Quote from: Sommerjon;589235Sure I'll have a discussion with you, however if you are going to 'try to get all up in my face'  I wont even bother.

I saw over on one of them links people were flashing around recently from tgd of all places someone using type instead of edition.  I really like that better.  It's all D&D they just happen to be different types of D&D.

If you prefer a different type of D&D more power to yous guys, just don;t poo on someone else's type of D&D.

My liking of Fighters and Rogues isn't bound by D&D standards, personally I never found D&D to really scratch my fantasy itch as well as other systems do.  It works, but D&D has always been slanted heavily towards magic classes.

I've still never heard of that terminology and I don't see it used there either. Now you're right that D&D in all editions is pretty heavily skewed towards magic, though this is mainly because non magical characters don't have a very wide array of abilities. So even if you can avoid problems such as "combatant who is not relevant in combat" you still can't do anything to influence the plot, or anything useful outside of battle.

The second reason is because your opponents are either magical or things that non magic can't really deal with. Sure some big giant is just swinging a greatclub around, but that weapon is twice as big as you are. You have essentially no chance of killing him before he kills you unless you're using a lot of magic (and I don't just mean stat boosting gear, I also mean utility magic items and the like).

Even at low levels, show me how a non magical person melees down an Ogre. They don't. D&D characters are expected to and often cannot.

Now to tie this back into the main subject of the thread, if it were just that certain classes couldn't play D&D, well the game would go on with those that can. And there's quite a few that can, they're just the magical ones. I'd say around half the classes can. And 50% of options making the cut as usable is amazingly good. Normally there's only about 10-20% worth using.

But that isn't all there is to it. The basket weavers not only refuse to play an adventurer that can adventure but try to drag down others as well and try to drag down discussions as well. Neither of which are at all acceptable, and the combination of these two things makes it so that what should be a simple or at most moderately difficult problem to solve instead becomes essentially impossible, all due to a mindset that promotes the antithesis of good play.

I find it highly ironic that I am both one of the worst 'basket weavers' on this site, constantly supporting sub-par builds and promoting non-specialisation as a more realistic choice for most PCs, whilst at the same time being one of the very few posters that had time for the denners position and agreed with most of their maths.

It is the case that low level D&D characters are at the mercy of a lucky combat roll.
It is the case that Magic Users would be more 'balanced' if they got more spell slots earlier and less later so flatening their power curve.
It is the case that clerics are more powerful in old D&D editions compared to other classes.

However....

It is also true that

The ability to customise your character to an unplayably gimped level didn't exist in D&D until 3x

Playing a character that does not excel in combat is only critically bad if combat makes up the majority of your game and even then its a roleplay opportunity. The craven figther that tries to avoid combat and hides when it happens is a valid PC.

Not all D&D is about combat. As I have stated previously I have played D&D games where there are no combats for multi sessions.



The most ironic thing is the people who critised me for playing 1e characters who didn't follow the 10 foot pole professional adventurer paradigm which relies on player skill are now in an argument with people who are saying you need to pick a character that maximises their numbers through player skill.
Both paradigms are about player skill trumping role play the Stormwind Falacy I believe it was flagged as
One says you should always take a bag of flour with you becuase you can use it to identify and track invisible creatures
The other says you should always make sure by 4th level you have selected an item or a skill that allows you to identify invisible opponents.

To me these are both the same thing. Where as I might well say ... I'm a low level fighter with low inteligence and low wisdom...what's an invisible opponent look like?

Quote from: jibbajibba;589251Not all D&D is about combat. As I have stated previously I have played D&D games where there are no combats for multi sessions.
...
To me these are both the same thing. Where as I might well say ... I'm a low level fighter with low inteligence and low wisdom...what's an invisible opponent look like?

I'm now teaching my gf and a few others how to play DnD (started last week and will continue this week) and I have to get her off the "I can just kill my way through every problem" bike. I have a strong distaste for every fighter knowing how to approach invisible targets that they've never had any experience in dealing with. I have the same distaste for people that think casting a single spell should solve every problem (there was going to be some sleep shenanigans in that game with no forward thinking about how people would react to it). These are what I'd call a problem with the player.

What I don't think is a problem with the player is having a nonfunctional character. A character that has to rely on me (the GM) just to be able to do stuff at all is anathema to me. While I don't think DnD is all about combat (as I believe exploration, info gathering, diplomacy, etc are valid options) I do believe that Craft: Woven Baskets doesn't do anything to help in anything that a given campaign would be focused on. Now there may~ be a game out there where you're playing Logistics and Dragons and the number of baskets you can make in a given time is a necessary thing to know I'd think that that type of game is exceedingly rare and I'd have to point out that diplomacy, bluff, etc are still important even in that game making those skills still more flexible and valuable then a character's ability to weave baskets.

Quote from: jibbajibba;589251Playing a character that does not excel in combat is only critically bad if combat makes up the majority of your game and even then its a roleplay opportunity. The craven figther that tries to avoid combat and hides when it happens is a valid PC.

Not all D&D is about combat. As I have stated previously I have played D&D games where there are no combats for multi sessions.

Ultimately it doesn't matter how often combat comes up. If it is any number greater than 0, then when combat comes you can either deal with it or you cannot, and if you cannot (including a Fighter that runs and hides when called upon to do his thing) then one way or the other you're getting out of that game. Could be via character death, could be via party booting them...

If it is 0, you're not only playing the worst game imaginable for a conflict less scenario but you're playing one of the worst classes for the same as it isn't as if you can do meaningful things outside of combat (meaningful being beyond what a Commoner could manage).

QuoteOne says you should always take a bag of flour with you becuase you can use it to identify and track invisible creatures
The other says you should always make sure by 4th level you have selected an item or a skill that allows you to identify invisible opponents.

To me these are both the same thing. Where as I might well say ... I'm a low level fighter with low inteligence and low wisdom...what's an invisible opponent look like?

These are not the same thing at all. See, the main threat of an invisible opponent is that you don't know they're there.

See Invisibility allows you to deal with this.

Bags of flour only allow you to deal with it if you know they are there (meaning, already announced themselves as a threat and broke normal invisibility, so we're assuming Improved or Superior here) and know at least approximately where they are (with no detection abilities, good luck with that).

Team See Invis can see the invisible ambush before it actually ambushes them. Flour spammers can at best reveal the attacker (assuming again they have not revealed themselves) after they've already been hit by an ambush, and given that 1: This is D&D. 2: They just got ambushed. 3: Their best answer to invisibility, a basic threat is bags of flour it is very likely half or more of the party just died in the surprise round on account of general weakness.

"I might be visible, but you're dead!"

Sounds like a win for Team Monster to me.

Quote from: Mr. GC;589258Ultimately it doesn't matter how often combat comes up. If it is any number greater than 0, then when combat comes you can either deal with it or you cannot, and if you cannot (including a Fighter that runs and hides when called upon to do his thing) then one way or the other you're getting out of that game. Could be via character death, could be via party booting them...

I've been playing D&D since 1975 and I can think of a good number of cowardly or combat-incompetent characters who who survived for many levels by avoiding direct combat as much as possible. And I've never been in a group of players who booted any character for not being useful enough in combat -- or any other part of the game for that matter. Players have occasionally be booted for being jerks, but never for not playing competent-enough characters.  If your games run that way, fine -- but not all games do.

Quote from: MGuy;589247I'm fairly sure I haven't mentioned any vacuums. I'm being as general as I can be about the subject. "Basket Weaver" as I defined it earlier doesn't mean much until you know what the motif/focus of the campaign is.

A character who decides to pick up Craft: Basket Weave is not necessarily "weak". As I understand it "basket weaver" is supposed to refer to someone who pays no heed to the rules of the game and plays a character not fit for the motif of the game. As in the person chooses to play a professional basket weaver in a game about big damn heroes.

Now, assuming the player doesn't focus on Craft:Basket Weaving may still end up being a valuable member of the team but they'd be slightly more effective if instead they put more points in a more valuable skill. In DnD you are essentially punished for not picking up every survival skill you can. For every point you spend on basket weaving you lose more valuable skills like spot/listen/sneak/Use Magic Device. That is not good. I whole heartedly believe the best approach is to have that skill available but not make it cost the same thing to get as more valuable skills.
It appears to me you have made certain skills more of an emphasis than others.  If I were to play in any game you ran, no matter the motif,  I would have to make sure certain select skills (that you have made artificially important) would be taken.  Those skills (based upon how type III D&D is designed) means class is restricted.

Quote from: MGuy;589247That disappointment is odd but not surprising. It sounds like there're certain expectations you have and anything that runs counter to that disables your ability to extrapolate the results. If the Elf's diplomacy score is so high that it trumps having another dwarf speak to dwarves perhaps that elf has become practiced at speaking with races of different kinds (like a diplomat would be). Perhaps he's even known among dwarven circles. Perhaps he even has the dwarf in the group present and vouching for him.

No.  I'm not beholden to the skill modifier.
  I make fervent use of backgrounds.  You make a character in my game that is, say, a Rogue who lived his whole life in Bigcityville and jibbajibba makes a Ranger who spent his whole life in the wilds, when you both roll(the same number) for a spot check (in the wilds), jibbajibba's Ranger will see far more than your Rogue will, the same if the place was switched.
The modifier doesn't tell all.

Quote from: MGuy;589247The problem I'm having with people here is that for every argument I make people invent another position for me that involves attacking their playstyle and imagine I'm attacking that, then proceed to defend against an argument I didn't make. Like take this discussion for example. Half the responses assume that I want to get rid of "basket weaving" skills (as in elf's post). You assume I'm talking about games in a vacuum where, in this case, I'm not. There's also been mention of the player's ability to make up for a poorly crafted character that both require the player being allowed by the GM to minimize the character's weaknesses. What's worse people are twisting me pointing out that this is happening at all as an attack on their playstyle. I'd have to say that's my biggest problem with this board; that when you point out "this shit is happening" that must mean I'm saying it is badwrong.

I would say it's more about your peeing in their wheaties.  Too many here have no problem talking out both sides of their mouths when it suits their need to be confrontational.

And from my point of view you have made part of the game a vacuum.  You let certain skills have greater emphasis over others.
If you could really see where others talk about engaging the setting instead of engaging the rules.  Sometimes rules suck when it comes to RPGs.

Quote from: MGuy;589247What I'm saying here is that certain skills (perception) has obvious and valuable uses in any situation. There is almost no game where perception isn't a thing you want to have. There are vanishingly few games where being able to basket weave is something useful, and as stated before a number of those games have to force basket weaving to come up (or in your case it could happen completely at random) or the GM allows basket weaving to do more than weaving baskets. At the same time getting craft: woven baskets directly prevents you from getting skills like perception and there is really is no reason to let that continue at all.

I would hazard an opinion that perception has become a crutch for players/DM to fall back upon when they don't want to interact with the setting.  Sorta like a group in my parts who just kill everything first then question the corpses.  They get around having to use Sense Motive and Diplomacy for the most part.  It's also like the 10' pole thing that drives me batshit crazy.  The whole idea of carrying a 10' pole around(do they not realize how bulky a 10' pole is?)

Quote from: MGuy;589247I'm not even sure what you mean. I'm going to have to ask for examples or more details. It is not hard to see which skills are always valuable to have (Diplomacy, Sense Motive, Hide, Bluff, Perception, Survival, Disable Device, etc) and which ones have marginal use at best (Knowledge: Nobility, Appraise, Profession, etc). There may be some people that overvalue things like Profession or even GMs that force you to have at least one profession (I've had a GM like that) but in every case those skills are given away as a bonus or have extra abilities attached to them so I'm not kicked in the balls (as hard) for adding flavor to my character.

Lets look at a couple you posted.
Diplomacy: High number trumps everything,  look up there at your 'justifications' for the dwarf/elf scenario
Sense Motive: Never encountered the race/creature...doesn't matter I gots a high mod, setting not engaged
Bluff: Never encountered the race/creature...doesn't matter I gots a high mod, setting not engaged
Perception: Never seen a red bellied slipper-slapper before but I can spot them all day long cuz I gots a high mod....
Survival:  I grew up in desertville, we teleported to snowville, no worries folks I gots a high mod....

I had always understood "basket-weaving" in RPGs as two parted: Speshul Snowflaking out over the mundane, and contempt for the actual system. Think Jar-Jar Binks, or even Jar-Jar Binks With Normal Voice.

Quote from: Mr. GC;589250I've still never heard of that terminology and I don't see it used there either. Now you're right that D&D in all editions is pretty heavily skewed towards magic, though this is mainly because non magical characters don't have a very wide array of abilities. So even if you can avoid problems such as "combatant who is not relevant in combat" you still can't do anything to influence the plot, or anything useful outside of battle.

That's a D&D problem not a non-magical character problem.
Personally I think D&D suffers from tradition far too much.

Quote from: Mr. GC;589250The second reason is because your opponents are either magical or things that non magic can't really deal with. Sure some big giant is just swinging a greatclub around, but that weapon is twice as big as you are. You have essentially no chance of killing him before he kills you unless you're using a lot of magic (and I don't just mean stat boosting gear, I also mean utility magic items and the like).

All depends on how you play D&D.  Yes from the sounds of your style of D&D this is true.  Perhaps you can see that not everyone will play D&D the exact same way, even type III D&D.

Quote from: Mr. GC;589250Even at low levels, show me how a non magical person melees down an Ogre. They don't. D&D characters are expected to and often cannot.

Depends on which type of D&D, depends on encounter distance, depends on lots of other factors.  Declaring they don;t doesn't seem like you want to actually discuss things just make opifacs(opinions as facts)

Quote from: Mr. GC;589250Now to tie this back into the main subject of the thread, if it were just that certain classes couldn't play D&D, well the game would go on with those that can. And there's quite a few that can, they're just the magical ones. I'd say around half the classes can. And 50% of options making the cut as usable is amazingly good. Normally there's only about 10-20% worth using.

But that isn't all there is to it. The basket weavers not only refuse to play an adventurer that can adventure but try to drag down others as well and try to drag down discussions as well. Neither of which are at all acceptable, and the combination of these two things makes it so that what should be a simple or at most moderately difficult problem to solve instead becomes essentially impossible, all due to a mindset that promotes the antithesis of good play.

Why get all prunefaced by a small outlying group?

Quote from: Sommerjon;589277That's a D&D problem not a non-magical character problem.
Personally I think D&D suffers from tradition far too much.

It's both. Either you only fight stuff that is effectively low level (which is not the same as actually being low level... if higher level means bigger numbers but no dynamic changes that's effectively low level) or you fight things that those that are effectively low level can't deal with. And non casters are always effectively low level.

QuoteAll depends on how you play D&D.  Yes from the sounds of your style of D&D this is true.  Perhaps you can see that not everyone will play D&D the exact same way, even type III D&D.

No, it's based on the monster manual. You flip through it and you see lots of casters, and lots of things that can't cast spells but are much bigger and stronger than you and that's about it really.

QuoteDepends on which type of D&D, depends on encounter distance, depends on lots of other factors.  Declaring they don;t doesn't seem like you want to actually discuss things just make opifacs(opinions as facts)

The encounter difference is "melee", since that's what I actually said. And that in turn comes down to if your numbers or their numbers are bigger. And even here the odds aren't looking so good for you since the Ogre is a clean 2 hit KO on you, whereas you'd have to really try to two hit KO it.

QuoteWhy get all prunefaced by a small outlying group?

If only it were small and outlying, I'd have no problem.

Quote from: Mr. GC;589258Ultimately it doesn't matter how often combat comes up. If it is any number greater than 0, then when combat comes you can either deal with it or you cannot, and if you cannot (including a Fighter that runs and hides when called upon to do his thing) then one way or the other you're getting out of that game. Could be via character death, could be via party booting them...

If it is 0, you're not only playing the worst game imaginable for a conflict less scenario but you're playing one of the worst classes for the same as it isn't as if you can do meaningful things outside of combat (meaningful being beyond what a Commoner could manage).

Well you see here we disagree and its a playstyle thing. Harry Flashman survives for many many books becuase he avoides comabt and is an absolute craven coward. He is none-the-less an interesting character to roleplay.

Also we diverge on what my character can do and what anyone can do. I tend to say from a balance perspective all that matters is what is on the sheet. I agree with that.
But what i can do in any situation is not defiend by what is on the sheet it is defined by the character I am playing.
So if I am playing Harry Flashman say he is a 3rd level fighter with high charisma, reasonable Intelligence very poor wisdom and at best average physical stats. However he has charm, he has connections and he has native cunnign that means when I am playing Harry Flashman a whole host of in game choices open up to me that I don;t have if I am playing Percival. Percival is goign to be much more effective in combat and on paper a far more effective character but there are many many games and scenarios when Flashman will be far more useful to the party than Percival and far more effective. None of these are written on the character sheet.

I don't expect you to understand by the way I am just explaining it to you for completeness.

QuoteThese are not the same thing at all. See, the main threat of an invisible opponent is that you don't know they're there.

See Invisibility allows you to deal with this.

Bags of flour only allow you to deal with it if you know they are there (meaning, already announced themselves as a threat and broke normal invisibility, so we're assuming Improved or Superior here) and know at least approximately where they are (with no detection abilities, good luck with that).

Team See Invis can see the invisible ambush before it actually ambushes them. Flour spammers can at best reveal the attacker (assuming again they have not revealed themselves) after they've already been hit by an ambush, and given that 1: This is D&D. 2: They just got ambushed. 3: Their best answer to invisibility, a basic threat is bags of flour it is very likely half or more of the party just died in the surprise round on account of general weakness.

"I might be visible, but you're dead!"

Sounds like a win for Team Monster to me.

Again here you misunderstand because I am saying they are the same from a meta-game level. The same thought process that means a 1st level Farmboy fighter from hicksvill is carrying waxed string, a bag of lead shot, a 10 foot pole, a bag of flour, a jar of wasps, a blindfold, etc  is in play when you are discussing optimised builds.

Both are player skill informing ingame choices as opposed to PC knowledge informing in game choices.
You might argue that your methodology is more sucessful because it gives more notice or becuase it removes the interaction with a DM so you can just roll a dice (it doesn't really because the DM has access to an infinite number of unseen modifers they can legitimately apply but i digress) but its the same process where player skill, skill at optimisation or skill at 'adventuring' trump role play.

Now again this is just a play stule and i can see three competing strands which I think are in all games

i) Player adventuring skill
ii) Player system knowledge
iii) Player desire to roleplay and make desicsions from a character perspective

You are mostly ii the OSR guys are mostly i I am mostly iii.
The difference is most of the OSR guys do iii as well and can do ii if they want but iii stops them goign to extremes.
You do ii and i and iii is relegated so you would never play a simple peasant hero which a set of skills in basket weaving or pottery if a shapeshifted cleric multilimbed archer were a valid character option whereas the OSR and I woudl never play the later because its silly...

Basically I am happy playing Captain America or the Blackwidow whereas you always want to play iron man or thor.....

Quote from: jibbajibba;589297Well you see here we disagree and its a playstyle thing. Harry Flashman survives for many many books becuase he avoides comabt and is an absolute craven coward. He is none-the-less an interesting character to roleplay.

I don't know who this is. I'm assuming some manner of literary character, in which case they're completely irrelevant because the author can just write whatever he wants even if it makes no sense.

D&D also isn't a game about brave Sir Robining for a number of reasons starting with the fact that almost every enemy is capable of outpacing you - run, and you only die tired.

QuoteAlso we diverge on what my character can do and what anyone can do. I tend to say from a balance perspective all that matters is what is on the sheet. I agree with that.
But what i can do in any situation is not defiend by what is on the sheet it is defined by the character I am playing.
So if I am playing Harry Flashman say he is a 3rd level fighter with high charisma, reasonable Intelligence very poor wisdom and at best average physical stats. However he has charm, he has connections and he has native cunnign that means when I am playing Harry Flashman a whole host of in game choices open up to me that I don;t have if I am playing Percival. Percival is goign to be much more effective in combat and on paper a far more effective character but there are many many games and scenarios when Flashman will be far more useful to the party than Percival and far more effective. None of these are written on the character sheet.

And such a character is going to be bad at Bluff, bad at Diplomacy, bad at Sense Motive... you know, bad at having "charm", "connections", and "cunning", much like "creativity" means nothing if you can't follow through. A Fighter that cannot fight cannot follow through.

Meanwhile "Percival" I assume is some sort of knight. Ok, he serves a king, probably does at least a decent job of it... oh wait, is that connections I see?

QuoteAgain here you misunderstand because I am saying they are the same from a meta-game level. The same thought process that means a 1st level Farmboy fighter from hicksvill is carrying waxed string, a bag of lead shot, a 10 foot pole, a bag of flour, a jar of wasps, a blindfold, etc  is in play when you are discussing optimised builds.

Actually, that's entirely wrong.

A Spellcraft check of 15 + spell level identifies spells. So if you are level 3, and you have an Int of at least 14 you are automatically aware of every 2nd level spell out there of every class. This includes both "Invisibility" and "See Invisibility". You are explicitly aware of both of these things.

A Fighter, meanwhile would not automatically know how to deal with Invisibility or even that there are things that would cause him to not trust his eyes. So sure, him doing that stuff is metagaming, unless someone tells him (then it's fair game, but still not as effective). But that just makes the whole "See Invis vs flour guy" a lot worse.

QuoteBoth are player skill informing ingame choices as opposed to PC knowledge informing in game choices.
You might argue that your methodology is more sucessful because it gives more notice or becuase it removes the interaction with a DM so you can just roll a dice (it doesn't really because the DM has access to an infinite number of unseen modifers they can legitimately apply but i digress) but its the same process where player skill, skill at optimisation or skill at 'adventuring' trump role play.

Nope. Both because See Invis is something the character can determine independently and without prior experience, and because See Invis is automatic - if it's invisible, and you have line of sight you can see it.

And if you really want to bring roleplay into it... show me one real person that if aware that 1: People and things could become invisible. 2: You can do something to see them anyways. 3: Those things are liable to be trying to kill you. would not opt to utilize whatever methods or tools let them see their unseen assailants. I'm sure they exist, but they're called "insane" or "suicidal".

QuoteNow again this is just a play stule and i can see three competing strands which I think are in all games

i) Player adventuring skill
ii) Player system knowledge
iii) Player desire to roleplay and make desicsions from a character perspective

Here's your problem. You think these factors are in conflict.

QuoteYou are mostly ii the OSR guys are mostly i I am mostly iii.
The difference is most of the OSR guys do iii as well and can do ii if they want but iii stops them goign to extremes.
You do ii and i and iii is relegated so you would never play a simple peasant hero which a set of skills in basket weaving or pottery if a shapeshifted cleric multilimbed archer were a valid character option whereas the OSR and I woudl never play the later because its silly...

Basically I am happy playing Captain America or the Blackwidow whereas you always want to play iron man or thor.....

That still doesn't really explain what these types actually are.

That said, I wouldn't play a damn peasant because I've had enough dying horribly for a while and if for some reason I wanted more I'd go play Dark Souls recklessly.

I also wouldn't play an Arrow Demon Cleric because it's weak and easily countered. Yes, I know there was some long bitch fest a while back about that build. It had +29 to hit at level 13 and was hard countered by Wind Wall like any other archer. Sure it had a high volume of attacks, but it was an archer. Archers have to spam attacks because their attacks are so individually weak, that and there are more anti ranged defenses than almost anything else in the game... I think about the only way you could be easier to shut down is if you were a Rogue.

Ranged mundane just doesn't work in modern D&D, even if speced for it.

Quote from: Mr. GC;589315I don't know who this is. I'm assuming some manner of literary character, in which case they're completely irrelevant because the author can just write whatever he wants even if it makes no sense.

Harry Flashman star of Tom Brown's school days appears in a series of over a dozen novels by Gearge Macdonald Fraser. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Paget_Flashman
In my opinion an almost perfectr D&D character.

Like I said not all D&D games are about combat. Ever played a political game? A city game? An investigation? any number of other D&D variants? I have explained to the folks here before how I played a High level wizard game where the main aim was to embarass the host of a dinner party so ...

QuoteD&D also isn't a game about brave Sir Robining for a number of reasons starting with the fact that almost every enemy is capable of outpacing you - run, and you only die tired.



And such a character is going to be bad at Bluff, bad at Diplomacy, bad at Sense Motive... you know, bad at having "charm", "connections", and "cunning", much like "creativity" means nothing if you can't follow through. A Fighter that cannot fight cannot follow through.

Well not everyone you meet is an enemy or wants to kill you. That is a playstyle choice entirely.

Well prior to 3e those skills don't really exist in D&D so ...meh I said he had good Charisma...

As for follow through... in a world of plots and machination its not always the man with a sword that wins sometimes its the man with money to hire the most swords.

QuoteMeanwhile "Percival" I assume is some sort of knight. Ok, he serves a king, probably does at least a decent job of it... oh wait, is that connections I see?

You rember Percival he found the Holy Grail, Wagner wrote an Opera about him, tall guy beard shiny armour? rides a horse? no?

Yes he has connections but his moral code will not allow him to arrange to have the guy that won't give the party the treasure map cornered by 3 thugs who cut his testicles off and threaten to kill his wife and kids unless he gives them the map... Flashman on the other hand had no qualms on this score.

QuoteActually, that's entirely wrong.

A Spellcraft check of 15 + spell level identifies spells. So if you are level 3, and you have an Int of at least 14 you are automatically aware of every 2nd level spell out there of every class. This includes both "Invisibility" and "See Invisibility". You are explicitly aware of both of these things.

A Fighter, meanwhile would not automatically know how to deal with Invisibility or even that there are things that would cause him to not trust his eyes. So sure, him doing that stuff is metagaming, unless someone tells him (then it's fair game, but still not as effective). But that just makes the whole "See Invis vs flour guy" a lot worse.



Nope. Both because See Invis is something the character can determine independently and without prior experience, and because See Invis is automatic - if it's invisible, and you have line of sight you can see it.

And if you really want to bring roleplay into it... show me one real person that if aware that 1: People and things could become invisible. 2: You can do something to see them anyways. 3: Those things are liable to be trying to kill you. would not opt to utilize whatever methods or tools let them see their unseen assailants. I'm sure they exist, but they're called "insane" or "suicidal".

You see here you show you can not even accept that you are engaged in a meta process that observes the game as an outsider. This is actually quite interesting from a psychological perspective.
You reduce a discussion of meta knowledge in a game not actual meta knowlege but a discussion about it so if you will meta-meta-knowledge to a discussion of specific mechanics, mechanics which are just a way for a particular version of a particual game to try and generate some in game logical structure.

Can you see that the discussion of meta-meta-knowledge or of how you approach playing the game is separate and distinct from the actual process of playing the game.
My argument is that 2 sorts of player are using player skill in game and your response is simpley to default o player skill .... i find the inability to discuss the process rather than the detail quite the most interesting thing you have said.

What are your other hobbies? what job do you do? I am just curious.

QuoteHere's your problem. You think these factors are in conflict.

They are most players here won't play an optimised Dart thrower in 2e D&D. Its legal, its tough (some strength boost so hitting for 5 darts at 1d3 +xx damage )
Likewise in a 3x game they don't opt not to play optimised characters because they can't they opt not to play them for roleplay reasons.
they want to play a gristled old fighter. They don't care if the choices they make are sub-optimal so long as its fun and they like the personality of the fighter.
Likewise I find the 10 foot pole method of play annoying becuase I feel that the players are using their skill and knowledge and not making in game deicsions based on their PC's knowledge. You know what a mimic is your PC has no fucking idea unless he already met one. You might be anal and always have your swiss army knife to hand but Wilhelm the Elven rogue is a fly by night kind of bloke, he just does stuff without thinking things through ...etc. etc

QuoteThat still doesn't really explain what these types actually are.

Sorry i thought I had made it reasonably clear.

QuoteThat said, I wouldn't play a damn peasant because I've had enough dying horribly for a while and if for some reason I wanted more I'd go play Dark Souls recklessly.

I also wouldn't play an Arrow Demon Cleric because it's weak and easily countered. Yes, I know there was some long bitch fest a while back about that build. It had +29 to hit at level 13 and was hard countered by Wind Wall like any other archer. Sure it had a high volume of attacks, but it was an archer. Archers have to spam attacks because their attacks are so individually weak, that and there are more anti ranged defenses than almost anything else in the game... I think about the only way you could be easier to shut down is if you were a Rogue.

Ranged mundane just doesn't work in modern D&D, even if speced for it.

you see your arguement for not playing the arrow demon is that its not optimised enough mine is just that its silly and I would rather play the peasant fighter or Harry Flashman.

It's all about playstyle.

Quote from: Mr. GC;589185And yet multiple threads were locked for this reason. Is it the "Thunderdome" type stuff that isn't allowed? I'm actually not being difficult here, I really am trying to find where the line is drawn.

A "thunderdome" type thread (where people test out some kind of debate in actual play) is absolutely allowed; if you have someone wanting to bother to take you up on this.
The mods reserve the right to move it to the design and gameplay forum, where its more appropriate for the subject, unless there's a good reason not to.

The line is drawn basically at threads that de-evolve into a mass of hurled insults with no more content (something that's happened in quite a few threads after 40 or 50 pages worth of debate), or threads that start out as nothing more than an incendiary attack on a specific poster (judged as we call it, or more accurately, as I call it).  The main RPG forum is not for personality battles, its to discuss subjects in RPGs; if a thread is nominally about that, it will be allowed, until such time as the thread collapses into pure flames.

Also, I should note that any attempt to intentionally collapse a thread into pure flames or meaningless drivel just because you don't like the thread's subject or how its going is strictly forbidden.
Finally, taking a thread that isn't about some pet subject and trying to forcefully derail the thread into being about that subject is also right out.

I hope that clarifies a bit?

RPGPundit

PS: I want to add that these rules apply to absolutely EVERYONE.  Please do NOT think that I'm talking about the "denners" here, I've seen more than enough bullshit coming from both sides.

Quote from: RPGPundit;589328A "thunderdome" type thread (where people test out some kind of debate in actual play) is absolutely allowed; if you have someone wanting to bother to take you up on this.
The mods reserve the right to move it to the design and gameplay forum, where its more appropriate for the subject, unless there's a good reason not to.

The line is drawn basically at threads that de-evolve into a mass of hurled insults with no more content (something that's happened in quite a few threads after 40 or 50 pages worth of debate), or threads that start out as nothing more than an incendiary attack on a specific poster (judged as we call it, or more accurately, as I call it).  The main RPG forum is not for personality battles, its to discuss subjects in RPGs; if a thread is nominally about that, it will be allowed, until such time as the thread collapses into pure flames.

Also, I should note that any attempt to intentionally collapse a thread into pure flames or meaningless drivel just because you don't like the thread's subject or how its going is strictly forbidden.
Finally, taking a thread that isn't about some pet subject and trying to forcefully derail the thread into being about that subject is also right out.

I hope that clarifies a bit?

RPGPundit

PS: I want to add that these rules apply to absolutely EVERYONE.  Please do NOT think that I'm talking about the "denners" here, I've seen more than enough bullshit coming from both sides.

Ok. That's actually a fair and reasonable response. So really it comes down to whether other people would like to put their money where their mouth is for one of the tests I mentioned or not.

Quote from: jibbajibba;589326Harry Flashman star of Tom Brown's school days appears in a series of over a dozen novels by Gearge Macdonald Fraser. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Paget_Flashman
In my opinion an almost perfectr D&D character.

Right, a literary character. I was right then.

QuoteLike I said not all D&D games are about combat. Ever played a political game? A city game? An investigation? any number of other D&D variants? I have explained to the folks here before how I played a High level wizard game where the main aim was to embarass the host of a dinner party so ...

Those things both still involve combat and don't work in D&D.

QuoteWell not everyone you meet is an enemy or wants to kill you. That is a playstyle choice entirely.

Doesn't matter. A number between 0% and 100% are.

QuoteWell prior to 3e those skills don't really exist in D&D so ...meh I said he had good Charisma...

So would you say it was a player skill then, and not something your character was doing?

QuoteAs for follow through... in a world of plots and machination its not always the man with a sword that wins sometimes its the man with money to hire the most swords.

Money is a factor of WBL which is a factor of killing things... it's safe to say ineffective characters are poor.

Either way, if your character is "hires better characters to do the adventure for him" why aren't they the PCs?

QuoteYou rember Percival he found the Holy Grail, Wagner wrote an Opera about him, tall guy beard shiny armour? rides a horse? no?

Yes he has connections but his moral code will not allow him to arrange to have the guy that won't give the party the treasure map cornered by 3 thugs who cut his testicles off and threaten to kill his wife and kids unless he gives them the map... Flashman on the other hand had no qualms on this score.

No, but since he's buddy buddy with the King I'm sure far more morally agreeable arrangements can be made that still give that party that map... and they don't have to take an otherwise useless character to do it.

QuoteYou see here you show you can not even accept that you are engaged in a meta process that observes the game as an outsider. This is actually quite interesting from a psychological perspective.
You reduce a discussion of meta knowledge in a game not actual meta knowlege but a discussion about it so if you will meta-meta-knowledge to a discussion of specific mechanics, mechanics which are just a way for a particular version of a particual game to try and generate some in game logical structure.

Lolwut. Did you seriously just call being aware of how spells function - something that characters can explicitly do without prior direct experience metagaming?

Let me guess - you're also not allowed to know that you should avoid close combat with most melee brutes even if you wandered into full attack range and got one rounded by them?

QuoteWhat are your other hobbies? what job do you do? I am just curious.

I am a competitive gamer (as if you didn't already know that) and my job rewards a similar talent set (particularly analysis and efficiency assessment).

QuoteThey are most players here won't play an optimised Dart thrower in 2e D&D. Its legal, its tough (some strength boost so hitting for 5 darts at 1d3 +xx damage )

They are not. All you have to do is ask yourself "What kind of person would take on a very dangerous job and not be good at it?" And the answer is "A stupid or insane one." So unless you are roleplaying a stupid or insane character, you should be roleplaying out the sane reaction (either get good at that dangerous job or get away from it).

Would you run into a burning building that contained no one you knew if you were not a trained firefighter? I'd hope the answer is no because whatever your intentions you're just having to make the pros go save more people.

QuoteLikewise in a 3x game they don't opt not to play optimised characters because they can't they opt not to play them for roleplay reasons.
they want to play a gristled old fighter. They don't care if the choices they make are sub-optimal so long as its fun and they like the personality of the fighter.

Well then I guess they have fun dying.

QuoteLikewise I find the 10 foot pole method of play annoying becuase I feel that the players are using their skill and knowledge and not making in game deicsions based on their PC's knowledge. You know what a mimic is your PC has no fucking idea unless he already met one. You might be anal and always have your swiss army knife to hand but Wilhelm the Elven rogue is a fly by night kind of bloke, he just does stuff without thinking things through ...etc. etc

Pole dancing is pretty dumb. I think just the fact I call it pole dancing makes that clear. That said, a Rogue that roleplays playing reckless will soon roleplay being a corpse. And a mimic... assuming you don't make the knowledge check yeah, it will surprise you. Once. Then you'll start checking objects to see if they're actually alive before they grab you and start eating your face.

The whole pole dancing thing is the emergent gameplay of realizing that traps in older editions will wreck your shit and thieves are useless at dealing with them. It only becomes metagaming when you have new adventurers doing it without someone telling them.

QuoteSorry i thought I had made it reasonably clear.

Nope, still haven't explained it. I'm looking for a Type I is this, a Type II is this, a Type III is this... or you can show me where someone else explained this.

Quoteyou see your arguement for not playing the arrow demon is that its not optimised enough mine is just that its silly and I would rather play the peasant fighter or Harry Flashman.

It's all about playstyle.

An adventurer that can't adventure is pretty damn silly. So is the arrow demon, but we're talking about a game in which low level play consists of more rainbow effects being thrown about than a My Little Pony episode. Why? Because Color Spray and Glitterdust are the most effective tactics at that level. If you're an adventurer, if you're going down into holes to kill things and deprive them of their possessions, you've long since abandoned silly concepts like "pride". Ability, however remains practical.

Yeah... this wall of text thing seems to be the obvious result of the recent community request for civility. *sigh* If you see rules only for the loopholes to be exploited, this is what you'd get. I was hoping less terrier-like niggling over minutiae and more explanation of an epithet, but alas there's not enough text to drown it in, methinks.

Quote from: RandallS;589264I've been playing D&D since 1975 and I can think of a good number of cowardly or combat-incompetent characters who who survived for many levels by avoiding direct combat as much as possible. And I've never been in a group of players who booted any character for not being useful enough in combat -- or any other part of the game for that matter. Players have occasionally be booted for being jerks, but never for not playing competent-enough characters.  If your games run that way, fine -- but not all games do.

As can I. Characters who can run away and convincingly call for help are quite useful. Even more so when they can assist in general logistics, such as supply-lines, and other out-of-combat support. I've been in games where that's a very valid contribution from non-combat characters. Besides combat isn't the be-all-end-all of our games, and there's too many variables between tables to assure what's the "right build" for combat in all of them. But this works for us, those play groups I've stayed longest.

I have been in other groups that couldn't see the utility in such things. I usually shrugged, created a by-the-book twinked out PC and watch us either ROFLStomp the "lead up opposition" (also known as the XP train) or die outright because of lack of planning (or *snort* "imbalance" or "GM Fiat"). And then the finger pointing blame game would begin of who wasn't optimized to the Nth degree and how the GM cheated them from a character sheet win. I found it a tedious mode of play and soon after such personality flare ups bowed out. But some find this fun and, well, please continue your merry way.

Just don't tell me I don't know how to play. I've been to this fair a good long while and have seen my share of things. Thanks for your concern.

Personality conflicts, that's the entirety of this thread. Personality conflicts at the table with a new name to call each other. And the arguments are so painfully familiar... There ain't much new under the sun, is there?