You do fucking win at D&D.

[Mr. GC]

That's not just a smartass comment.

Your player's know the details of their characters, what they can handle, and what they might reasonably expect to run up against.

Yet when you post here, you expect people to deduce the nature and level of both the PCs and the monsters.

The level was easy to narrow down, as someone already has. Class wise I never said explicitly but I did mention a whole lot of spells including personal range spells so it's safe to assume caster heavy.

[Seerow]

What the fuck is this 'beginning of the dungeon' shit?

You mean in your campaign the monsters politely wait for you to come to them? When you're all nice, comfortable and ready? I pity the molly-coddling fuckface that has to hold your hand.

Boosting CL is easy. Doing so allows you to maximise the advantage of range and metamagic. It does not even have to cut into your permanant item budget. And while you're wasting a cohort on aquiring a fucking Bard, a serious optimiser will take the opportunity to get a secondary character that can do more than boost attack rolls.

Boost attack rolls? What the fuck are you doing you stupid prick? You could at least have made an attempt to double the output of your shitty, second rate touch spells. Do I need to spell this shit out for you?

You just don't understand optimization. Get on GC's level you basket weaver.

[Maj]

Would someone please give me the definition of basket weaving (It's mentioned, but not actually defined in the Den-speak thread)? I thought I understood it, but it's not being used here in a way that makes sense to me.

[Seerow]

Would someone please give me the definition of basket weaving (It's mentioned, but not actually defined in the Den-speak thread)? I thought I understood it, but it's not being used here in a way that makes sense to me.

That's because nothing in this thread is being used in a way that makes sense.

[Mr. GC]

Would someone please give me the definition of basket weaving (It's mentioned, but not actually defined in the Den-speak thread)? I thought I understood it, but it's not being used here in a way that makes sense to me.

In this context: A basket weaver is someone that not only intentionally avoids effective play but attempts to drag everyone else down to their level via any number of methods. This could mean crying to nerf fellow party members that are better than them, insisting the entire party be as weak as them... The common thread is that all of these things are defenses and endorsements of weak characters.

At the same time, they want to be strong and powerful and want to succeed and become greatly offended when their characters who intentionally avoided success avoid success.

It's a position founded on contradictions and cognitive dissonance.

[sabs]

The actual definition of basket weaving as I understand it.
When your character's skill is so far bellow the minimum requirements for contributing to the party that you might as well have basket weaving as a primary skill for all the good you're doing.

It's basically a short hand for, "that class isn't even playing the same game."

[Winnah]

Bard Cohort = Basket Weaving

It's when you add superfluous or unneccesary baggage to a character concept, such as making attack rolls when you can just flat out avoid melee IP proofing.

Apparently evolved from the term Underwater Basket Weaving. Which is a class American student-athletes supposedly take for easy college credits.

[Mr. GC]

The actual definition of basket weaving as I understand it.
When your character's skill is so far bellow the minimum requirements for contributing to the party that you might as well have basket weaving as a primary skill for all the good you're doing.

It's basically a short hand for, "that class isn't even playing the same game."

This also works but isn't as descriptive.

[Maj]

Thank you.

Sabs has the definition I'm familiar with, though I can see how what Winnah said applies by extension. I was not aware the intentions of the player had anything to do with anything - I believe I've heard the term used mostly in reference to class design and some MCing, not just regarding a player and their character.

[Roog]

That's not just a smartass comment.

Your player's know the details of their characters, what they can handle, and what they might reasonably expect to run up against.

Yet when you post here, you expect people to deduce the nature and level of both the PCs and the monsters.

The level was easy to narrow down, as someone already has. Class wise I never said explicitly but I did mention a whole lot of spells including personal range spells so it's safe to assume caster heavy.

I expect that your players also find it easy to narrow down what level their characters could be, as players generally have access to their PCs' character sheets.

Do your players actually have character sheets, or are they schrodinger's PCs that have whatever abilities you want for your example?

[hyzmarca]

His dragon is weak but exhibits the concept decently well.

The differences between dragons are:

Breath weapons (only matters for the few with a relevant breath weapon, otherwise they'll never use this).
Elemental stuff (also never matters, good characters don't blast).
Some minor other abilities that don't even start having a chance to make a difference until very high levels... which we're not talking about.

Otherwise? Black, blue, red... they're all going to be doing Flyby Pounces on you or spamming Blood Wind, etc.

Black Dragons are ambush predators. They're going to hide under the water until you're near and then fuck you up when you aren't looking. They might have rogue levels for the sneak attack. If they can't do that then they run away and hide.

A Blue Dragon is going to burrow into the ground and attack you from beneath, where you cannot easily counterattack them or if he's really feeling sadistic follow you around under the cover of an illusion and spoil all of your water until you die to dehydration. That's just how they roll.

A Red Dragon might just land and melee you, because they're arrogant sons of bitches.

A Silver Dragon is going to try to diplomatic you before fighting back. There's a good change that it will take the form of an attractive human and try to bang you.

A Bronze will just offer to give you stuff if you promise to go away.

A 2e Radiant would just shapechange into Larloch and troll the fuck out of you using ancient Netherese magic known only to the Shadow King.

A Stellar Dragon is the size of Germany and probably wouldn't notice you living on him.

Of course, the last two aren't canon for 3.x


But the point is, Dragons have different personalities, and those personalities color how they fight. Sure, spamming blood wind is probably an optimal strategy for many of them, but that doesn't mean it would be their preferred strategy. Some of them are just going to behave like stereotypical dragons of their color. Others, especially the villainous mastermind kind, are going to polymorph into an unassuming humanoid and sit in their command center, receiving reports from their minions and drinking pina coladas from coconuts.

A smart villainous mastermind dragon might even exchange his Dr. Evil costume for tattered rag, set his command center in a prison cell, and order his minions to beat him with a scourge so that when the good guys find him they'll "rescue" the poor prisoner. Or just have a teleport spell prepped for such an eventuality.

[Mr. GC]

Thank you.

Sabs has the definition I'm familiar with, though I can see how what Winnah said applies by extension. I was not aware the intentions of the player had anything to do with anything - I believe I've heard the term used mostly in reference to class design and some MCing, not just regarding a player and their character.

It can be class design or the DM but is usually a player.

I expect that your players also find it easy to narrow down what level their characters could be, as players generally have access to their PCs' character sheets.

Do your players actually have character sheets, or are they schrodinger's PCs that have whatever abilities you want for your example?

They actually have defined characters of course. You do realize the point I was making right?

[erik]

I thought a 'Basket Weaver' was someone who spent character resources on Craft: Basket Weaving (or equivalent), something of essentially zero mechanical value, and claimed it was for RP effect and thus validated.

In other words someone who does the opposite of Min-Maxing. Spending limited resources on useless crap, to wit making their character less useful.

It of course would be consequent that such players are not playing the same game as those who are wanting to play somewhat competent characters. So it rather ends up in the same place as other people's definitions, but that was my take on it.

[Roog]

They actually have defined characters of course. You do realize the point I was making right?

Yes, but your players realy do have more information overall about what is going on, than what you are posting.

The information they have on their own abilities and previous encounters provides a context in which to assess the limited information provided about upcoming encounters. You may have provided more information here than you would to them about the upcoming encounter, but you have provided less than they have to give context.

[nockermensch]

I thought a 'Basket Weaver' was someone who spent character resources on Craft: Basket Weaving (or equivalent), something of essentially zero mechanical value, and claimed it was for RP effect and thus validated.

In other words someone who does the opposite of Min-Maxing. Spending limited resources on useless crap, to wit making their character less useful.

It of course would be consequent that such players are not playing the same game as those who are wanting to play somewhat competent characters. So it rather ends up in the same place as other people's definitions, but that was my take on it.

That seems to be the actual definition, yes. A basket weaver would be like the Cobbler from "The Thief and the Cobbler". The Cobbler's only skill seems to be "cobbling", but then again, he adventures and wins combats by using just that, so we know he also has a bask-weaving enabler of a DM.

[Neurosis]

When there's a door in the way and whatever you try to open it works? Winning.
When a Balor attacks you and you kill it? Winning.
When the Commoner wants to be Noble guy gets made a Lord? Winning.

Okay there Charlie Sheen. : P

[Mr. GC]

I thought a 'Basket Weaver' was someone who spent character resources on Craft: Basket Weaving (or equivalent), something of essentially zero mechanical value, and claimed it was for RP effect and thus validated.

In other words someone who does the opposite of Min-Maxing. Spending limited resources on useless crap, to wit making their character less useful.

It of course would be consequent that such players are not playing the same game as those who are wanting to play somewhat competent characters. So it rather ends up in the same place as other people's definitions, but that was my take on it.

That's what it started as but soon expanded beyond literal basket weaving and beyond just taking useless choices. If that's all they were they'd be invoking the Stormwind Fallacy but it's trying to drag others down with them that makes them a Basket Weaver.

They actually have defined characters of course. You do realize the point I was making right?

Yes, but your players realy do have more information overall about what is going on, than what you are posting.

The information they have on their own abilities and previous encounters provides a context in which to assess the limited information provided about upcoming encounters. You may have provided more information here than you would to them about the upcoming encounter, but you have provided less than they have to give context.

Previous encounters would have told them that:

Just about every major enemy buffs if they are able. Many of the minor ones do as well, but this is less significant. A major, buffed enemy is essentially impossible to deal with unless you've either killed everything else already or better yet Dispelled them. Expect major enemies to also have active and reactive defenses. Just like you... you do have those... right?
A fair number of enemies make use of Invisibility in an attempt to trick, pincer attack, or escape from the party. This tends to result in such things as "Suddenly, Wings of STFU hit everyone, save or lose" or "you are now being full attacked by a dragon, good luck".
There's a whole lot of ranged attacks being thrown about. The most common enemy by numbers is archers, and they're spamming magic arrows on anything they think is a threat (otherwise, they save those, they're expensive).
Enemy groups are almost always at least moderately synergistic, so you should work well with your team as well.
Flight is a really good spell, both for the faster movement and for the anti melee.

And this flows directly into where they predicted needing See Invis and a lot of Dispels and a good plan and some flying and were right on all of these counts (there wasn't much ranged action though from the enemy side).

[Fuchs]

Well, since GC is nothing more than some troll who cannot back up his claims at all, off to ignore he goes.

[Roog]

Expect major enemies to also have active and reactive defenses. Just like you... you do have those... right?

So the major enemies have unspecified defences, just like the PCs.

How would I know what defenses the PCs actually have, unless you tell me?

[Mr. GC]

Expect major enemies to also have active and reactive defenses. Just like you... you do have those... right?

So the major enemies have unspecified defences, just like the PCs.

How would I know what defenses the PCs actually have, unless you tell me?

I've already listed some of them.

Passive defense: Anything that is always on or effectively always on. Any permanent gear goes here, along with hour/level buff spells and at later levels 10 minutes/level spells can also be this with Extend and possibly multiple castings.

Active defense: Anything you have to actively turn on (and by extension, know a fight is coming). This means 10 minute a level spells at non high levels and anything shorter at all levels. An example of this would be Displacement.

Reactive defense: Like active, but an Immediate action. This is the most important category, as it includes the real winners like Greater Mirror Image, Abrupt Jaunt, Wings of Cover... Contingencies would also go here.

Passive defenses and most active defenses amount to simple stat stacking, so only the end result matters (in this case, that being level 8 PCs with AC in the 30s and saves all in the low to mid teens).

And that just leaves the reactive defenses that I've already mentioned.

[Roog]

I've already listed some of them.

Passive defense: Anything that (...). Any (...)

Active defense: Anything (...) An example (...)

Reactive defense:(...)as it includes (...).

Passive defenses and most active defenses amount to simple stat stacking, so only the end result matters (in this case, that being level 8 PCs with AC in the 30s and saves all in the low to mid teens.

Thanks for defining what you meant by the terms.

You still have not specified what defenses either side has.

[K]

I think people need to recognize just how epically we've been trolled. Not only is he trying to insult and mis-characterize people so that they'll reply, he's doing it while using clearly terrible examples of CharOp for an added insult to anyone who takes it as fact.

I mean, Creeping Cold or Acid Arrow in a spell-storing arrow is epically bad even compared to other pure damage options in the SRD or Spell Compendium. Blood Wind at a 60' means that the full attack is at three range increments and at a -6 to hit, gets no bonuses, and is shitty even for a dragon even after you consider that it'll only get a few because of spell slot limits. I won't even get into the fact that shadow demons are so awful that you'd ignore them the entire combat until everything else was dead because avoiding even one of it's attacks a round means that it's doing like 3 damage a round (and lets face it, a level 5 Sorcerer probably has the touch AC of 17 to do that to this CR 8 monster).

At this point, he can't reveal any more of these "lunatic difficulty" tactics because he'd cement that he was trying to troll the Den with terrible CharOP.

[nockermensch]

1,000,000 hours on MS Paint later and GC actually won at D&D! We know that's true because achievements can't lie.

[Stubbazubba]

This thread got much more entertaining when I put GC on ignore 4-5 pages back.

Yeah, the notion of Basket Weaving I'm familiar with is what erik said; someone picks mechanically inferior options for fluff reasons. If you do too much of that in a high-op party, the power disparity in the party becomes a problem. Which just proves that D&D's class- and level-system is terribly broken; if two characters of the same level can have so much of a disparity that they are literally uncomparable in terms of the breadth and depth of encounters they are equipped to handle, your levels are meaningless Skinner box rewards with no useful interaction with the rest of the system (CR, DCs, etc.)

[Lich-Loved]

Holy shit. I mean holy shit. I haven't seen the Den get trolled this hard in ... forever.

Where is the Den gang-rape squad demanding math, facts and figures as they always have? Why is Fuchs (seemingly) battling this moron alone? Replace GC's bullshit about "winning" with a 4urry's typical claims, or a "fighters are OP"-type poster and everyone would have crushed the asshat in a wall of unassailable mathematics or at least forced him to at least put up or shutup. Even Shadazar's bullshit handwaving was better than this. Its like Shadazar on redbull and meth with two hits of blotter.

I can't believe I have broken my silence here but the situation ... well, it demanded it. Either GC defines his encounter specifically or he takes a seat next to this barrel I keep hearing about while the rest of you go off and talk about something, anything else.

You people are starting to look soft.