That's not a very clear post.

I'm not sure if you're saying that

(1) non-optimised characters stuggle even in non-combat-focused / non-optimising games

or

(2) in non-combat-focused / non-optimising games, optimised characters are ostracised, and thus effectively the non-optimised characters and the optimised characters have simply switched places and you still have to tailor your character to suit the game but you do so by going basket-weaver instead of by Denner-stye optimisation.

These two alternative meanings are more or less opposite to each other.

There is a great deal more to RPGs than "winning"; "failure" in the sense you mean it need be no impediment to enjoyment whatsoever. I mean, I'm sure someone must have mentioned this already, but have you ever played a Call-of-Cthulhu-style horror game?? If you think of it as a giant monster-hunt, sure, have your fun, but you're just not getting it.

Quote from: Omnifray;591904From a generic perspective (not 3.5-specific):-

A group of all rogues would be playing a totally different game of D&D than any other party.

For starters, they would be hidden and sneaking ALL THE TIME.

Except for the parts where they aren't. Which is actually something like ALL THE TIME because stealth doesn't actually work that way, and is in fact the most easily countered ability in the game.

QuoteIt's like having a permanent mass invisibility effect. A troupe of ninjas moving in on their prey.

NO-ONE is EVER going to get the drop on them.

Invisibility is not countered by 1: Darkvision. 2: Low light vision. 3: Lack of cover/concealment.

Meanwhile, they can be jumped very, very easily. Would you like me to show you how in a different thread?

QuoteEvery fight is going to start with them knowing the enemy are there long before the enemy know they're there. Then with coordinated movement and sneak attack damage they can attack enemies as isolated individuals, taking them out with sneak attack damage in an instant, and never, EVER fight a toe-to-toe fight.

Lmfao. Except for the enemies that have a stealth counter, which is... seriously, like 95% of them.

Or the things with a sneak attack counter, which is around half (assuming you can even get them in a sneak attackable state).

QuoteSure, magic-using monsters MIGHT screw this up if they're expecting company or have super-duper-dragon-senses, but the answer to this is that the rogues have magic items which may help counter this.

The main hindrance to a rogue doing his job in any party is generally that there are other people there who aren't rogues and can't sneak. Take that away, and the rogue comes into his own... no, you can't join our party, Mr. 20th level Fighter in Full Plate, until you get to at least 5th level rogue and ditch the plate for some leather, or mithril at the very least...

The main hindrance to a Rogue doing their job in a party is a complete lack of ability to do that job.

But if you insist, go make a party of 4 10th level Rogues and I will illustrate how they are easily and automatically annihilated.

Quote from: Omnifray;591905That's not a very clear post.

I'm not sure if you're saying that

(1) non-optimised characters stuggle even in non-combat-focused / non-optimising games

or

(2) in non-combat-focused / non-optimising games, optimised characters are ostracised, and thus effectively the non-optimised characters and the optimised characters have simply switched places and you still have to tailor your character to suit the game but you do so by going basket-weaver instead of by Denner-stye optimisation.

Wrong.

What I'm saying is that with a non basket weaver DM, if you're playing a weak character you will spend your entire time justifying your existence in game. Getting shut down easily, then having to answer to your allies about this, that sort of thing.

If you ARE playing with a basket weaver DM, you will spend your entire time justifying your existence out of game. Weak characters end up needing a whole lot more special attention just to be relevant at all, and to a basket weaver DM, this is you trying to get super powerful as opposed to remotely relevant. If you can't do this, you die anyways, or are forced to leave the game due to having an irrelevant character, whatever. Same problem manifesting in more and different ways.

PS: The Den is fucking terrible at optimization, I'd actually rank them a bit lower than this site just because they actually think they know what they're doing but don't, whereas this site is "We don't know what we're doing, but don't really care." Which is at least honest.

Quote from: Mr. GC;591903Despite my well deserved reputation as a Stop Having Fun Guy, I actually make these arguments because I am about having fun and failure is very much unenjoyable.

This is what I take away from this drivel:

1)Adventuring is sewious business.

2)I cry like a pussy when things don't go my way.


Get a life.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;591908This is what I take away from this drivel:

1)Adventuring is sewious business.

2)I cry like a pussy when things don't go my way.


Get a life.

Quote from: Mr. GC;591903Note: I don't expect people here to agree with this. That's fine, and if you want to post to that effect that is also fine. Save the useless thread derailing posts though. Submit actual content instead.

Further useless posts will be reported.

Quote from: Mr. GC;591909Further useless posts will be reported.

Since the OP had no useful content there isn't a sensible reason for any replies to have any either.

Why did this warrant its own thread apart of the "basket weaver" discussion?

Quote from: Mr. GC;591907Wrong.

What I'm saying is that with a non basket weaver DM, if you're playing a weak character you will spend your entire time justifying your existence in game. Getting shut down easily, then having to answer to your allies about this, that sort of thing.

If you ARE playing with a basket weaver DM, you will spend your entire time justifying your existence out of game. Weak characters end up needing a whole lot more special attention just to be relevant at all, and to a basket weaver DM, this is you trying to get super powerful as opposed to remotely relevant. If you can't do this, you die anyways, or are forced to leave the game due to having an irrelevant character, whatever. Same problem manifesting in more and different ways.

PS: The Den is fucking terrible at optimization, I'd actually rank them a bit lower than this site just because they actually think they know what they're doing but don't, whereas this site is "We don't know what we're doing, but don't really care." Which is at least honest.

OK, now I think what you're complaining about is this:-

Suppose you're playing a weak character class with an anti-munchkin GM and you want to get more juice out of your weak character class by optimising the character, the anti-munchkin GM will go apeshit on your arse because he'll think you're being a total power-hungry munchkin when actually all you are doing is wanting to be "relevant".

The conclusion you seem to draw from this is that anyone who plays a weak character class will tend to spend a lot of time justifying their character generation and advancement choices to the GM.

This conclusion is shown by practical experience to be wrong. Players who choose to play weaker character classes do not generally spend much time justifying character generation and advancement choices to the GM, IME. Why? Because the players who choose to play weaker character classes are generally the ones who, either generally speaking or at that particular moment in time, don't care about character optimisation. They therefore don't optimise their characters, and have no need to justify their existence to the anti-munchkin GM. Plus, the anti-munchkin GM will, if he has a shred of sense, give them a lot more leeway anyway because he knows they're playing weaker characters to start with.

Quote from: Mr. GC;591873If you played pretend instead, they might not die. Since most people here find D&D too difficult, I'm not surprised they'd make that claim. But since they're not actually playing the game, what they're doing is claiming that a bad class is viable because they have the cheat codes turned on.

Other people pretend they are playing D&D on hard mode by hiding their incompetence behind a wall of numbers and Gish Galloping about classes, spells and equipment.  Taking it one step further into the truly absurd, they then make the wild claim that all games are like this, despite having exactly zero knowledge or experience with anything other than D&D 3.5.  Somehow, they think this makes them badass players and the best at everything involving RPGs, shielding themselves with an impenetrable wall of solipsism against the endless barrage of being proven 100% wrong about everything.

This is the foundation of their fantasy world where sucking up to the DM with their character sheet is better than engaging in actual social interaction because numbers.  Hence, they think that the former is hardcore and the latter is Magical Tea Party and/or Mother may I.  In fact, they are both Magical Tea Party, which is accepted by normally socialized, well-adjusted adults.  This causes inconsolable rage for the charop-fappers, who then insist everyone else is the problem in all instances, even outside RPG matters.

Pathetic sack of shit oxygen thieves, in other words.

Quote from: Benoist;591913Why did this warrant its own thread apart of the "basket weaver" discussion?

Mr G C obviously has a bee in his bonnet and is on a crusade to prove the visionary nature of his understanding of the hobby.


Can't think where else I've seen that before

Hey look, it's a clown mindlessly copying the Den and yet will later bitch about mindlessly copying the Den, who has no points to call his own, and yet continues making useless posts... Going on OVER 9,000 useless posts.

Yup, it's Stormbringer, and he is as irrelevant as ever. Now go away Stormbringer, meaningful people are speaking.

Quote from: Benoist;591913Why did this warrant its own thread apart of the "basket weaver" discussion?

Because the point that "Even with a basket weaver DM, basket weaver players must still continually justify their existence." is different from "Basket weavers are terrible gamers and people, this is why." Because the general basket weaver thread was operating under the assumption it's fine when everyone weaves baskets. Now that I think about it, it's not.

Quote from: Omnifray;591916OK, now I think what you're complaining about is this:-

Suppose you're playing a weak character class with an anti-munchkin GM and you want to get more juice out of your weak character class by optimising the character, the anti-munchkin GM will go apeshit on your arse because he'll think you're being a total power-hungry munchkin when actually all you are doing is wanting to be "relevant".

The conclusion you seem to draw from this is that anyone who plays a weak character class will tend to spend a lot of time justifying their character generation and advancement choices to the GM.

This conclusion is shown by practical experience to be wrong. Players who choose to play weaker character classes do not generally spend much time justifying character generation and advancement choices to the GM, IME. Why? Because the players who choose to play weaker character classes are generally the ones who, either generally speaking or at that particular moment in time, don't care about character optimisation. They therefore don't optimise their characters, and have no need to justify their existence to the anti-munchkin GM. Plus, the anti-munchkin GM will, if he has a shred of sense, give them a lot more leeway anyway because he knows they're playing weaker characters to start with.

What actually happens then is you play a weak character, don't make it relevant... so it isn't relevant. And the result is the same as if you tried to make it relevant and are shut down - constant death, constant being hard countered by easy encounters and scenarios, etc.

What actually happens is even if the DM tries to play easy D&D, if he's playing D&D at all they die anyways. They just die to something like derpy Fireball spam, and not "Suddenly, an formerly invisible flying Sorcerer appears, save vs Wings of Flurry."

You can't play down to them because there's nothing on their level.

Quote from: Mr. GC;591906Except for the parts where they aren't. Which is actually something like ALL THE TIME because stealth doesn't actually work that way, and is in fact the most easily countered ability in the game.



Invisibility is not countered by 1: Darkvision. 2: Low light vision. 3: Lack of cover/concealment.

Meanwhile, they can be jumped very, very easily. Would you like me to show you how in a different thread?



Lmfao. Except for the enemies that have a stealth counter, which is... seriously, like 95% of them.

Or the things with a sneak attack counter, which is around half (assuming you can even get them in a sneak attackable state).



The main hindrance to a Rogue doing their job in a party is a complete lack of ability to do that job.

But if you insist, go make a party of 4 10th level Rogues and I will illustrate how they are easily and automatically annihilated.

I expressly stated that my views were from a generic, not 3.5-specific, perspective.

Also, you seem to be assuming that for the most part the party of rogues will be tracking/assassinating non-human opponents with extensive supernatural racial abilities, e.g. undead. Whilst that may be a reasonable assumption for D&D of any edition, it's not the sort of game I have in mind.

Quote from: Mr. GC;591894Because see, I gave the basket weavers plenty of chances to prove me wrong when I could just sit here and stick to the facts and they fail each and every time.

I guess when ignorance is all you have, it's the only thing you can appeal to.  So you go back to that well again, and again, and again.  To quote Sir Warwick Harrow from the Firefly episode Shindig, "He thinks he's doing well, doesn't he?"

Forget it fellas.  That's not even how darkvision or low light vision works (you still need to make a perception check).  Just like it's been in pretty much every edition.  How can you expect him to put forth a valid argument when he doesn't even know the rules to his own preferred edition?