Threads that make us Laugh, Cry, or Both

[MrWaeseL]

Fbmf, this thread could be merged into it as well.

[SunTzuWarmaster]

Just like to chime in that a 2nd level Blinding Color Surge* or a 2nd level Invisibility* cast defensively (or quickened to avoid the whole issue) can be used to avoid AoO's all together. Cast Spell, walk away. For bonus points, quicken it, cast a Ghost Sound of you walking in the other direction, or buff the party.

(Of course the Beguiler gets both of these).

[fbmf]

1176370987[/unixtime]]Fbmf, this thread could be merged into it as well.

Done.
[/TGFBS]

[Cielingcat]

1174412064[/unixtime]]You talkin' 'bout YabaTheWhat?

I have to read through that now, just to see the poo-flinging nature of it all.

EDIT: Wow. I'm skimming over it and just got to the kobold. Kobolds are better (worth more FP) than humans? Whuh? Something's obviously out of wack.

I just read this, having skimmed over it before, but the problem is quite simple-Yaba goes in assuming that his feature point system works, and then skews the data and mechanics until they fit, rather than assuming that the data and mechanics work, and skewing his feature point system to fit. He even admits to doing that right in the thread where he explains how he worked out the costs of spells and SLAs.

[josephbt]

@NineInchNall

Are you a mastermind of torture? I am, of course, speaking about the links that you posted.
The brokeness of Spring attack and Weapon mastery threads are simply funny, but the last one, the last link...

Pain. Pure, destilled pain. The sheer amount of dumbass and crap in that thread would make Ghandi frenzied and Mother Theresa enraged. Such a thread should be burried and never again mentioned.

[NineInchNall]

Ah, you must not read many of the "Fighters don't suck ... Really!" threads. I'll go link a few of those for your reading displeasure.

[Modesitt]

If the monsters want to attack the wizard, they will attack the wizard regardless of the stupid tricks the tank is trying.

That's entirely untrue. There are all sorts of abilities that would allow you to have a 'tank'.

• 
  
• He can just choose to have attacks and spells aimed at other PCs actually go off on him.
  
• You give him a mind-affecting ability that forces one or more enemies to spend their next turn performing an aggressive action against the tank or doesn't allow you to take an aggressive action against one or more PCs.
  
• You give the tank some ability that makes NOT attacking him an utterly ruinous idea. Example: Once he successfully deals damage, he gains a cumulative +4 attack on all attacks and +4d6 damage to all attacks for each round he rolls an atatck and is not hit. The counter resets every time he's hit.
  
• The tank gets all sorts of abilities that only function when you attack other PCs. Examples: The RoW fighter's ability disruption, parry melee and ranged attacks against adjacent/nearby PCs, or grants resistances/immunities/bonuses to other PCs.
  
• The tank inflicts all sorts of nasty debuffs on you actions unless you attack him. Examples: For every round that he is not hit, he may automatically inflict a cumulative -1 penalty/2 levels on ALL of your actions, he has a selectable list of debuffs that he may only use when he hasn't been attacked within the past round.
  

[Neeek]

1176449493[/unixtime]]

If the monsters want to attack the wizard, they will attack the wizard regardless of the stupid tricks the tank is trying.

That's entirely untrue. There are all sorts of abilities that would allow you to have a 'tank'.

I think the point was none of the things you listed are actually buildable characters.

[Leress]

Here is one, guess who runs this forum...

http://www.wakinglands.com/forums/index ... owtopic=99

[User3]

Sorry if that's just dumbness from mine, but what "tanking" ability the priest has, beyond whatever cleric spells can give him?

[User3]

1176458094[/unixtime]]Sorry if that's just dumbness from mine, but what "tanking" ability the priest has, beyond whatever cleric spells can give him?

You need more than that? Seriously?

Kolja mentions the BAB as a reason they can't tank... it is to laugh... i mean, they get Divine Power on their spell list. They have turn undead. DMM:Persistent is a shoo-in, especially with *charisma* as the spellcasting stat!

Otherwise known as Way to make a divine caster with no MAD whatsoever! (Grab polymorph from a domain, Trickery is it?, to not care about your physical stats. Max Charisma like there was no tomorrow and pwn some n00bs).

Priest is like telling clerics they're short in the pants. Seriously.

[MrWaeseL]

I assume that by 'tanking' you mean. "having a high bab and hit points", not the traditional 'trick the rudimentary AI of a computer game into attacking just you'

[User3]

No, I don't think priests need more tanking ability; I was just referring to this:

# He can just choose to have attacks and spells aimed at other PCs actually go off on him.
# You give him a mind-affecting ability that forces one or more enemies to spend their next turn performing an aggressive action against the tank or doesn't allow you to take an aggressive action against one or more PCs.
# You give the tank some ability that makes NOT attacking him an utterly ruinous idea. Example: Once he successfully deals damage, he gains a cumulative +4 attack on all attacks and +4d6 damage to all attacks for each round he rolls an atatck and is not hit. The counter resets every time he's hit.
# The tank gets all sorts of abilities that only function when you attack other PCs. Examples: The RoW fighter's ability disruption, parry melee and ranged attacks against adjacent/nearby PCs, or grants resistances/immunities/bonuses to other PCs.
# The tank inflicts all sorts of nasty debuffs on you actions unless you attack him. Examples: For every round that he is not hit, he may automatically inflict a cumulative -1 penalty/2 levels on ALL of your actions, he has a selectable list of debuffs that he may only use when he hasn't been attacked within the past round.

... and asking which one of those the priest had specifically from class abilities (according to Leress), because his spell list is the same as the cleric's (so, nothing new in this department).

[User3]

1176467451[/unixtime]]No, I don't think priests need more tanking ability; I was just referring to this:

# He can just choose to have attacks and spells aimed at other PCs actually go off on him.
# You give him a mind-affecting ability that forces one or more enemies to spend their next turn performing an aggressive action against the tank or doesn't allow you to take an aggressive action against one or more PCs.
# You give the tank some ability that makes NOT attacking him an utterly ruinous idea. Example: Once he successfully deals damage, he gains a cumulative +4 attack on all attacks and +4d6 damage to all attacks for each round he rolls an atatck and is not hit. The counter resets every time he's hit.
# The tank gets all sorts of abilities that only function when you attack other PCs. Examples: The RoW fighter's ability disruption, parry melee and ranged attacks against adjacent/nearby PCs, or grants resistances/immunities/bonuses to other PCs.
# The tank inflicts all sorts of nasty debuffs on you actions unless you attack him. Examples: For every round that he is not hit, he may automatically inflict a cumulative -1 penalty/2 levels on ALL of your actions, he has a selectable list of debuffs that he may only use when he hasn't been attacked within the past round.

... and asking which one of those the priest had specifically from class abilities (according to Leress), because his spell list is the same as the cleric's (so, nothing new in this department).

Ah. Well, he's a divine spellcaster with spontaneous access to *every fucking divine spell ever printed*. I think that certainly means he could do 1 if he cared, arguably 2, and definitely has 4 as an option. He's a fucking full caster - you attack him because if you don't you die. It really is that simple.

Unlike fighters, whom you just ignore until the real threats are gone.

[User3]

Whoops, that's me making an ob1 error above. Should reference points 2, 3, and 5. Missed 1 because it was so short.

[User3]

Just to settle it: I deliberately ignored the spell list due to Neeek's comment about "none being buildable". And about your approaches: 2 is completely and absolutely doable by a cleric (and so, by a priest); but 3 and 5 aren't quite fulfilled to the letter because them failing when the character is attacked is actually part of the design - 3 simply rewards you for doing what most people do (instead of typical "buff" routines, and by "most people" I mean "most classes", counting even the bad ones), while 5 only has a point if keeping the heat on its possessor is actually warranted; the prime example is the difference between the cleric and the knight: if a cleric insists on buffing, it will work (and the cleric is being LESS of a threat until finishing), while the knight gains completely effortless power by not being a target - so that's the most obvious target.

But, to be honest, I'm not sure if there wasn't already a spell that does EXACTLY what I talk about, since they do everything.

[User3]

Just to clarify, talking about clerics/priests buffing themselves was about getting every last ounce of power, since of course clerics are expected to walk around with quite a bunch of effects up; but it still doesn't negate the fact that a knight gains power at no action cost when people play dumb, with no timeframe limit.

[SunTzuWarmaster]

How do you guys like this one?

http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.p ... ?!11ELEVEN! Sudden Maximize is broken! A Wizard Can boost his caster level using the following race/3 feats, and then MAXIMIZE a spell! Once per day! You can Empower+Maximize Time Stop like this! OH NOES!

"It makes short work of a boss too easily if your PC shoots him with a split ray'ed scorching ray combined with sudden maximize. A reasonable house rule would be that you cannot combine the feat with a rod of metamagic."

I mean, if I had invested all of my feats into a single-target rape ability ONCE per day, I would call it the boss killer. It would then be the job of the boss to make sure that I didn't have it when I met him.

[NineInchNall]

Here's a Fighter thread for the uninitiated: Any reason to have a Fighter?

[MrWaeseL]

Oh boy a 31 page thread about fighters.

[Weir]

"The problem is that all the 'uber-caster' builds are only that uber because they abuse spells"

"I actually wanted to play a farmer who turned fighter (two weapon fighting/quarterstaff). Drop skills ranks in some professions/crafting skills."

"Ignore the nay-sayers and have fun. It's your character not theirs."

(That one gave me some degree of relief, the knowledge that their terrible characters will never touch my unborn children)

"Characters with high hp, AC and BAB are going to naturally make the best tanks."

"How would a party of 4 Druids deal with traps? Continuously cast Summon Nature's Ally 1 to summon badgers to trip traps?"

"Every party needs at least 2 fighters. Clerics and Druids are the classes a party doesn't need."

"I never understood what was so great about wildshape that it would own a fighter. You basically lose all your equipment for the fight, until level 15 are limited to turning into something like a CR 4 animal, and you get to keep your original constitution and hp. Sure you can cast spells and bring havoc down from the sky or improve yourself, but those are turns which your aren't fighting, which by it's very nature would change your role in combat."

I'm going to spend roughly the next month pulling the shards of teeth out of the backs of my lips and the next several years fixing my concussions.

Oh, I'm new here, nice meeting you all

[Cielingcat]

You either misunderstood me or I wasn't clear on things. The boon to roleplaying in 2E wasn't the existence of bad rules as much as either the lack of any rules whatsoever, or rules so badly designed they were ignored by everyone(not just me). Having less going on in the game streamlined things. Combat and problem solving took less time, leaving more time for roleplaying. There was nearly a complete lack of any rules regarding roleplaying whatsoever. The few small ones like Charisma having an impact on NPC reactions were ignored by every DM I was ever involved with. Even RPGA campaigns ignored the few crappy social rules. This left you free to roleplay for yourselves, unbound to any "system" and largely worked out for the best.

[Leress]

1176489210[/unixtime]]

You either misunderstood me or I wasn't clear on things. The boon to roleplaying in 2E wasn't the existence of bad rules as much as either the lack of any rules whatsoever, or rules so badly designed they were ignored by everyone(not just me). Having less going on in the game streamlined things. Combat and problem solving took less time, leaving more time for roleplaying. There was nearly a complete lack of any rules regarding roleplaying whatsoever. The few small ones like Charisma having an impact on NPC reactions were ignored by every DM I was ever involved with. Even RPGA campaigns ignored the few crappy social rules. This left you free to roleplay for yourselves, unbound to any "system" and largely worked out for the best.

Someone doesn't know that Roleplaying and game mechanics are mutually exclusive from each other.

Please give a link to this incessant prattle.

Here is thread about Kolja's fighter...
http://www.wakinglands.com/forums/index ... br][br][br]

[Cielingcat]

I already linked to that thread; the quoted text is merely the most recent idiocy there.

[MrWaeseL]

"How would a party of 4 Druids deal with traps? Continuously cast Summon Nature's Ally 1 to summon badgers to trip traps?"

Um...yes? And how is this an argument for having a fighter in your party?