What is with the entitlement? (shadzar stay out)

[Shadow Balls]

I mean characters that have a large number of class dips, but all of those classes are non magical.

Well, then, say what you mean.

...I did say that.

And alternative failure conditions would not make any difference. The basket weavers would whine that they have to sit out because their inept character got killed off with one punch and "had to sit out of the adventure until they got raised or replaced", and the basket weavers would still whine because their inept character got knocked out in one punch and "had to sit out of the adventure until someone stormed the prison they were being kept in". Either way the problem is that the inept character is easily defeated, and that they blame anyone but themselves for that defeat. Changing what defeating and being defeated means makes no difference at all here.

[Kaelik]

I mean characters that have a large number of class dips, but all of those classes are non magical.

Well, then, say what you mean.

...I did say that.

No you didn't. Learn math.

X levels in X/2 classes occurs when you have 2 levels in 1 class. For a complaint about how dipping isn't overpowered, you actually described a whole bunch of non dips. IE 4 levels in two classes, 6 levels in 3 classes. Things that don't even create multiclassing penalties.

[Fuchs]

"You are now charmed. You don't realize this."

I usually say "X is now your very best and trusted friend. However, all your other friends are still your friends, your feelings have not changed with regards to anyone but X".

[A Man In Black]

And alternative failure conditions would not make any difference. The basket weavers would whine that they have to sit out because their inept character got killed off with one punch and "had to sit out of the adventure until they got raised or replaced", and the basket weavers would still whine because their inept character got knocked out in one punch and "had to sit out of the adventure until someone stormed the prison they were being kept in". Either way the problem is that the inept character is easily defeated, and that they blame anyone but themselves for that defeat. Changing what defeating and being defeated means makes no difference at all here.

This is a fairly lame strawman. Being knocked out doesn't magically teleport you to a prison.

[liquid150]

And alternative failure conditions would not make any difference. The basket weavers would whine that they have to sit out because their inept character got killed off with one punch and "had to sit out of the adventure until they got raised or replaced", and the basket weavers would still whine because their inept character got knocked out in one punch and "had to sit out of the adventure until someone stormed the prison they were being kept in". Either way the problem is that the inept character is easily defeated, and that they blame anyone but themselves for that defeat. Changing what defeating and being defeated means makes no difference at all here.

This is a fairly lame strawman. Being knocked out doesn't magically teleport you to a prison.

Saying something is a strawman by using a strawman. Epic.

[Damocles]

I can't believe this debate seriously turned into whether or not a class should be killed based on the viability of the class.

You're advocating punishing a player for using the system they're playing to make a character they envision as cool.

And before you bitch and moan about how we should offer them tome monk, or how they should roll a different class, you have to remember no one fucking uses this forum . How many people in the world actually know tome monk exists? How many people even know Monk is underpowered before playing it? Sure, there's the internet, and the den, but how would people even find this place? The URL isnt exactly obvious, and I doubt we're #1 on google search for rpg forum.

We're not even on the first page of google results for "The Den"[/i]

[K]

I can't believe this debate seriously turned into whether or not a class should be killed based on the viability of the class.

You're advocating punishing a player for using the system they're playing to make a character they envision as cool.

Not just that, they are advocating punishing a player by killing a character because the player didn't make a character that was suited to the subset of challenges the DM would later surprise them with. (You know, the challenges he can cater specifically to their weaknesses because he can do that even though they can't do the same against monsters?)

So, you made a melee fighter? Sorry man, the DM has to punish you because you didn't know he was going to throw down monsters no one knew were closet trolls.

You made an enchantment specialist? Sorry man, the DM has to punish you because you didn't know that he was going to feature undead and spellcasters with protection from evil prominently.

You made a Wizard? Sorry man, the DM has to punish you because you couldn't read his mind and know that a lot of drow and other high SR monsters are going to be in this campaign.

You didn't make characters with high Diplomacy and made combat characters instead? Sorry man, the DM has to punish you because you should have known that your life would depend on negotiating with things that are unbeatable by you in combat and will kill you for failing Diplomacy checks.

In a very literal sense, the only thing they accept is if you let them make your character, and then let them "advise" you in combat, in essence letting them play all aspects of your character since their actions as DMs completely determine which tactics are smart and which are dumb.

Don't feel bad. You get roll your own dice.

Then they are going to accuse you of strawmanning them when you point out that their position is flawed.

[CapnTthePirateG]

I can't believe this debate seriously turned into whether or not a class should be killed based on the viability of the class.

You're advocating punishing a player for using the system they're playing to make a character they envision as cool.

Not just that, they are advocating punishing a player by killing a character because the player didn't make a character that was suited to the subset of challenges the DM would later surprise them with. (You know, the challenges he can cater specifically to their weaknesses because he can do that even though they can't do the same against monsters?)

So, you made a melee fighter? Sorry man, the DM has to punish you because you didn't know he was going to throw down monsters no one knew were closet trolls.

You made an enchantment specialist? Sorry man, the DM has to punish you because you didn't know that he was going to feature undead and spellcasters with protection from evil prominently.

You made a Wizard? Sorry man, the DM has to punish you because you couldn't read his mind and know that a lot of drow and other high SR monsters are going to be in this campaign.

You didn't make characters with high Diplomacy and made combat characters instead? Sorry man, the DM has to punish you because you should have known that your life would depend on negotiating with things that are unbeatable by you in combat and will kill you for failing Diplomacy checks.

In a very literal sense, the only thing they accept is if you let them make your character, and then let them "advise" you in combat, in essence letting them play all aspects of your character since their actions as DMs completely determine which tactics are smart and which are dumb.

Don't feel bad. You get roll your own dice.

Then they are going to accuse you of strawmanning them when you point out that their position is flawed.

Wouldn't it be better to just straight-up get rid of all the fuck you shutdown mechanics? Sure, I've been in favor of death because I don't think the illusion really works, but what does "fuck you, x character doesn't work" really add to the game?

[Fuchs]

Wouldn't it be better to just straight-up get rid of all the fuck you shutdown mechanics? Sure, I've been in favor of death because I don't think the illusion really works, but what does "fuck you, x character doesn't work" really add to the game?

There's too many ways for a GM to fuck with a player and shut down their character. Make a wizard? Oh, we're gonna adventure in the theurgy of Kill-all-mage-heretics, where every priest learns to oppose mages and sniff them out. Make a bard or enchanter? Welcome to "Against eh Undead immune to illusions and enchantment". Archer? Wind wall scrolls at a discount for every enemy.

If a GM wants to screw a character he can always do so.

[ckafrica]

If a GM wants to screw a character he can always do so.

Yes that seems to be the whole point that the "anti-death" crowd has been making since the getgo, though I'd change it to

"the DM always chooses whether the party/character will win or lose"

so you can't exactly choose to punish someone because it was always up to you whether they were going to win or lose anyways. Which is not to say that the DM isn't allowed to make them lose if they fail to achieve his criteria for success but that if as DM, your consequence of failing is taking them out of the game that they have committed some of their (assumedly) valuable free time to come to participate in, that you are in fact being a dick.
It is really no different than trying to punish the players for not following your railroad. You can advance the consequences of them not achieving the goal you planned (the lich-king gets the stone of OMG evil and can therefore blow up fantasia) but simply telling the players that they're dead (or the session is over) because the didn't follow your plot is dickery.

[K]

I can't believe this debate seriously turned into whether or not a class should be killed based on the viability of the class.

You're advocating punishing a player for using the system they're playing to make a character they envision as cool.

Not just that, they are advocating punishing a player by killing a character because the player didn't make a character that was suited to the subset of challenges the DM would later surprise them with. (You know, the challenges he can cater specifically to their weaknesses because he can do that even though they can't do the same against monsters?)

So, you made a melee fighter? Sorry man, the DM has to punish you because you didn't know he was going to throw down monsters no one knew were closet trolls.

You made an enchantment specialist? Sorry man, the DM has to punish you because you didn't know that he was going to feature undead and spellcasters with protection from evil prominently.

You made a Wizard? Sorry man, the DM has to punish you because you couldn't read his mind and know that a lot of drow and other high SR monsters are going to be in this campaign.

You didn't make characters with high Diplomacy and made combat characters instead? Sorry man, the DM has to punish you because you should have known that your life would depend on negotiating with things that are unbeatable by you in combat and will kill you for failing Diplomacy checks.

In a very literal sense, the only thing they accept is if you let them make your character, and then let them "advise" you in combat, in essence letting them play all aspects of your character since their actions as DMs completely determine which tactics are smart and which are dumb.

Don't feel bad. You get roll your own dice.

Then they are going to accuse you of strawmanning them when you point out that their position is flawed.

Wouldn't it be better to just straight-up get rid of all the fuck you shutdown mechanics? Sure, I've been in favor of death because I don't think the illusion really works, but what does "fuck you, x character doesn't work" really add to the game?

FU mechanics exist to move the spotlight from one character to the next. So when the Wizards have been dominating, you toss in some Spell Resistance monsters and people feel better that they picked fighting guys to play.

FU monsters are supposed to be used to moderate threat levels and move spotlight, so killing specific PCs because they ran into a monster designed to kill them is pointless.

I mean, when you use a new closet troll the players have never seen it's the same as saying "the melee guys will die if I don't specifically make sure that won't happen." Simply saying "well, you shouldn't have been dumb enough to make a melee fighter or engage a closet troll even though there was no way you could have known, so now you die" is punishing people for something outside of their control.

[Shadow Balls]

Well, then, say what you mean.

...I did say that.

No you didn't. Learn math.

X levels in X/2 classes occurs when you have 2 levels in 1 class. For a complaint about how dipping isn't overpowered, you actually described a whole bunch of non dips. IE 4 levels in two classes, 6 levels in 3 classes. Things that don't even create multiclassing penalties.

I understand math just fine. Here is what I said.

You have x levels. Let us say that x is 10.

You have x/2 classes. Obviously, 10 divided by 2 is 5.

Now if you have 10 levels, and 5 different classes could it be possible that maybe, just maybe you don't have very many levels of any of them? Why yes, yes it fucking is.

No, it doesn't create multiclassing penalties because those are fucking stupid and don't do what they are supposed to do. It does however take advantage of the fact that most of the earlier 3.5 non casting classes are only worth taking the first few levels of.

And alternative failure conditions would not make any difference. The basket weavers would whine that they have to sit out because their inept character got killed off with one punch and "had to sit out of the adventure until they got raised or replaced", and the basket weavers would still whine because their inept character got knocked out in one punch and "had to sit out of the adventure until someone stormed the prison they were being kept in". Either way the problem is that the inept character is easily defeated, and that they blame anyone but themselves for that defeat. Changing what defeating and being defeated means makes no difference at all here.

This is a fairly lame strawman. Being knocked out doesn't magically teleport you to a prison.

Then it is a good thing that I did not say that, and that the person trying to call strawman on me did.

I can't believe this debate seriously turned into whether or not a class should be killed based on the viability of the class.

You're advocating punishing a player for using the system they're playing to make a character they envision as cool.

And before you bitch and moan about how we should offer them tome monk, or how they should roll a different class, you have to remember no one fucking uses this forum . How many people in the world actually know tome monk exists? How many people even know Monk is underpowered before playing it? Sure, there's the internet, and the den, but how would people even find this place? The URL isnt exactly obvious, and I doubt we're #1 on google search for rpg forum.

We're not even on the first page of google results for "The Den"[/i]

Tome is surprisingly well known actually. But play an Unarmed Swordsage is also an answer, and people do generally know about the Tome of Battle.

The system is the one punishing them. What the DM is doing is directing them to things that the system will not punish them for. Keeping in mind that basket weavers are attention whores, so they will most likely ignore this anyways and then blame you for it.

Knowing Monk is underpowered before playing it isn't as hard as you might think either. A lot of people fall for that trap, sure. But I've seen brand new players look over the rules and correctly pronounce that Monks are the worst class, and the reasons for it without any guidance from anyone else.

K is being a fucking idiot again, and isn't even pretending to not be using absurd hyperbole anymore so I am not even going to bother responding to that.

[A Man In Black]

Saying something is a strawman by using a strawman. Epic.

Well, he didn't explain any other way that the character ended up in a prison when the party obviously wasn't wiped out. Nor is he the only one suggesting that the only possible defeat condition other than dead is captured and imprisoned.

Also, I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I? Seriously?

[...You Lost Me]

If you are unconscious, people can take you to prison.

Also, a strawman is attacking a certain position and then claiming the rest of it is false because of that certain piece. You used the "LOL NOT ACTUALLY IN PRISON" argument to "win" the debate concerning a paragraph more of information. I think that's why they called you a strawman.

[A Man In Black]

If you are unconscious, people can take you to prison.

See, let's say that 0 HP means you're just unconscious, rather than dead.

If one character goes down, rather than that character's player sitting out until he can make a new character and introduce that new character, that player sits out until his character can be reawakened, and has a reduced ability to affect the plot until the character has recovered. This is an improvement, because the player is out of the game for 10-15 minutes at the outside, as opposed to between most of one session to several full sessions.

If all the characters go down, rather than all of them dying, you can do a captured scene if people want. This is an additional option on top of the usual deus ex machina/reroll/restart/quit options you normally have with a TPK. This is also an improvement, and if you feel that being captured or robbed and left for dead isn't fun, you still have all of the other options you had before.

The strawman is capturing just one PC and putting them in prison. Yes, it is about as stupid as killing a PC. But when the fuck is it going to happen in any game? There's no circumstances where one character is captured but the rest of the party isn't, because the rest of the party is still able to prevent that capture. If they aren't, then they're all captured.

[RadiantPhoenix]

There's no circumstances where one character is captured but the rest of the party isn't, because the rest of the party is still able to prevent that capture. If they aren't, then they're all captured.

[Stubbazubba]

-snip-

I'd just like to point out that in the game I GM'd for you, the near-TPK kept you out of play not at all, and the time someone got captured to avoid having to kill another PC kept someone out of play for much longer.

Which created plot hooks and a sense of struggle for the character. If the PCs die every time they lose, it becomes a sense of struggle for the player and the player only. That's OK, because it's a game as well as a story, but it's not inherently superior to keeping PCs alive, but constantly in-and-out of different lose conditions. Besides which, non-death lose conditions provide adventure hooks (escape from prison, find the lost scion to place on the throne before the kingdom is engulfed in a war of succession, etc.) organically.

@Shadow Balls: There is a world of things a captured PC can do that a dead one cannot. Overhear the chit-chat of the guards, make friends with one of the guards, make friends with other prisoners, try to escape, etc. Whiny players would have less to whine about, because there are play options when you're captured. There are none when you're dead. Is it so permissive to allow players to keep having an engaging play experience that can still help the party accomplish goals, if at a slower rate? And if not, why?

[Dominicius]

While I do agree with K for the most part I don't see why it should be only the DMs responsibility to keep the party alive. Why can't the players themselves also take up some of that responsibility?

The DM already works hard as it is without needing to make sure that an encounter has 0 chance of ending the campaign or being forced wildly fudge dice in case he made a miscalculation.

[Shadow Balls]

Saying something is a strawman by using a strawman. Epic.

Well, he didn't explain any other way that the character ended up in a prison when the party obviously wasn't wiped out. Nor is he the only one suggesting that the only possible defeat condition other than dead is captured and imprisoned.

Also, I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I? Seriously?

Some things are implied rather than expressly stated. That means that if a character is taken out non lethally, and that causes them to sit out for a while, it means that they were taken away in some way. Be it by driving the others off, superior movement, Dimension Door... enemies are generally better capable of breaking off engagements than the party is.

If you are unconscious, people can take you to prison.

See, let's say that 0 HP means you're just unconscious, rather than dead.

If one character goes down, rather than that character's player sitting out until he can make a new character and introduce that new character, that player sits out until his character can be reawakened, and has a reduced ability to affect the plot until the character has recovered. This is an improvement, because the player is out of the game for 10-15 minutes at the outside, as opposed to between most of one session to several full sessions.

Reawakened and rescued, which is likely longer. The point is no matter what you set the failure condition to, the point is that inept players will be inept, and then blame anyone but themselves when that condition comes up.

The strawman is capturing just one PC and putting them in prison. Yes, it is about as stupid as killing a PC. But when the fuck is it going to happen in any game? There's no circumstances where one character is captured but the rest of the party isn't, because the rest of the party is still able to prevent that capture. If they aren't, then they're all captured.

And death is cured quickly by Revenance + Revivify. Yet it is assumed that that isn't happening for whatever reason.

@Shadow Balls: There is a world of things a captured PC can do that a dead one cannot. Overhear the chit-chat of the guards, make friends with one of the guards, make friends with other prisoners, try to escape, etc. Whiny players would have less to whine about, because there are play options when you're captured. There are none when you're dead. Is it so permissive to allow players to keep having an engaging play experience that can still help the party accomplish goals, if at a slower rate? And if not, why?

Again, the problem is not the nature of the lose condition, but the reaction to it. That and that's also going to annoy the players that are not inept, which is obviously undesirable.

But since you insist...

You and your buddies were fighting whatever. You were ready to fight. You were geared to fight. You were buffed to fight. You lost. Now you are alone and lack all of those things. That means that you are taken out of play more, and not less. The inept players now have been given legitimacy, as you really have screwed them over. And because they are not technically dead, they are stuck in nonparticipation longer than it would take to get some manner of raise or a new character.

[K]

While I do agree with K for the most part I don't see why it should be only the DMs responsibility to keep the party alive. Why can't the players themselves also take up some of that responsibility?

The DM already works hard as it is without needing to make sure that an encounter has 0 chance of ending the campaign or being forced wildly fudge dice in case he made a miscalculation.

What?

When can the players choose which monsters they fight and which tactics those monsters use? Until they can do that, their success is entirely up to the DM.

At best, they can choose to fail by deliberately choosing poor tactics. Success is only available if the DM makes that possible.

Now, some DMs only make success possible by using very specific tactics. Closet trolls are a good example of a threat that only is beatable by a small number of tactics, but if players don't know that it's a closet troll then a PC will probably die before they figure it out.

[CapnTthePirateG]

While I do agree with K for the most part I don't see why it should be only the DMs responsibility to keep the party alive. Why can't the players themselves also take up some of that responsibility?

The DM already works hard as it is without needing to make sure that an encounter has 0 chance of ending the campaign or being forced wildly fudge dice in case he made a miscalculation.

What?

When can the players choose which monsters they fight and which tactics those monsters use? Until they can do that, their success is entirely up to the DM.

At best, they can choose to fail by deliberately choosing poor tactics. Success is only available if the DM makes that possible.

Now, some DMs only make success possible by using very specific tactics. Closet trolls are a good example of a threat that only is beatable by a small number of tactics, but if players don't know that it's a closet troll then a PC will probably die before they figure it out.

There's a stealth minigame, a diplomacy minigame, invisibility, teleportation and just turning around and leaving the dungeon. Sounds like control over what you fight to me.

[K]

While I do agree with K for the most part I don't see why it should be only the DMs responsibility to keep the party alive. Why can't the players themselves also take up some of that responsibility?

The DM already works hard as it is without needing to make sure that an encounter has 0 chance of ending the campaign or being forced wildly fudge dice in case he made a miscalculation.

What?

When can the players choose which monsters they fight and which tactics those monsters use? Until they can do that, their success is entirely up to the DM.

At best, they can choose to fail by deliberately choosing poor tactics. Success is only available if the DM makes that possible.

Now, some DMs only make success possible by using very specific tactics. Closet trolls are a good example of a threat that only is beatable by a small number of tactics, but if players don't know that it's a closet troll then a PC will probably die before they figure it out.

There's a stealth minigame, a diplomacy minigame, invisibility, teleportation and just turning around and leaving the dungeon. Sounds like control over what you fight to me.

Turning around and not doing the adventure or skipping the monsters required to move the plot along is just a fail condition, so in that sense you are agreeing with me that PCs only have a choice when they choose to fail.

Also, turning around and leaving the dungeon only works before you've encountered the monsters. The profound lack of retreat mechanics makes running away without the use of powerful and uncommon magic useless.

As for the rest, those tactics are entirely dependent on the DM allowing to work and letting you skip monsters without affecting the plot. I mean, the number of monsters who even play the diplomacy game is small and getting to encounter them is DM choice and the "kill the red dragon" plot is not a plot where you get to skip killing the red dragon, so pretending that those options are available even some of the time is disingenuous.

[...You Lost Me]

This is for A Man in Black, it's the Shadow Balls quote that you responded to originally, emphasis mine.

And alternative failure conditions would not make any difference. The basket weavers would whine that they have to sit out because their inept character got killed off with one punch and "had to sit out of the adventure until they got raised or replaced", and the basket weavers would still whine because their inept character got knocked out in one punch and "had to sit out of the adventure until someone stormed the prison they were being kept in". Either way the problem is that the inept character is easily defeated, and that they blame anyone but themselves for that defeat. Changing what defeating and being defeated means makes no difference at all here.

Perhaps I'm reading that wrong, but it seems to me that his point was that getting knocked out and getting killed with result in the same amount of complaining. Now if you're arguing something else (and you definitely seem to be), you really shouldn't have quoted him and talked about strawmanning. It seems like a legit point if there ever was one.

[A Man In Black]

Perhaps I'm reading that wrong, but it seems to me that his point was that getting knocked out and getting killed with result in the same amount of complaining. Now if you're arguing something else (and you definitely seem to be), you really shouldn't have quoted him and talked about strawmanning. It seems like a legit point if there ever was one.

You are reading that wrong, and I am attacking that nonsense (and it has appeared elsewhere in the thread). He is saying that being captured would happen in the same circumstances, and both are equally disruptive to play. They wouldn't both happen in the same circumstances: dying would happen every time Captain Basketweaver got hit, and kidnapping/arrest would only happen when the entire party was forced from combat without the opportunity to save Captain Basketweaver. The latter is a TPK, and a prison scene is preferable to "Welp. So much for that party."

[Gx1080]

@K

Let me see what you are saying.

*Player sucess is entirely determinated by the monsters and how the DM uses them.

Well, if that's true, then the combat minigame is a waste of time. This is D&D, a mostly hack-and-slash game, and if the damn combat minigame is meaningless, then is not worth to play it instead of more "story focused" games.

Of course, the above is true if there's "fuck you" monsters for each class. Which makes it a game of cycling through monsters so that everybody gets their spotlight moments. My opinion that is highly lame aside, the price for making everybody special is that nobody is.