Do you like this:
"Breaking D&D 3.5: AC 50 and Higher for 9th Level Characters; or, the Best Offense is a Good Defense
Warning: The information in this post will piss off your DM. Use at your own risk!
When I first started playing D&D, my least favorite part about being a mage was how low my AC always was. Now one of my favorite parts about being a mage is how high my AC can get. I just had a DM actually request my wizard character lower his AC for party balance (which I will do to avoid an arms race), and I wanted to write about it. I'm only ECL 9, but a Mature Adult Red Dragon (CR 18) barely hits me on a natural 20. With a little more than half a dozen buffs, your AC too can be inappropriately high!
As a 9th level wizard, you can use the following buffs to shoot your AC through the roof, and still have plenty of spell resources left over for blasting, battlefield control, offensive buffs, winning initiative, or whatever else you want.
Broken down by level, I usually use these for my AC.
1st level: Shield (A +4 Shield bonus. minutes/level)
2nd: Cat's Grace (A +4 Dex. minutes/level); Scintillating Scales (deflection bonus to AC equal to your Con modifier, but decreases natural armor by half that much. Rounds/level)
3rd: Haste (+1 to attack rolls, AC, reflex saves, and 1 extra attack during a full attack at your highest BAB! What's not to love? Rounds/level)
4th: Greater Luminous Armor (+8 armor bonus to AC, melee attacks incur a -4 penalty if enemy is sighted (must be good-aligned to use, and take strength damage when the spell ends). Hours/level); Ray Deflection (immune to rays. minutes/level).
5th: Bite of the Wereboar (+4 to Strength, +6 to Con, +8 to natural armor, a bite attack, and the Blind-Fight feat. rounds/level); Draconic Polymorph into a Cave Troll (Sets Strength to 37, Dex to 13, Con to 29, and natural armor to +11. Also comes with 2 claw attacks, a bite, large size, and the Dazing Blow, Improved Grab, Pounce, Rake, and Rend abilities you get by Polymorphing. On it's own, enough of a buff to make you horribly ferocious! minutes/level)
Those 8 spells don't tax your daily resources or spells know slots too much. If done in the right order (Hours or minutes per level spells, then Bite of the Wereboar, followed by Scintillating Scales, and finally Haste), you wind up with stats like these:
Abilities: Str 41, Dex 17, Con 35
AC: 50 (–1 size, +8 armor, +4 shield, +13 natural armor, +3 Dex, +12 deflection, +1 haste), touch 25, flat-footed 47
Remember Greater Luminous Armor's -4 to melee attacks for sighted opponents, so most often AC will be effectively 54. Ray Deflection isn't actual AC, but your biggest weakness AC weakness is ranged touch attacks, and Ray Deflection shores up that vulnerability very well. Few if any ranged touch attacks won't be rays. This set of spells not only gives you great AC, but makes you a powerhouse in melee combat as well. Indeed, the 9th level fighter or barbarian won't come close to those stats without magical help.
Protecting yourself beyond AC
There are of course other things you can do with just 5th level spell resources (and Prestige Class abilities; see Abjurant Champion!) to boost AC even higher, but it's important to remember that enemies can harm you via more than just your AC. A wizard can keep him or herself reasonably well protected with spells like Resist Energy/Protection From Energy to fend off energy damage, Greater Invisibility and Greater Blink to avoid getting hit or targeted altogether, Ice Shield for DR/15—, and Superior Resistance to shore up your saves by a hefty +6. But there is only so much one arcane caster can do on his or her own.
Having a buddy who is a 9th level divine caster gets you even more access to amazing defensive buffs like Divine Agility for +10 to Dexterity, and a potent protective suite in Favor of Il Mater, Death Ward, Sheltered Vitality, and Freedom of Movement—which together grant you immunity to nonlethal damage, charm and compulsion effects, attacks that function specifically by causing pain, effects that would cause you to be dazed, exhausted, fatigued, nauseated, sickened, staggered, or stunned, all death spells, magical death effects, energy drain, any negative energy effects, ability damage and ability drain, magic that usually impedes movement such as paralysis, solid fog, slow, and web, plus you automatically succeed on all grapple checks and escape artist checks to avoid or escape being grappled or pinned, and you can even move and attack normally underwater.
Combining those five divine spells with the five arcane spells—Greater Invisibility, Greater Blink, Superior Resistance, Resist Energy, and Ice Shield—will compliment the AC spells listed at the beginning of the article. Bundle them all together and toss in other modes of movement and the rare Planar Tolerance or Endure Elements when traveling to hostile environments, and you'll be nigh invulnerable for a 9th level character! Your biggest weakness will be dispelling, and without blowing significant character wealth on components for Create Magic Tattoo, or persisting Suffer the Flesh, or using up feats for things like Elder Giant Magic and Reserves of Strength, or having a psion hit you with a Dispelling Buffer, you'll have a hard time at 9th level keeping caster level high enough to stave off a good dispel. Granted, you can do all those things and have a very respectable caster level nearing 30 against dispels at 9th level, but you have to build for it.
Remember to always clear things with your DM when you are going to be ridiculously powerful!"
Or do you just like to play a character?
Uhh...:eek:
I could imagine a character in-setting writing such a treatise (Obviously, without reference to mechanics, which don't exist for characters).
I like making a character, and knowing enough about the system such that my cool idea doesn't turn out to make me a net loss whenever my character shows up. Or when it turns out the guy next to me does everything I can do, plus a bunch of other stuff.
I like a system that doesn't require me to get really deep into optimization to avoid pitfalls.
This is one reason I veer toward system light games, because generally they are less likely to have balance problems, or they are more obvious about them when they happen.
It is impressive in a 'Lose Sanity Points' manner.
Makes me wonder why some people don't just stick to Warhammer and other tactical combat games.
Quote from: Necrozius;771924Makes me wonder why some people don't just stick to Warhammer and other tactical combat games.
Didn't you know? 3.5 dnd is a tactical wargame :)
Quote from: Bill;771925Didn't you know? 3.5 dnd is a tactical wargame :)
I thought that was 4e.:p
Don't be stupid.
4e is a MMO!
Quote from: Marleycat;771928I thought that was 4e.:p
Uh Oh....Pandora's Box has been opened!!!
Quote from: Will;771936Don't be stupid.
4e is a MMO!
Boardgame!!
I thought it was a storygame? Did I miss a memo?
It's a doorstop.
Quote from: Will;771936Don't be stupid.
4e is a MMO!
Nah.
d20 DeathNet was the MMO... :cool:
Hey, if they have fun, more power to them.
Just not at my table ;)
Quote from: Sacrosanct;771986Hey, if they have fun, more power to them.
Just not at my table ;)
But they need your table to play the board game!
Mathsnore incoming... :enworld:
I've had players like that before. Problem is I can out system mastery most people so I hold that as the threat in an arms war. Therefore my players behave. And It don't cheat or use DM fiat I use intelligent enemies and that is enough.
But most my players don't try, they play their character. I only have one that is an issue and he is just overly paranoid and doesn't want to be hit by anything ever in any game. You get use to dealing with it or you boot them. I choose to keep him around and only occasionally regret it :)
Woah, impressive combination! Right up to the part where Anti-magic field is enacted...
:p
My 3.5 character could kick his 3.5 character's ass any day of the week.
And my DM still finds ways to terrorize me.
Whoever designed the rules which allow this shit should be kicked in the junk with a steel-toed boot.
Meh, it was fun for about the length of one campaign and then we all grew up.
Fuggit.
/swings sword
Rocks fall. Everybody dies. Roll new characters using this (hands over Moldvay Basic). You have 3 minutes.
Quote from: Batman;772010Woah, impressive combination! Right up to the part where Anti-magic field is enacted...
:p
With Magic Sniper...:p
Quote from: Bill;771906Do you like this:
Or do you just like to play a character?
False choice. One can do both, either or neither.
The first however is not a failure of play as most here would take it. It's a failure of system- a concept I've taken to calling the "Endless Stacking of Bonuses".
It's one of the most common ways Game Designers break their games. Remove it and the behavior it causes will cease.
Quote from: gleichman;772079False choice. One can do both, either or neither.
The first however is not a failure of play as most here would take it. It's a failure of system- a concept I've taken to calling the "Endless Stacking of Bonuses".
It's one of the most common ways Game Designers break their games. Remove it and the behavior it causes will cease.
It's not just the Endless Stacking of Bonuses that contributes to things like this--that's a key component, but I don't think it's the only factor. Something else that contributes, and that sets 3E apart from all other forms of D&D, is a) the number of spells and b) the lack of any meaningful controls on wizard, cleric or druid access to them. The costs of acquiring spells for wizards appear to be negligible (it's been a long time since I looked closely at the 3E rules, but no one seems concerned about it in these exercises) and for clerics and druids, it's non-existent. There are no caps on spells known for wizards any more, spell slots are more plentiful, and scrolls, wands and potions are cheap and can contain just about any spell you like.
There are a lot of legitimate criticisms and differences of taste with 4E, but it did keep one character from being able to pick anything and everything they wanted from their class power list. Similarly, old-school versions of D&D made it a lot harder to pull off these stunts by making spells rarer, less guaranteed, and requiring trade-offs with the cap on spells known. (I don't think Basic had the Max Spells Known, but it had so many fewer spells, even with supplements, that it wasn't nearly the issue. :) )
5E? I haven't done a careful examination, but the 'cheap and easily replaced scrolls/wands for any spell' appear to be gone, and spell slots are a lot fewer. Bonus stacking's iffy--there are no hard and fast rules against it, but the emphasis on advantage instead of straight bonuses and the concentration mechanic should prevent the worst of it, provided they don't lose sight of their premises like they did in previous editions.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;772089It's not just the Endless Stacking of Bonuses that contributes to things like this--that's a key component, but I don't think it's the only factor. Something else that contributes, and that sets 3E apart from all other forms of D&D, is a) the number of spells and b) the lack of any meaningful controls on wizard, cleric or druid access to them.
I don't consider myself really able to comment on that specific of a case with any version of D&D having given up on a few decades back, but I have no reason to doubt you on this.
There is a serious desire in gamers (if one judges solely by popular games) for an endless parade of goodies- be it bonuses, spells, magic items, or... well anything that increases their in-game power. The thing is, that parade causes the very behavior they complain about.
There are a few exceptions. I find it useful with recruiting players to ask the following questions (along with others). A "No" at any point means that it would likely take too much effort to convert them to a non-destructive style of play.
- Are you willing to play a game where your character doesn't advance in power or skill?
- Are you willing to play a game where there is no treasure.
This problem area always existed in the hobby, but I do think this is one place where video games have made things worse.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;772089Something else that contributes, and that sets 3E apart from all other forms of D&D, is a) the number of spells and b) the lack of any meaningful controls on wizard, cleric or druid access to them. The costs of acquiring spells for wizards appear to be negligible (it's been a long time since I looked closely at the 3E rules, but no one seems concerned about it in these exercises) and for clerics and druids, it's non-existent. There are no caps on spells known for wizards any more, spell slots are more plentiful, and scrolls, wands and potions are cheap and can contain just about any spell you like.
Yep. That's a huge huge part of it. Also, your big-league 3e system-breakers often involve polymorph/shapechange abuse and treating the monster selection as a shopping list. As this bullshit exercise does (the fuck is a "cave troll" anyway)
The observant will note that neither multiclassing nor feats, two aspects of 3e that get a lot of shit around here, show up in this bullshit. There are some valid reasons to be against them (mostly involving bookkeeping, which is another 3e problem) but they don't break the power curve the way this kinda thing does.
Quote from: Imp;772108Yep. That's a huge huge part of it. Also, your big-league 3e system-breakers often involve polymorph/shapechange abuse and treating the monster selection as a shopping list. As this bullshit exercise does (the fuck is a "cave troll" anyway)
The observant will note that neither multiclassing nor feats, two aspects of 3e that get a lot of shit around here, show up in this bullshit. There are some valid reasons to be against them (mostly involving bookkeeping, which is another 3e problem) but they don't break the power curve the way this kinda thing does.
Multiclassing sure as shit does, as it's often used to optimize builds with up to a half dozen classes in a build. Multiclassing exploits occur just as much, if not more, than spell selection and usage.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;772111Multiclassing sure as shit does, as it's often used to optimize builds with up to a half dozen classes in a build. Multiclassing exploits occur just as much, if not more, than spell selection and usage.
That won't happen in 5e. Go ahead and build a multiclassed F/M/R in BASIC but keep in mind you DON'T get all your second or third class's profiencencies and notice how backloaded the classes are or that you need 5 levels in Fighter to get 2 attacks and look at a single classed character and see what you lose in comparison. Or that you need pretty solid ability scores in each class you pick up. A 6/7/7 F/M/R is versitile but only gets 4 chances to bump her stats or get a feat for example. It looks strong but straight classes with the proper subclass is probably better most times if you think your concept through. Very similar to FantasyCraft and Pathfinder that way. It gets stupid if you have 4-6 classes... go ahead and try it wth 4 classes.
Problem you would have at my table #1: I've never heard of half those spells. They are not in the books I own, so they would only be available by (a) going through in-game spell research or (b) questing after rumors of ancient spellbooks. You could get all of them, but it would require gaming it out.
Problem #2: It requires time to set up. If you are going from cold (say you are ambushed in town) then half the party will be dead before you even attempt anything offensive. Now I will grant that the hourly spells will typically be on when actively adventuring. The spells that only last minutes will require a breakneck pace to be useful more than once, so absolutely not certain to be on in any given combat. The spells lasting rounds obviously have to be cast in the particular combat. All in all, good for when you can prepare for a known combat, not going to be in place for most combats.
Problem #3: Critters seeing you cast all that crap on yourself will take a tactical retreat for a while to let the spells wear off.
All in all, I would be alright with it. You found a combo of spells that will be a bitch to collect (which should make for some adventuring goodness) that you will probably only get to fully take advantage of a couple times in the campaign.
Perhaps inadvertently, you also did a good job of describing why I am excited about 5e.
Quote from: Marleycat;772119That won't happen in 5e. Go ahead and build a multiclassed F/M/R in BASIC but keep in mind you DON'T get all your second or third class's profiencencies and notice how backloaded the classes are or that you need 5 levels in Fighter to get 2 attacks and look at a single classed character and see what you lose in comparison. Or that you need pretty solid ability scores in each class you pick up. A 6/7/7 F/M/R is versitile but only gets 4 chances to bump her stats or get a feat for example. It looks strong but straight classes with the proper subclass is probably better most times if you think your concept through. Very similar to FantasyCraft and Pathfinder that way. It gets stupid if you have 4-6 classes... go ahead and try it wth 4 classes.
not sure if you're disagreeing or adding on to my comment. I was talking about 3e, and disagreeing with his assessments that "an observable" person would notice that multiclassing was not an issue in min/maxing, as it very much is
Quote from: Marleycat;772119That won't happen in 5e. Go ahead and build a multiclassed F/M/R in BASIC but keep in mind you DON'T get all your second or third class's profiencencies and notice how backloaded the classes are or that you need 5 levels in Fighter to get 2 attacks and look at a single classed character and see what you lose in comparison. Or that you need pretty solid ability scores in each class you pick up. A 6/7/7 F/M/R is versitile but only gets 4 chances to bump her stats or get a feat for example. It looks strong but straight classes with the proper subclass is probably better most times if you think your concept through. Very similar to FantasyCraft and Pathfinder that way. It gets stupid if you have 4-6 classes... go ahead and try it wth 4 classes.
Prestige dipping is what most builds did. Not base class dipping.
Pathfinder neutered prestige classes.
Fancy Craft, who give a fuck.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;771986Hey, if they have fun, more power to them.
Just not at my table ;)
I once gm'd a 3.5 game with gestalt rules (For those unfamiliar, a gestalt character essentially gets all or the best abilities of two classes...generally very uber) Yay Gestalt Druid Wizard, God of all Summoning!
The characters were optimized, and the feeling I got from the game was 'escalation and record keeping'
It was not 'bad' because the pc's were uber.
It was bad because of too much focus on mechanics.
Not a good fit for me. Just my experience.
Quote from: cranebump;772037Rocks fall. Everybody dies. Roll new characters using this (hands over Moldvay Basic). You have 3 minutes.
To me, that is an elegant solution. :)
The real issue as I see it, is players like me care what the character is doing, so a simple ruleset is probably an advantage, but some players really, really enjoy builds and optimizing.
It's not always possible to keep them both happy.
Quote from: Old One Eye;772122Problem you would have at my table #1: I've never heard of half those spells. They are not in the books I own, so they would only be available by (a) going through in-game spell research or (b) questing after rumors of ancient spellbooks. You could get all of them, but it would require gaming it out.
Problem #2: It requires time to set up. If you are going from cold (say you are ambushed in town) then half the party will be dead before you even attempt anything offensive. Now I will grant that the hourly spells will typically be on when actively adventuring. The spells that only last minutes will require a breakneck pace to be useful more than once, so absolutely not certain to be on in any given combat. The spells lasting rounds obviously have to be cast in the particular combat. All in all, good for when you can prepare for a known combat, not going to be in place for most combats.
Problem #3: Critters seeing you cast all that crap on yourself will take a tactical retreat for a while to let the spells wear off.
All in all, I would be alright with it. You found a combo of spells that will be a bitch to collect (which should make for some adventuring goodness) that you will probably only get to fully take advantage of a couple times in the campaign.
Perhaps inadvertently, you also did a good job of describing why I am excited about 5e.
You make good points about 'weaknesses' in the strategy of 'Buffmongering' (I just made that up)
But what irritates me is not that the Buffmonger can't be defeated.
What irritates me is that they even try, and that its a mass of tedious crap.
Every time I make the mistake of dming 3X/Pathfinder I realize how much I appreciate the simpler versions of dnd, like Lamentations of the Flame Princess.
I must have a learning disability.
Quote from: Bill;772209You make good points about 'weaknesses' in the strategy of 'Buffmongering' (I just made that up)
But what irritates me is not that the Buffmonger can't be defeated.
What irritates me is that they even try, and that its a mass of tedious crap.
Every time I make the mistake of dming 3X/Pathfinder I realize how much I appreciate the simpler versions of dnd, like Lamentations of the Flame Princess.
I must have a learning disability.
I get why someone might find that sort of
how many angels are dancing on the head of a pin exercise intellectually interesting. What I don't get is how this kind of character/buff could ever be an actual problem at an actual table with real people. I'd expect all the people at the table over the age of 12 would just give the
angel-pin-head guy the old fish eye and say something like, "Cute build, very creative use of a laundry list of spells. But no. Now create a character that will actually be fun for everyone in play." And then they would actually play a fun RPG.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;772135not sure if you're disagreeing or adding on to my comment. I was talking about 3e, and disagreeing with his assessments that "an observable" person would notice that multiclassing was not an issue in min/maxing, as it very much is
For 3e I completely agree with you. It ruined the game for me. That and druids with wild spell and spontaneous summoning. I accidentally broke our game with one, not fun.
In a high level 3e campaign I ran, the powergamer of the group played a druid. Once she got Shapechange (17th level, I think?) the campaign was pretty much at her mercy.
The party had seen a Marut much earlier, and so... she turned into a Marut all the time. Two fist punches: one, save vs. Blindness. The other, save vs. Deafness. Every round. Plus lots of AC. Plus druid spells.
And the bitch of it was that the party was hell-bent on ridding the gameworld of this immense empire of necromancers... Marut were dedicated to fighting undead (more or less).
I didn't really have a solid game reason to tell her to stop turning into a Marut. I suppose the god robots might say she's doing it wrong, but it would seem extremely petty on both a rule and setting standpoint (and wouldn't have fixed the fact that druids are so OP).
Pretty much cured me of wanting to do mid to high level 3e.
Quote from: Will;772291In a high level 3e campaign I ran, the powergamer of the group played a druid. Once she got Shapechange (17th level, I think?) the campaign was pretty much at her mercy.
The party had seen a Marut much earlier, and so... she turned into a Marut all the time. Two fist punches: one, save vs. Blindness. The other, save vs. Deafness. Every round. Plus lots of AC. Plus druid spells.
And the bitch of it was that the party was hell-bent on ridding the gameworld of this immense empire of necromancers... Marut were dedicated to fighting undead (more or less).
I didn't really have a solid game reason to tell her to stop turning into a Marut. I suppose the god robots might say she's doing it wrong, but it would seem extremely petty on both a rule and setting standpoint (and wouldn't have fixed the fact that druids are so OP).
Pretty much cured me of wanting to do mid to high level 3e.
In a situation like that, I might have the enemy necromancers focus attention on the Marut. Presumably they had vast resources.
The actual Maruts might possibly come after her for impersonating them.
But essentially if there are hundreds of necromancers that create armies of undead, all trying to take out that undead hunting Marut druid, it's not so bad.
But I do admit I am not overly fond of uber characters, at least when the other characters are severely eclipsed.
Quote from: Will;772291In a high level 3e campaign I ran, the powergamer of the group played a druid. Once she got Shapechange (17th level, I think?) the campaign was pretty much at her mercy.
The party had seen a Marut much earlier, and so... she turned into a Marut all the time. Two fist punches: one, save vs. Blindness. The other, save vs. Deafness. Every round. Plus lots of AC. Plus druid spells.
And the bitch of it was that the party was hell-bent on ridding the gameworld of this immense empire of necromancers... Marut were dedicated to fighting undead (more or less).
I didn't really have a solid game reason to tell her to stop turning into a Marut. I suppose the god robots might say she's doing it wrong, but it would seem extremely petty on both a rule and setting standpoint (and wouldn't have fixed the fact that druids are so OP).
Pretty much cured me of wanting to do mid to high level 3e.
Sounds like she was doing everything within RAI/RAW just like myself. It's just that the class itself like the Cleric was so overpowered without even doing stupid things. I just thought it'd be fun to run a Wood/Wild Elf Druid to see if it could be done not ruin the game for everybody (myself included).
That's the problem I had. The necromancers WERE fixated on taking out the party, because the party's #1 goal was destroying the empire.
And I could have done the Marut thing... but she was doing a fantastic job doing what they wanted. ...
Again, I just didn't feel like I had a good justification. Plus, again... she'd just move on to some other horrible system problem. ;)
Quote from: gleichman;772093I don't consider myself really able to comment on that specific of a case with any version of D&D having given up on a few decades back, but I have no reason to doubt you on this.
There is a serious desire in gamers (if one judges solely by popular games) for an endless parade of goodies- be it bonuses, spells, magic items, or... well anything that increases their in-game power. The thing is, that parade causes the very behavior they complain about.
There are a few exceptions. I find it useful with recruiting players to ask the following questions (along with others). A "No" at any point means that it would likely take too much effort to convert them to a non-destructive style of play.
- Are you willing to play a game where your character doesn't advance in power or skill?
- Are you willing to play a game where there is no treasure.
This problem area always existed in the hobby, but I do think this is one place where video games have made things worse.
Good idea.
One reason I like Fate is that it's easy to have treasure and character development without the power inflation of other games.
'Treasure' is just a special situation most times, like good old Sword and Sorcery... buy your ale and whores, and next adventure you are desperate for loot.
I am also absolutely fascinated how out of those 8 spells, 7 are thwarted by the grand strategy of "run away and come back in 10 minutes."
I'm rusty at 3.5, but I seem to recall typed bonuses not stacking. Only untyped and specific examples like dodge, IIRC.
That would be the quickest way to quash it, even if not RAW.
As for me, I prefer characters with a theme. "Insane AC" might be one, but it's too metagamey. "Best pilot ever" is more my style.
Quote from: Will;772291I didn't really have a solid game reason to tell her to stop turning into a Marut.
How much more of a reason do you need than "hey player, doing this one trick over and over is collapsing the campaign"? Everyone at the table knows what is happening. You should talk with the players about things that are harming the campaign.
Quote from: Old One Eye;772400How much more of a reason do you need than "hey player, doing this one trick over and over is collapsing the campaign"? Everyone at the table knows what is happening. You should talk with the players about things that are harming the campaign.
Because everything a high level druid can do can collapse the campaign. High level D&D is crazy.
Basically, I'd have to have asked her to pretend she was really really stupid to keep pace with some of the other players.
Quote from: Will;772401Because everything a high level druid can do can collapse the campaign. High level D&D is crazy.
Basically, I'd have to have asked her to pretend she was really really stupid to keep pace with some of the other players.
Yeah, high level 3.x is something else. I ended a campaign around 18th or 19th due too-much-going-on fatigue.
That seems an odd reason to allow a campaign to collapse under a known problem when just talking about it will probably fix things, but hey, your game and your players.
Quote from: Opaopajr;772398I am also absolutely fascinated how out of those 8 spells, 7 are thwarted by the grand strategy of "run away and come back in 10 minutes."
That simple critter strategy defeats a fair number of 3.x uber builds. Guess a lot of DMs just grind a battle out regardless?
Quote from: Old One Eye;772406Yeah, high level 3.x is something else. I ended a campaign around 18th or 19th due too-much-going-on fatigue.
That seems an odd reason to allow a campaign to collapse under a known problem when just talking about it will probably fix things, but hey, your game and your players.
Well, my solution NOW is E6. :) There were problems long before that -- I just don't like mid to high level 3e. It doesn't fit the vast majority of fantasy I enjoy and am familiar with, and want to emulate.
The campaign ended soon after that, anyway.
Quote from: Old One Eye;772407That simple critter strategy defeats a fair number of 3.x uber builds. Guess a lot of DMs just grind a battle out regardless?
I got 3.x fatigue from levels 1-5, so I try not to imagine the higher realms of madness. However, yes, I think you're right that many GMs will grind out the battle regardless.
There seems to be a weird player epiphany when I run 2e and the monsters ever: talk, bargain, ignore, flee, break morale, kite, lure, start further away, etc. It's like the whole game paradigm they knew has been thrown on its head and suddenly the world is a lot more dangerous by how dynamic it can be. One of the first responses is half the players are suddenly very cautious of combat.
That said the other half of first responses I get are complaints about lost XP and not enough combats... until a few mortal terror combats are under their belt. I take the chiding in stride and let the party suss out their own temperament. Eventually players/characters on similar wavelengths find each other.
While I enjoy 3e a good deal, I have a list of things I feel are just wrong with it (most of them are easy to fix if you want).
The first is the power inflation (fixed by E6).
The second is the focus on grinding enemies, essentially -- every enemy you actually fight and defeat is XP and loot. Every enemy you don't -might- get you XP is generous, but almost never any loot.
This is solved by either setting a pacing of advancement or making xp/loot adventure-based.
The third is magic items, which are hard to strip out without mucking with balance. This is also somewhat helped by E6 -- the difference between a boring magic item and a cool flavorful magic item (or none) isn't overwhelming.
Quote from: Bren;772223I get why someone might find that sort of how many angels are dancing on the head of a pin exercise intellectually interesting. What I don't get is how this kind of character/buff could ever be an actual problem at an actual table with real people. I'd expect all the people at the table over the age of 12 would just give the angel-pin-head guy the old fish eye and say something like, "Cute build, very creative use of a laundry list of spells. But no. Now create a character that will actually be fun for everyone in play." And then they would actually play a fun RPG.
You realize that is a single class Wizard?
Quote from: Opaopajr;772398I am also absolutely fascinated how out of those 8 spells, 7 are thwarted by the grand strategy of "run away and come back in 10 minutes."
I'm absolutely fascinated at all these creatures knowing exactly what those spells are.
Or here's a difficult counter-strategy, cast invisibility first then buff.
Quote from: Sommerjon;773056You realize that is a single class Wizard?
I'm absolutely fascinated at all these creatures knowing exactly what those spells are.
Or here's a difficult counter-strategy, cast invisibility first then buff.
Or just take cover and do the same. The problem with all these white room theories is that the game isn't played in a white room....or let's hope not.:)
Quote from: Sommerjon;773056I'm absolutely fascinated at all these creatures knowing exactly what those spells are.
Or here's a difficult counter-strategy, cast invisibility first then buff.
Still vying for relevance? Some cave troll attacking all aglow with multiple auras should not require a monster to have genius level arcana knowledge to figure out to run away. To see that as GM metagaming first is more than enough to understand where you are coming from and rightfully ignore you from then on.
As to your oh-so-clever invisibility tactic, Scintillating Scales and Radiant Armor et al. are all masked by invisible? What else, Major Illusions to mask everything else like footprints, smells, etc.? How much more meta-bullshit would you like to stack on this "perfect attack"? Please stop wasting everyone's time by proving you cannot read, let alone think.
Quote from: Opaopajr;773062Still vying for relevance? Some cave troll attacking all aglow with multiple auras should not require a monster to have genius level arcana knowledge to figure out to run away. To see that as GM metagaming first is more than enough to understand where you are coming from and rightfully ignore you from then on.
As to your oh-so-clever invisibility tactic, Scintillating Scales and Radiant Armor et al. are all masked by invisible? What else, Major Illusions to mask everything else like footprints, smells, etc.? How much more meta-bullshit would you like to stack on this "perfect attack"? Please stop wasting everyone's time by proving you cannot read, let alone think.
Did the quote say anything about actually attacking or..."the Best Offense is a Good Defense"
Yet I'm the one who cannot read.:rolleyes:
Quote from: Marleycat;773060Or just take cover and do the same. The problem with all these white room theories is that the game isn't played in a white room....or let's hope not.:)
I am working on "White Room Dungeon". It will sell millions. Really... it will... :o
Quote from: Omega;773095I am working on "White Room Dungeon". It will sell millions. Really... it will... :o
It probably will.
Quote from: Marleycat;773060Or just take cover and do the same. The problem with all these white room theories is that the game isn't played in a white room....or let's hope not.:)
Of course, of course.
Except, this funny thing, why is it white room theories?
Which playstyle do I prefer?
The one that doesn't involve some shitweevil going "Hey, watch me ass-rape the system."
Quote from: Sommerjon;773056You realize that is a single class Wizard?
Do you realize that it takes 14 words* to fix this and all similar problems?
"No. Now create a character that will actually be fun for everyone in play."
* Technically it only takes 1 word. But apparently the word "No" is an unknown word to some people.
Quote from: Old One Eye;772407That simple critter strategy defeats a fair number of 3.x uber builds. Guess a lot of DMs just grind a battle out regardless?
I have gmed a lot of 3X/pathfinder, and I did, when the players were using 'buff endlessly' strategy, often get them to waste buffs on underlings, and have enemies retreat. So yes, if a gm forces combat it's worse.
The higher level buffmongers use scry and teleport to mitigate the casting times of many buff spells.
I really don't enjoy that playstyle, but I have seen a few players that love it.
Quote from: Sommerjon;773100Of course, of course.
Except, this funny thing, why is it white room theories?
In 5e Invisibility is actually very situational unless you have the correct class or subclass or skill set profs. In most cases it's just better to use cover and save that slot.
I've experienced something in the charop department several times now, over the years, and I wonder how common it is: PCs looking for abusive builds NOT to break the game or to annoy the DM, but to stay ahead in an "arms race" with other PCs.
I know it makes no sense in terms of a "cooperative venture," but there's almost always a PC or two or three who can't resist a certain amount of one-upmanship, and in many cases, outright bullying, of other player-characters.
And even in cases where it falls short of bullying, it can still evolve into a alpha style leadership contest, when it come to group decisions.
It starts off in various ways. Someone gets a little drunk with power after acquiring a certain magic item or class feature. Or getting more experience points than someone else. Or simply getting aggravated that one character ran away from a melee situation (regardless of the wisdom and tactical advisability of doing so), or sometimes just alignment conflicts for people who wear those on their sleeve.
Then, after a little pushing and shoving, theoretical discussions begin about how one character could clean the other's clock, and then each of them starts looking for ways to trump the other.
From what I've seen, it reached it's peak in 3.5 because of all the charop commentary online, the magic item shopping mart, and all the splat books.
But was it just us?
Quote from: Saplatt;773500I've experienced something in the charop department several times now, over the years, and I wonder how common it is: PCs looking for abusive builds NOT to break the game or to annoy the DM, but to stay ahead in an "arms race" with other PCs.
I know it makes no sense in terms of a "cooperative venture," but there's almost always a PC or two or three who can't resist a certain amount of one-upmanship, and in many cases, outright bullying, of other player-characters.
And even in cases where it falls short of bullying, it can still evolve into a alpha style leadership contest, when it come to group decisions.
It starts off in various ways. Someone gets a little drunk with power after acquiring a certain magic item or class feature. Or getting more experience points than someone else. Or simply getting aggravated that one character ran away from a melee situation (regardless of the wisdom and tactical advisability of doing so), or sometimes just alignment conflicts for people who wear those on their sleeve.
Then, after a little pushing and shoving, theoretical discussions begin about how one character could clean the other's clock, and then each of them starts looking for ways to trump the other.
From what I've seen, it reached it's peak in 3.5 because of all the charop commentary online, the magic item shopping mart, and all the splat books.
But was it just us?
Not just you, and prevalent in online forums as well. Mostly from the uber balance crowd (demanding that every PC have the same starting stats and do the exact same damage per round, etc). Such reactions tell me that somewhere along the way, they had one of these players you describe, who had to be better than everyone else, touch them in their special private place.
Quote from: Saplatt;773500But was it just us?
"The fault was not in our stars..."
I think there's a 'kinder' arms race, where people try to be useful or not feel useless.
It's still dysfunctional, but the motive isn't quite as nasty.
Quote from: Will;773504I think there's a 'kinder' arms race, where people try to be useful or not feel useless.
It's still dysfunctional, but the motive isn't quite as nasty.
You're absolutely correct IMO.
In my group, whenever any of us ended up a bit subpar, we tried harder.
Quote from: Will;773504I think there's a 'kinder' arms race, where people try to be useful or not feel useless.
It's still dysfunctional, but the motive isn't quite as nasty.
I believe being useful and or having a niche is very important.
One pc may be the 'diplomat'; another may be tha tank/melee killing machine; another has arcane magic; another might be able to heal.
What sometimes bothers me is when you have a pc that eclipses other pc's in all ways.
Some may enjoy that, but it's not fun for me personally to be 'superman' or 'clark kent'
Well, what I mean is, if I show up and I feel like I'd have helped the party more if I stayed home, that pushes me to optimize.
And then when someone optimizes out of fun or to be more 'useful for the party,' then others feel compelled to do the same, because they don't want to feel useless/let others down.
And it spirals.
But yeah, the eclipsing/standing out is another one. I'm all for 'doing it for the art,' but when you find Jane Optimizer can do everything you can AND more stuff... again, I feel pointless.
One thing I've noticed is that most of the focus for this stuff seems to happen in "downtime" or when the PCs aren't particularly challenged. When the DM turns up the heat, there tends to be less of this PvP stuff and a little more cooperation.
(http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj205/Pushingtheenvelope/TOL/aofnn8.jpg)
Quote from: Sacrosanct;773501Not just you, and prevalent in online forums as well. Mostly from the uber balance crowd (demanding that every PC have the same starting stats and do the exact same damage per round, etc). Such reactions tell me that somewhere along the way, they had one of these players you describe, who had to be better than everyone else, touch them in their special private place.
I think it can be worse than even that.
I know there are people who freak out just theorizing that someone MIGHT be able to do so-n-so and so they set out to prevent this thing from ever being. It doesnt matter if the thing is unlikely to ever happen even. The mere thought it can happen sets them off on a crusade.
Others freak out because someone told them a scary story about a power gamer.
Combine these with actual bad experiences and the usual internet "I hate it because someone told me to hate it." loons and its no wonder 4e ended up like it did.
Quote from: Bren;773124Do you realize that it takes 14 words* to fix this and all similar problems?
"No. Now create a character that will actually be fun for everyone in play."
* Technically it only takes 1 word. But apparently the word "No" is an unknown word to some people.
The quote is someone casting spells. At what point do you say "No. Now create a character that will actually be fun for everyone in play." ?
Quote from: Sommerjon;773832The quote is someone casting spells. At what point do you say "No. Now create a character that will actually be fun for everyone in play." ?
At the point at which it becomes clear that they have created a character that isn't fun for the people at the table.
The quote was not just "someone casting spells." It was someone casting a collection of spells in a specific order to achieve a specific effect based on a particular interpretation of the rules. As described, if it happened in actual play, the point would be painfully obvious to everyone at the table.
It boils down to which of the four player types which game designer wishes to cater in game. In essence game should cater to selected player personalities and support them.
For example the Killer type mentioned above loves PvP fighting as she gets her enjoyment from winning over other players. This is very much against the idea of most role-playing scenarios and campaigns which stress group cohesion.
Only way to have a stable group when you have many Killers is that you also have lots of Achievers who seek to "win" over the game. This is most essentially collection of levels and other concrete signs of success in game (like equipment).
I am myself of entirely different player type so I do not get much enjoyment from above-mentioned "stable group" and I avoid such players.
Quote from: Bren;774076At the point at which it becomes clear that they have created a character that isn't fun for the people at the table.
The quote was not just "someone casting spells." It was someone casting a collection of spells in a specific order to achieve a specific effect based on a particular interpretation of the rules. As described, if it happened in actual play, the point would be painfully obvious to everyone at the table.
The quote is also old enough not to be valid in 3e anymore. It also assumes unlimited access to books and a number of other factors.
If most of those spells were group buffing would that completely change the fun for the people at the table?
Quote from: Sommerjon;774093If most of those spells were group buffing would that completely change the fun for the people at the table?
I'd imagine that really depends on who is at the table. And if everybody at the table thinks it's fun, well then nobody is going to say it is "not fun" now are they? So in that case everyone can continue creating unbeatable teams of characters who always win. Easily. Yea team!
It doesn't sound fun to me, but then RPG conversations that revolve around talking about "buffing" or "aggro" are like chalk screeching on a black board to me. So I'm going to go with "It doesn't make any difference to me whether you want to play 'break the game world' as a solo activity or in a group. Neither one sounds fun to me."
Quote from: Ladybird;771958I thought it was a storygame? Did I miss a memo?
A common mistake. 4e was definitely not a "storygame" because "storygame" is pretty much a game that tries to follow the "narrativist" model of the failed and disproven "GNS" theory.
4e is, however, a GNS-inspired game, only not "narrativist" but "Gamist".
Skill challenges came within spitting distance of storygames, but ... only by history and association, more or less.
That is, gamist folks have tended to ignore dealing with game mechanics to cover things like diplomacy, but there is nothing inherently inconsistent with doing so.
And the Skill Challenge approach is fairly solidly set within a gamist mindset.
Quote from: Will;775065Skill challenges came within spitting distance of storygames, but ... only by history and association, more or less.
That is, gamist folks have tended to ignore dealing with game mechanics to cover things like diplomacy, but there is nothing inherently inconsistent with doing so.
And the Skill Challenge approach is fairly solidly set within a gamist mindset.
I understood the approach and liked it in theory but what went wrong? I didn't play 4e that much.
Quote from: RPGPundit;775063A common mistake. 4e was definitely not a "storygame" because "storygame" is pretty much a game that tries to follow the "narrativist" model of the failed and disproven "GNS" theory.
Back in a day when I was looking at various theories I looked at this "GNS" theory but came into conclusion it was not useful in RPG context. Setting up a pre-set story line as a main element was foolish as it would take away free will of players to do whatever they wish. Instead I decided to settle for Richard E. Bartle's 4 player type theory (originally intended for MMOs) which is nowadays widely used (and abused) in gaming in general. It is now mainstay of my teaching.
Quote from: Marleycat;775081I understood the approach and liked it in theory but what went wrong? I didn't play 4e that much.
4E style skill challenges feel bit backwards and metagamey to me in practice.
For me it feels more natural for a player to declare an action and its intent, roll an appropriate skill, and the gm decides what happens.
The skill challenges feel a bit to much to me like the skill roll is before the intent and action. Backwards.
So I tended to not use skill challenges except when in some modules, a few of the skill challenges felt smoother.
When not using a module I don't think I ever used a skill challenge.
Marleycat:
I like the idea of Skill Challenges. I've heard the numbers didn't work out well and there were some weaknesses in the mechanics.
But the bigger issue for _me_ was that I simply disliked a lot of 4e. I also felt it almost... comedic, that they came up with the Skill Challenge system, which would possibly give a framework and use for background skills... and then dumped all the background skills. Like... dude! DUDE!
Also, I rejected 4e to a large extent because I was VERY unhappy with WotC's business decisions at the time, from abandoning OGL, to removing all PDFs, to the sort of pissy potshots at 3e, and so on.
(WotC has done a lot of GOOD things to rebuild their appeal, although I really wish OGL was an option. Alas)
Hm...thanks for the clarification. Also about OGL who knows what they actually plan yet I'd just wait before presuming the worst outcome.
I've seen absolutely no indication they've substantively changed their stance on OGL.
I'm making peace with no OGL and just hoping they are going to be very productive with 3pp.
Quote from: Will;775181I've seen absolutely no indication they've substantively changed their stance on OGL.
Between the Book of Erotic Fantasy, Pathfinder, and other things, I imagine WotC's feeling pretty burned on the OGL right now.
QuoteI'm making peace with no OGL and just hoping they are going to be very productive with 3pp.
It certainly looks like there's a whole bunch of licensed ancillary products in the pipeline, and I wouldn't be surprised if we start seeing more traditional support once the game's been out for a while and they feel they can trust people with it. Given how uneven some 3E material was, and how that contributed to problems in the market and with the game, giving people time to learn the system may be a good idea from both design and marketing standpoints.
It's a bit disingenuous to say 'OGL caused Pathfinder competition' when it's _ending_ OGL that caused Pathfinder competition.
If 4e had been OGL, WotC would not have had to deal with creating a 100 lb gorilla to contend with. (WotC being the 800 lb one...)
Not that they are likely to see things this way, but notice how much more popular and generally embraced D&D was in 3e than 4e... it's impossible to prove, but funny how 3e was OGL and 4e wasn't?
Quote from: Will;775188It's a bit disingenuous to say 'OGL caused Pathfinder competition' when it's _ending_ OGL that caused Pathfinder competition.
If 4e had been OGL, WotC would not have had to deal with creating a 100 lb gorilla to contend with. (WotC being the 800 lb one...)
Probably. But if they hadn't gone with the OGL in the first place, they wouldn't have created the competition
and would have prevented the Great Edition Wars. After all, not only Pathfinder but the OSR really needed the OGL to get off the ground.
Whether trying to stuff the genie back into the bottle was better or worse than dealing with it once it was out, I can see why WotC would rather not risk letting another one loose.
QuoteNot that they are likely to see things this way, but notice how much more popular and generally embraced D&D was in 3e than 4e... it's impossible to prove, but funny how 3e was OGL and 4e wasn't?
Impossible to say, as you note. There are so many other complicating and contributing factors that it's impossible to note any one thing, or even several things, that caused it. Personally, I think 4E was about a year or two too early from both a design and a market standpoint, the economic collapse and downfall of bookstores that came along with its two major market pushes didn't help, and a lot of the market was moving in an anti-rules, anti-minis, anti-WotC direction just as they decided to double down on those factors. But this is all hypothetical.
Indeed, I've sometimes wondered if part of the reason 4E was so daring was that they
expected there to be a backlash regardless of what they did, so they just decided to go forth and do what they thought made the best game.
OSR is totally doable without OGL, with almost no change.
I mean, the only reason people went with OGL is because it made people FEEL better about not being frivolously sued.
I agree WotC _felt_ it was a bad idea. I just think they are idiots.
Quote from: Marleycat;775081I understood the approach and liked it in theory but what went wrong? I didn't play 4e that much.
The problem with them was the setup, at least from my perspective. The examples in the DMG were horrid and didn't give players a clear indication of what they should or shouldn't know. The system has come a long way from that period, to being much better, but it's all moot now.
When I run skill challenges, it's better when the players don't know they're going on. They have no idea of the "need 4 successes before 2 failures" to move on. Further, success hinging on Skill Challenges should
never be done, it should be more like a barrier or road block that the group gets over or, failing, has to find another way around.
Often time when Skill Challenges come up, I have the group approach the situation organically (ie. not say "roll Initiative" or give them a clue mechanics are in use). They range ALL over the place from social interactions like getting a better bargain at the smithy for selling their looted armor to convincing the roving band of elves to NOT murder the simple woodsmen in the next village to traversing a dangerous swamp. Giving them a series of situations to overcome using their skills, powers, and just plain ol' improvisation and basing how well they succeed on those attempts.
Skill Challenges should also have a clear cut point to it's success or failure (known only to the DM).
Here's an example, the PCs are met with a dilemma to which they need to reach the enemy's castle to stop the ritual before eternal darkness sets across the land. They don't have horses so they must find a quick means to get there. They have 48-hrs before the eclipse starts. Now they have a map and the map has a land route but it's too far to make by foot before the time is up and horses will make it just barely. They can cut through the swamp, which will be significantly quicker but the swamp is deadly. They can also attempt other stuff too (like stealing horses from a nearby village etc.) If they attempt the swamp, it's a Skill Challenge.
They'll probably use Nature (to gain an idea of terrain and local fauna), Perception (to pick the easiest paths through the forest and stay the course), and Athletics/Acrobatics (to get over minor obstacles). People not trained in these can use their powers to aid their allies during their checks or make Endurance or Stealth checks that help them (to press on or to hide from dangers).
Now they can succeed with all the skill checks and make it through the swamp in say, 10-hrs and that gives them time to plan their assault on the evil Mcguffin's fortress or find allies in towns close by, etc. If they fail the skill challenge, you have a few options as the DM. You could say that they got lost and the time spent was too great and now the eclipse has started and they failed to stop the evil McGuffin (a terrible setback, something you might want to do as a last resort) OR you could hinge their success on a Combat Encounter between some Swamp inhabitants (Trolls, Hags, Bullywugs, Troglodytes, even a Green Dragon) and success leads them to the other side unscathed and with time to attack the keep OR failure is death and they arrive with zero time to plan the assault OR you could have them lose a lot of Healing Surges but they make it through the swamp with
just enough time to assault the McGuffin's keep (but not enough time to rest and regain their lost Healing Surges).
That's always been the way I've done Skill Challenges in the past. They've worked out fairly well for the most part. The only time I didn't have fun making on was the first time I went by the book and it was a dismal failure.