of course assumes that the DM and players give a shit about the game and it's not a complete joke. Some people just play silly games with +50 Vorpal Windmills of Bardsmithing. When you describe that great crossbow build, that's what comes to mind: a crazy game that's fun until you get sick of it, like binging on candy.

And, I am not saying you're playing badly. All this stemmed from you quoting a loophole build and me pointing out a flaw, and you returning with a slam on rules-lawyering (which is kinda weird since you were so proud of your rules-lawyering).

[Remuthra]

~~~~~End of Argument~~~~~

This marks the end of the argument, so that this doesn't spiral too far out of control.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

Yeah, the two of us just have diametrically opposed views on certain things.

ON TO BETTER AND MORE INTERESTING THINGS ;P

[GreatWyrmGold]

-snip-

Make sense, GWG?

Everything except why you needed to fake being LE.
(Well, that and why the image is broken.)

Besides which, it's very simple to do something like 24 attacks per round.

I quit trying to count the time the character surpassed 40 bolts in a surprise round standard action.  The enemy certainly was surprised.

Have you considered trying to kill the entire world's population in a standard action?

Wish.
Or, for a small enough world, there's a BoVD spell which targets something lime a 10 miles per caster level radius.

Hmmm... What's the Earth's material hardness?

Earth is primarily made of stone. Stone's hardness is 8. You should be worried about the huge number of hit points.
Of course, this assumes that the world is like Earth. If the campaign world is made of adamantine with soil on top, it would be harder. If the world is flat or inversely spherical, it would be much, much easier.

You stop taking flavor text seriously when you read nonsense like "Fighter is the best fighting class".  And you stop making arguments about writer intent when you notice that many times the rules contradict themselves even within the same book (for example, undead creatures that lose particular organs can no longer use the senses associated with those organs, but skeletons are neither blind nor deaf).
A lot of the writers didn't know what the other writers working on the same projects were doing.  Flavor text and mechanics text seldom agree with each other.  Besides, ultimately the point of a game is to have fun with it.  If extrapolating literal interpretations of what you're given to bizarre conclusions is what you enjoy, you're no better nor worse than a player who uses the texts as a mere guideline framework to build their own shakespearean drama cause that's what they enjoy.

Preach it!

...But if your mini-game is rules-lawyering a bunch of loopholes, and you find satisfaction in game-breaking bugs, those bugs have to be legitimate - and not willful misinterpretations.
I also agree with you that the writers of these books clearly didn't know what was going on in other books, and/or didn't care to explore all of the rules interactions. Although I fail to see how someone could write up Aptitude without thinking of how dumb it would be to have people using grappling feats with a blowgun. Or the game balance problems with letting people use feats that were supposed to go on a light mace (low damage, low crit chance, sucky weapon) on a great crossbow instead (missile, high damage, high crit, cool exotic weapon). Just bad game design.

Look at it this way: It balances crossbow-users with every spellcaster ever. Well, a little.
(A non-optimized wizard can easily do anything an optimized fighter can do, and probably better, AND it can do a lot of other stuff.)

I feel, as many optimizers do, that a character's abilities should reinforce his story, not expose it for a farce.  I think it's disappointing, embarrassing, and poor roleplay when a character's background writes checks his statistics can't cash.

Which is why my characters tend to be nobodies. Once, I played a dwarf who was a fish cleaner until several minutes into the campaign.
...That didn't end well, actually. So don't go so far that you can't get your character adventuring.

I see problems when...(2) when some players are just uninterested in optimizing or unable to do it, which leads to the same problems. Again, if your group is all at the same level of optimization, nobody's going to be superpowered or underpowered, depending on how you look at it.

I've been there. Back on the GitP forums (where I first donned the mortal mantle of GreatWyrmGold), one of my first threads asked why the monk was weak.
Wrex was running a game of 3.5 a while back, where it was constantly mentioned that my character was unoptimized. Some people thought I was doing it on purpose or something like that, which was really annoying...
Or maybe they were just refusing to help.

(2,3)

Excellent points, and another argument for starting as a nobody. I'd argue that they are really the same point, though.

~~~~~End of Argument~~~~~

This marks the end of the argument, so that this doesn't spiral too far out of control.

I'm agreeing with points on both sides, so I'm not technically arguing!

Anyways. Who's GMing again?

[Nerjin]

Optimization seems like it'd lead to some boring stuff. I'd prefer to have some situations I'm just horrible in rather than "Oh, another thing I can just steam roll." but I might be wrong.