The WotC Char. Op. Board - Tell us about your experiences an

[GhostWhoTalks]

As we all know, the flak created by the Wish and the Word will probably impose this crack-ass standard for contests from now on.

It looks like they're going to perhaps go with a list of disallowed strategies in future contests.

Originally proposed by a fairly reasonable sounding fellow who said it should exist as it would be a fair previously agreed upon set of limitations to add to contest rules, and would not be unfairly changed in mid contest.

Of course there are plenty who just don't GET that the fact that this list will still allow unaccounted for exploits is part of the whole point of it being fair, and are still agitating for a rule zero reign of terror.

But worse they are alread making their special contest limitations list sound like something different counter productive. Already calling it a list of broken or "suspicious" (as in not credible) builds, already talking about filling it with piles of whatever anyone on the list thinks is borken BEFORE it ever appears in any contest or example build, and insisting it should be somehow more general than just contest rules, and thus probably acting as a damper on discussing listed things in ANY context on the boards.

So even a mildly reasonable sounding way of dealing with their hate for W&W in future contests in a vaguely fair way is twisting into something nasty and just plain wrong.

[Maj]

The search function at WotC is straight ass, but I did manage to find this:

Kkat's Eldritch Knight

[Draco_Argentum]

Thanks to some Majik we have the non-charop thread. Some of the opposition were posting in the charop threads.

[User3]

I'm useing the only three threads I've participated in to paint an overarching picture. The two thread's about Kkat's Eldritch Knight and one where people were trying to prove that Imbue With Spell Ability dosen't let you qualify for PrCs.

All three threads had poor ruleslawyering and bad min/maxing. In the two EK threads the only support I seemed to be getting was from a few non-charop people.

You can claim this isn't a representitive sample but it sure isn't inspiring.

i read the thread provided by Maj. Draco - I don't see what your complaint is about the few C.O. regulars (very few) who participated in that non-C.O. thread. If anything, they provided some sound mechanical contrasts and points worth researching to KKat's work. If that's the crux to your argument that C.O. regulars suck, I suggest you go back to the drawing board,.

[Lago_AM3P]

I didn't read the thread to its end, but that's because it was making my stomach churn.

People seem to universally agree that a d8 hp, full BAB, two good saves, a spellcaster level, and no ASF is overpowered WITHOUT class abilities. WTF have these people never heard of a cleric?

Actually, I'm willing to entertain an argument that the cleric is overpowered, but they're arguing that from probably the wrong reasons.

Further, that was over a year ago. I and a lot of the more familiar/famous people really didn't post a lot in the CO forum back then, so who knows.

[RandomCasualty]

1102287428[/unixtime]]People seem to universally agree that a d8 hp, full BAB, two good saves, a spellcaster level, and no ASF is overpowered WITHOUT class abilities. WTF have these people never heard of a cleric?

Well it is overpowered, assuming it was a base class. If you made a wizard PrC like that which cost you no casting levels to get into, then yes, it would be broken.

The thing with wizard classes isn't a consideration of what you're getting so much as what you've lost. Getting full caster progression isn't meaningful, what is meaningful is that you've lost 2 caster levels to get d8 hit dice, and warrior BaB.

[Draco_Argentum]

1102284339[/unixtime]]i read the thread provided by Maj. Draco - I don't see what your complaint is about the few C.O. regulars (very few) who participated in that non-C.O. thread. If anything, they provided some sound mechanical contrasts and points worth researching to KKat's work. If that's the crux to your argument that C.O. regulars suck, I suggest you go back to the drawing board,.

If you read my previous posts I think it'd be blindingly obvious that I wasn't talking about that thread.

[Username17]

Well it is overpowered, assuming it was a base class.

How? If Rangers traded all of their special abilities for full casting, would they be overpowered? Why?

Now, the reason you just said "yes" is because you consider full casting to be overpowered, and not for any other reason. Full BAB isn't overpowered, it's not nearly as important as the game designers keep acting like it is.

---

Let's face it, in the Core Rules, Clerics get more spells than wizards do and have no ASF. If they cast Divine Power they have full casting and BAB all the way back to first level. So in respect to the things which currently exist in the core rules, it's definitionally not over powered - what is being described is in total not as good as a cleric in the core rules.

Now, you believe that Clerics are "overpowered", and compared to most other power levels available for comparison - you're right. But Clerics are supposed to be one of standards of comparison, and compared to that standard the described character class is weak.

If it's weak compared to a core option, then by definition it is not "overpowered" in any objective sense of the term.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

1102292724[/unixtime]] But Clerics are supposed to be one of standards of comparison, and compared to that standard the described character class is weak.

How so? That class is very much like the cleric only it has full BaB instead of turning, and the casting is arcane and not divine. And assuming you follow the basic paradigm of D&D that arcane> divine, then as a core class that would be imbalanced on principle.

Basically you're talking about a wizard with d8 hit dice and warrior BaB, assuming this was a core class. So the question becomes if I think a feat every 5 levels and a familair is worth another good save, warrior BaB and d8 hit dice, plus the ability to cast in armor. Clearly I think we can all agree that the tradeoff is worth it.

As a PrC things are different though because your spellcasting may or may not be full, dpeending on how many caster levels you had to give up to qualify.

[Username17]

That class is very much like the cleric only it has full BaB instead of turning, and the casting is arcane and not divine.

???

Clerics have full BAB. It's called divine power, and they all have it. It's a class feature that kicks in at level 7, but it is there. So instead of having a few extra low level spells, turn undead, and two domains.... you don't. That's really about it.

The only practical game mechanical difference between Arcane and Divine spellcasting is ASF. If oyu don't have ASF, there's no difference.

So the argument could be made "this is too close in power to a cleric, who is in turn far above what any character has a right to be" - but not that it is overpowered in general.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

1102294386[/unixtime]]
Clerics have full BAB. It's called divine power, and they all have it. It's a class feature that kicks in at level 7, but it is there. So instead of having a few extra low level spells, turn undead, and two domains.... you don't. That's really about it.

Well, clerics have to still cast divine power, they don't have it as a permanent ability, barring persistent spell cheese, but IMO persistent spell shouldn't exist at all. If a spell has a 1 round/level duration, it's meant to require an action out of whatever combat whenever you want to use it, at the very least a quickened action if not a standard. We already learned from 3.0 haste that paying spell slots for extra actions takes us on the road to brokenness.

So the argument could be made "this is too close in power to a cleric, who is in turn far above what any character has a right to be" - but not that it is overpowered in general.

The argument is that it blows away the wizard, who is already one of the most powerful classes in the game, and thus is overpowered.

[Username17]

If A > B, then making the argument:

C > B, .: C is overpowered

makes no sense. The argument:

C > B, .: C is overpowered

might make sense, depending upon whether anything else is in there which is similarly bigger than B or not.
---

In short, showing that something is incontrovertibly sperior to one option makes no claims on whether it is overall overpowered or not. I mean, the core rules Fighter is in the mix here, and everyone is better than that.

If something is right smack dab in between a Cleric and a Wizard, it's not overpowered. It's a definitonal thing, so long as even one thing in the basic set is still better than your newly considered option (and even one thing in the basic set is worse), you've just made something which is in the balance range of the basic set. To the extent that the basic rules are balanced - so is your new option.

All you've shown is that the new idea falls inside the range of power levels that are delineated by the power extremes of the rules it would be used with. Which means that it is - by definition - not overpowered.

Now, you may feel that the rest of the rules need a balance overhaul (and so do I), and the new option might not fit with your proposed changes. That is, however, not the question. The question is whether, without otherwise changing the balance of the initial rules set, the new option would fall inside the range of power extremes - and it does so unambiguously.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

That theory is what leads to power creep.

You're saying that it's ok for classes to suck. If you admit that class A is in all ways better than class B, then class B now sucks. And we aren't talking about in different areas, we are talking about in that class's given niche. Who would be a wizard if you allowed a wizard with d8 hit dice and fighter BaB with no ASF? Nobody... cause the wizard now sucks.

If you suggest redoing the wizard so it's like that, that's one thing, but if you think it's ok for a wizard and this new class to coexist somehow, well that's just nuts. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you weren't just bat shit nuts and intended to remove the wizard when you added this new class, so I'll move onto my next point.

Do we even want to upgrade the wizard? Does it need a boost?

Considering wizards are accepted as one of the most powerful classes ever, I don't think it needs any kind of power boost. Why don't we give the wizard d12 hit dice while we're at it, and kick the fighter and barbarian in the balls some more? The d12 wizard still wouldn't be as powerful as the druid? So that's ok then, right?

I realize it is fun to kick bards, barbarians and fighters in the nuts, but eventually we have got to look beyond the pure enjoyment that comes from mindless sadism and work toward creating a balanced game.

[Lago_AM3P]

The little bitches on the Character Optimization forum deleted my thread: How to permanently freeze time in 3.5E. They didn't even give me the courtesy of a notification.

Here's where the thread used to be:

http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.p ... br][br]You can see similarly rehashed arguments on this very page. Even though people told me to stop "whining petulantly" I responded with a lot more courtesy than I normally show.

Little bitches, man. Suck my balls, CharOp. Suck 'em dry.

[Oberoni]

Why would they have deleted it?

[Zherog]

I had reported one post from that thread earlier today where somebody ripped into Lago with all sorts of personal attacks. The nicest thing he said about Lago was to call him a retard.

One post isn't grounds for deleting a thread though. Very curious. Lago - perhaps you ought to drop Autumn an e-mail and find out what's up. If her answer is unsatisfactory, you can drop a note to Doxxie and see what's going on.

I'm curious what the answer would be - I thought it was simply a matter of editing the offending post and moving on. While the rest of the thread was whining about how no sane DM would allow it, I don't recall anything else in the thread that would make it lock-worthy by WotC's standards, let alone deletable.

[Username17]

That really doesn't surprise me. Remember, I was deleted from the entire WotC boards for having a critical attitude of WotC authors, near as I can figure.

If you lay in some constructive criticism of the authors, you will be the nail that gets hammered down. I'm surprised you didn't get a warning. After all, you "started" a flame war, didn't you?

Seriously, the chicken little attitude is not new. It's not fair. It's not welcoming. And it's not even fvcking interesting.

-Username17

[User3]

The Gaming Den:

1102449362[/unixtime]]Hell yeah. Of course, the magic number is 92. If you can get your UMD check result up to 92 (including a very large bonus from "Skill Enhancer"), then you can make a charge off your Staff of extended Skill Enhancer (caster level: 72) last all day. So if your UMD bonus before your competence bonus and your UMD roll (which you will take ten on) is 44, you cn wander around with maximal enhancement all the time - and cast any other spell you feel like out of a staff at caster level 72 - instantly killing any creature with 60 hit dice or less.

WotC C.O:

...That statement does not determine "meeting required standards", as the word "qualifying" is most likely apt to mean since it is a specifically undefined word in the D&D lexicon (and noting the 3 unique transitive and 3 unique intransitive senses of the word's english language definition)...

Oh ya, plus the C.O. board has infinitely more "build" requests, and many fewer discussions abouut how broken everything is (and how to fix it).

And because the WotC boards are much better known then TGD, they have infinitely more newbies. And (unfortunately) 'eternal newbies.'
But on the flip side, the pure number of posters on the WotC boards means much more material is covered.

I'm not sure that anyone on C.O. has Frank's grasp of the rules, but there is much less talk of penis-swinging and ball-kicking.



And as for people getting banned and posts deleted...I don't know what to say. The worst I've ever gotten was a warning email.

[Boulie_98]

1104466141[/unixtime]]I'm not sure that anyone on C.O. has Frank's grasp of the rules, but there is much less talk of penis-swinging and ball-kicking.

But both the swinging of the penis and the kicking of the testicles are why people engage character optimization!

[Maj]

For us ladies, it's much more entertaining than a night with the Chippendales.

[Lago_AM3P]

For us ladies, it's much more entertaining than a night with the Chippendales.

Really? Truly? Honest Johnson?

I'm going to try that RIGHT NOW with that hot chick on the other side of the Rec Center!




ARGHA!!1 she Sprayed me in the face with peppep spray afterI told hEr abot my cheezYRed wizard o thay jesusgod it hurts Sobad WHy DID YoU LIE TO LagO MAj???/

[Essence]

[action]dies a horrible death by laughing his small intestine right out of his butt[/action]

[Zherog]

Poor Majjy. "Lost" her hubby, and has to clean up that mess.

[Maj]

Obviously, Lago, she wasn't a lady.



As for my husband, I called a hazmat team, collected his last paycheck, and went shopping. For groceries. My cooking is so good it can resurrect people. In this case, it was a kahlua cake with Bailey's frosting.

[Maj]

And just in case this is seen as being off-topic... It's not. See, this thread is a magnificent specimen demonstrating the fact that many of us, despite our argumentative natures, can attempt to intelligently discuss a topic, disagree, and then get over it. Other people and boards often have issues with the getting over it part.