Annoying Game Questions You Want Answered

[Kaelik]

Centaurs are ugly and too big.

(Some of) y'all are always going on about how wonderful it is to have protected roles and stuff. What's wrong with "has thumbs" ?

Wait what? Does anyone here at all talk about how wonderful it is to have protected roles?

[Lago PARANOIA]

(Some of) y'all are always going on about how wonderful it is to have protected roles and stuff. What's wrong with "has thumbs"

Assuming that this wasn't just snark (I can't tell with the emoticon) it creates problems in the same way that 'is a non-transforming mermaid for a landbound adventure' creates problems. The DM and the parties have to structure their adventures and quests to accommodate the newcomer in plenty of ways both big and small and this imposition probably won't be justified by the narrative workload or foreseen by the rules.

Now, centaurs in a human-tailored D&D aren't as huge of an issue as mermaids et al. are in a human-tailored D&D. Centaurs can still open doors and wield swords and talk to people and have a readily available food supply and carry shit. Their only real issues are their size and their locomotion in rule-sets that are granular enough. And honestly the size isn't a big deal past Steve the Crap-Covered Farmer -- people posit all sorts of bigass, ambulatory shit existing in D&D adventuring locales. If we were playing Torchbearer, a centaur would be campaign-redefining. In D&D: it's an 'ehn, no more of a deal than our sickly STR 7 elf wizard with no Haversack'.

[fectin]

Centaurs are ugly and too big.

(Some of) y'all are always going on about how wonderful it is to have protected roles and stuff. What's wrong with "has thumbs" :tongue: ?

Wait what? Does anyone here at all talk about how wonderful it is to have protected roles?

Sort of. One of the traditional gripes is that CoDzilla shits on the rest of the party by being better than them at their specialties. That's not exactly praise of role protection, but it does imply a respect for role differentiation.

It's at least close enough for a throw-away line.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

Hay guys, I'm going to make a centaur monk that wields gauntlets for my next character.

[Kaelik]

Centaurs are ugly and too big.

(Some of) y'all are always going on about how wonderful it is to have protected roles and stuff. What's wrong with "has thumbs" ?

Wait what? Does anyone here at all talk about how wonderful it is to have protected roles?

Sort of. One of the traditional gripes is that CoDzilla shits on the rest of the party by being better than them at their specialties. That's not exactly praise of role protection, but it does imply a respect for role differentiation.

It's at least close enough for a throw-away line.

No it isn't. It implies a respect for A being less than A+3+B for positive values of B.

The problem with the Fighter has never been that other people contribute as well to combat, and that isn't the problem with Codzilla either the problem is clearly that being less than other people, while simultaneously having less than other people, is obviously bad.

[fectin]

Is your first line correct? As written, it says that your only implication is causality.

[Kaelik]

Is your first line correct? As written, it says that your only implication is causality.

You said that complaints about Clerics being better fighters than fighters while also having utility is a implicit role claim. That is absurd. That is merely the statement that when X is greater than Y, X is greater than Y. Even if you hate roles 1000000% you will still find an obvious balance problem between Clerics and Fighters.

[Username17]

CoDzilla is a near universally agreed upon problem while Enchanter Wizards owning the game in the face is not. That doesn't mean that Enchanter Wizards are or are not problematic, it means that they are not universally agreed upon to be a problem.

This is because CoDzilla can do the things a Fighter would want to do in the manner the Fighter would want to do it. And do it better. And be able to do other stuff. The Enchanter Wizard is also much much better than the Fighter, but he does his stuff in a slightly different way.

Which brings us to Kaelik's identity. The Fighter does "A." The Enchanter Wizard does "C." And while C is much better than A, it's different and people have a hard time realizing that. Or at least, have an easy time pretending it isn't true. But CoDzilla simply does A and B. Any jackass can see that it's better to do A and B than only A.

-Username17

[fectin]

@Kaelik: "A>A+B+3 for B>0" is always and trivially true. There is no situation where that is not true. Having (or lacking) respect for that situation has no other implications.

@Frank. Right. Which dovetails with my original point. Here:

• If one character does B, another character shouldn't do A+B, and denizens have said as much.
  B is a role. (tautologically: roles are things describe what characters do, B describes what a character does, therefore B is a role)
  As you said, any jackass can see that it's better to be CoDzilla than fighter because CoDzilla does all the same things fighter does plus B.
  Therefore, to avoid the gripes about CoDzilla, it is necessary (even if not sufficient) to make those roles disjunct (i.e. different).
  "Gripes" indicate disrespect for the situation. Removing disrespect is increasing respect.
  Therefor, differentiating roles (all else constant), implies increased respect.

Quod erat demonstrandum, well enough for the original snark anyway.

[ishy]

No.
If one character solely does B another character shouldn't do B+ and A.
Or character one shouldn't solely do B and/or should not suck at B.

[Kaelik]

For fucks sake, I was trying to be nice. You fucking idiot.

@Kaelik: "A>A+B+3 for B>0" is always and trivially true. There is no situation where that is not true. Having (or lacking) respect for that situation has no other implications.

Yes. And the point is that it is always and trivially true that someone who is better at fighting than the fighter, and can do other things, is a better character. The problem is that Cleric being A+B (and the +3 represents the Cleric actually being better at fighting) means that it is always and trivially true that he is a better character. So the implication is that recognizing a balance problem has absolutely nothing to do with roles.

@Frank. Right. Which dovetails with my original point. Here:

• If one character does B, another character shouldn't do A+B, and denizens have said as much.

No they fucking haven't. That is the goddam point you colossal fucking idiot. People complaining that the Cleric fights better than the fighter and can do other stuff while the fighter can't is a problem, does not mean those people think there can't be any fucking overlap.

Here watch:

Rogue does SNEAKSTUFF and ULTRABACKSTAB.
Beguiler does SNEAKSTUFF and ENCHANTER and ILLUSION

Now, do you see all denners complaining that there is no purpose for the Rogue or the Beguiler? Because both of them do A, but other people also do A.

Or here:

Necromancer does PETS +5 and DEBUFFS +2
Wizard does PETS +2 and DEBUFFS +5

Does it follow that people who object to Cleric always and without fail trivially > Fighter object to the above. Look at that shit.

Then stop being a fucking idiot.

[fectin]

So your complaint was that I didn't say "If one character does B, and only B"?

[Kaelik]

So your complaint was that I didn't say "If one character does B, and only B"?

Okay fine you fucking fucktarded idiot.

Tome Fighter does STABBING a +9999999999999999

Everyone else in the game does STABBING at a value between 0 and +10.

DO YOU SEE? DO YOU SEE IT?

People who have a problem with the 3.5 Cleric and Fighter dynamic is literally all people. ALL PEOPLE. The set includes all entities. If someone understands what the Cleric can do, then by definition, they must see the balance problem.

People could be totally fucking fine with someone having a goddam role, that is not fucking protected.

Look at the fucking NECRO vs WIZARD example. THEY BOTH DO THE SAME TWO THINGS!

How are you this fucking dumb? Are you trolling? Like, are you genuinely too fucking stupid to understand the difference between being opposed to X being greater than Y, but being told they are equal, and role protection?

Is that like, genuinely a confusing concept? I feel like a fucking child of 5 could have grasped this an hour ago.

[tussock]

@fectin,

Niche protection is where your PC can do something that other PCs effectively cannot do.

That's not popular here.


What's more popular is that each character should have something they are best at. So if you have a Fighting class it needs to be best at fighting. But that's bad, because

[*] Fighting is too important to let anyone be strictly best at it, and
[*] there's a lot of Fighting classes. If they're all "best", they still need something else.


So because everyone needs to be good at fighting, and all the "fighting classes" also need other things they are good at to differentiate them, niche protection is just bad for all of that. It's where everyone else has to suck at fights and fighters have to suck at everything else, and that's bad for both fighters and every other class at the same time.


But you can have niche protection. As long as it's for something almost no one cares about. Games should support you being a special snowflake in ways that normally don't matter.

[Foxwarrior]

Like... needing a fellow party member to turn doorknobs for you.

[ACOS]

@ niche protection -vs- no:
Frank really hit it on the head with talking about "the manner in which they do it" - this is very significant.
Yes, the general consensus here is that every character should be able to demonstrate certain Core Competencies; so shit like "I hit stuff with my sword; end of list" is just unacceptable. And I certainly agree. But that doesn't mean that "everybody needs to be able to do everything". I'll go a step further and say that nobody should be proficient at everything - and I should hope that is a rather noncontroversial statement. Furthermore, the idea that everyone should have their own way to go about things is also important.

Having expected Core Competencies does certainly mean that there will be overlap; but certainly not to the degree that everyone is tripping over each other. Overlap means that everyone is able to give everyone else mutual support and not be an actual drag on the rest of the party. But you don't need 2+ wizards, or 2+ clerics, or whatever. Niche protection can certainly exist (and very reasonably so) if the niches that are being protected are defined by how they do their thing. And given that this is supposed to be a "team sport", then there is certainly room for edge-case types of abilities to be class protected (perhaps this is simply their manner of expression). Because, again, the thing that needs to be protected is manner in which they interact with the game world.

[zugschef]

There is K's thread which addresses the different core competencies every adventurer should be proficient in.

[radthemad4]

I might be joining a 3.5 game that allows Pathfinder stuff as a Gnome Beguiler 5. The GM said he might not allow mindsight, but I think I'll dip mindbender anyway for Telepathy. PF content is allowed, so I'm considering taking Veiled Illusionist till I can qualify for shadowcraft mage.

Veiled Illusionist gives me a sorc/wis illusion known every level. Beguiler 7 gives me any one enchantment or illusion spell. Is there any super awesome enchantment spell I might be missing out on by taking Veiled Illusionist levels instead of Beguiler 6+?

Also, are there any awesome PF domains for a Beguiler using Arcane Disciple?

[Prak]

What would peoples' preferred way to do psionics in d20 be? Like, imagine you have an entirely new slate, and all you know is that it's a sci fi game. Would you go a more traditional spellcaster route, something like the D&D psion, or something else entirely, like the Spherelock or Fire Mage?

[Lago PARANOIA]

Which d20 are we talking about? If we're talking about 3E D&D/Pathfinder, I'd prefer to do the Psion exactly like the Sorcerer or even the Wizard. Hell, I still don't see a reason why the Psion shouldn't just muscle out the Sorcerer entirely -- except for space-saving. The Psion has better genre support, thematic differentiation, and aesthetics than the Sorcerer.

Of course, we already know the answer to that question. The biggest obstacle to the Psion being promoted to part of the core class team are dumbass psionics fanboys. Not only do they not seem to mind that D&D treats them as a weird tag-along fanbase that they desperately want to get rid of (because dumbass psionics fanboys insist on weird mechanics combined with unnecessary duplication) but they actually prefer it that way. 3E D&D banished them to the SRD, 4E D&D banished them to a short blurb in the PHB and the third PHB, and Pathfinder opted to write them out of the game while giving fucking laser guns official Golarion setting support. Psionics fans' response to this was to go 'yay' and continue diddling their micropenises to goblins suspended in psychic laser armor.

[mean_liar]

The idea of the Psion replacing the Sorcerer entirely is awesome.

[Prak]

Yeah, in the context of D&D/PF. So, mechanics wise, would you want vancian psions, spell point psions, sphere psions, or class feature (Fire Mage) psions? It sounds like you'd want to basically reskin the sorcerer as a psion, and maybe give them different spell access, but I'm not sure.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I'd remake Psions the same way they made Dread Necromancers and Beguilers. That is, I'd plunder a bunch of effects, powers, and spells from the master spellcaster/manifester list, pare down the most thematic ones, and then season with class features.

So we have three psionic classes. Psychic Warriors would snatch things mostly from the Psychometabolism and Psychoportation lists while getting some general-purpose Psion spells like Energy Ray, Psions would snatch mostly from the Psychokineticist and Metacreativity lists, and Wilders would get the Clairvoyance and Telepathy crap. Then you could slap some extra crap atop of it like giving Psychic Warriors Mind Blades and Psions iterative-attack blasting and whatever the fuck.

[radthemad4]

I've been trying to figure out the difference between psychic powers and magic in general media. Both let you do improbable things, though psychic powers seem a bit more restrained in 'complexity'. For instance I don't know of any psychic powers that can instantly make a magnificent mansion (well I suppose telekineses + slow down time could work, but it would still be a huge feat and a lot of effort on the psychic's part unless they're also super smart and focused or something). I don't think the general public would call a sorcerer a psychic as they can still create unseen servants which are invisible beings that can follow commands.

I'd probably go the class feature route or power points with a smaller list. Either that, or versatile spellcaster is an automatic feature for them if they're vancian (still with a more focused list).

[Prak]

Unseen Servant is just a durationed telekinesis with AI. If you're cool with Astral Construct, then a psion making a non-visible weak ectoplasmic form with a programmed intelligence that isn't much use for fighting, but good for minor tasks, should be fine.

edit: actually, psions should totally get pets. Take a psicrystal, add some telekinesis it can control, and give it a body to puppet. Basically you roll Dominate Monster, Animate Dead, and Astral Construct all together into a single power, and say something about how it's taxing to create more than a single artificial intelligence, but your psicrystal is a free one. Basically you're giving your psicrystal power armour.