The Gaming Den

Roy wrote: And so on. It's the same ten or so things repeated Ad Nauseum. Now I could go into great detail each and every time, or I can start using short cuts to streamline the process. Given that everyone here should already know this stuff, referencing a shortcut to jog people's memories is just the way to go.

Sure, if people are agreeing with you. But when people start to disagree, you really have to go into more detail to make a coherent argument and at that point the memes just get in the way of you communicating.

The other problem with memes is that they have varied meanings. Things like "turtle fail" may not mean the same thing to someone else that they mean to you, and that makes it almost impossible to make any kind of points.

RandomCasualty2 wrote:

Roy wrote: And so on. It's the same ten or so things repeated Ad Nauseum. Now I could go into great detail each and every time, or I can start using short cuts to streamline the process. Given that everyone here should already know this stuff, referencing a shortcut to jog people's memories is just the way to go.

Sure, if people are agreeing with you. But when people start to disagree, you really have to go into more detail to make a coherent argument and at that point the memes just get in the way of you communicating.

The other problem with memes is that they have varied meanings. Things like "turtle fail" may not mean the same thing to someone else that they mean to you, and that makes it almost impossible to make any kind of points.

Even when the repeated detail contains explanations of those things? Or if they're intuitive enough as is. Turtling is a commonly acknowledged tactic in various games, with results varying depending on the scenario. Everyone knows what Fail means, even if they don't use it as a verb. Combined with the context of some ability that sacrifices offensive accuracy and/or power for AC... Even if you've never heard of it before, you can probably figure it out in a matter of seconds.

Roy wrote: Even when the repeated detail contains explanations of those things? Or if they're intuitive enough as is. Turtling is a commonly acknowledged tactic in various games, with results varying depending on the scenario. Everyone knows what Fail means, even if they don't use it as a verb. Combined with the context of some ability that sacrifices offensive accuracy and/or power for AC... Even if you've never heard of it before, you can probably figure it out in a matter of seconds.

Sure, everyone knows the general idea.

But the problem is the details involved.

For instance, is turtle fail a special kind of turtling, or does it apply to all turtling? How defensive do you have to be before it's considered turtling? Is fighting sword&Board alone considered turtling, or just using feats like expertise?

Now, you don't have to actually answer all those, but I'm just throwing them out there as places people can get confused and not really understand what you're saying.

Yeah, everyone got the gist of it, but only a few understood the specifics and for an argument where people disagree with you, the specifics are important. They could in fact be agreeing with you, but only thinking they disagree because they have a different idea of what constitutes turtle fail, or some other meme.

And honestly, the only times I've ever encountered the "final destination" meme are in your posts, Roy. I have to sit there and scratch my head, trying to figure out the Post As Intended, 'cause the Post As Written makes no sense to me.

Yes, PAI and PAW.

It's a SSBM ruleset for people who are boring.

NO ITEMS. FOX ONLY. FINAL DESTINATION.

RandomCasualty2 wrote:For instance, is turtle fail a special kind of turtling, or does it apply to all turtling?

When you try to turtle and fail, that is turtle fail. Seems pretty clear. If you try to turtle and succeed, it's turtle success. The real question is, what is turtle GIANT FROG?

You know, Roy could always write up his own dictionary thread of fail where he defines his terms and explains them coherently. Then, via a link in his sig, if we're ever unsure what he's on about, we can just reference Roywiki. Everybody wins.

CatharzGodfoot wrote:The real question is, what is turtle GIANT FROG?

http://www.westernwildlife.com.au/frogs/turtle.htm

Awesome.

RandomCasualty2 wrote:For instance, is turtle fail a special kind of turtling, or does it apply to all turtling? How defensive do you have to be before it's considered turtling? Is fighting sword&Board alone considered turtling, or just using feats like expertise?

Now, you don't have to actually answer all those, but I'm just throwing them out there as places people can get confused and not really understand what you're saying.

Not to mention the possible confusion over specific vs generic cases. Sure, turtling and sundering in general are bad tactics, but in specific fights they can be excellent tactics. Is that still turtle fail / sundertarding or whatever the meme of the day is?

Murtak wrote:

RandomCasualty2 wrote:For instance, is turtle fail a special kind of turtling, or does it apply to all turtling? How defensive do you have to be before it's considered turtling? Is fighting sword&Board alone considered turtling, or just using feats like expertise?

Now, you don't have to actually answer all those, but I'm just throwing them out there as places people can get confused and not really understand what you're saying.

Not to mention the possible confusion over specific vs generic cases. Sure, turtling and sundering in general are bad tactics, but in specific fights they can be excellent tactics. Is that still turtle fail / sundertarding or whatever the meme of the day is?

Except that that isn't true.

In D&D all forms of turtling are turtle fail, because trading offense for defense makes the fight take longer and thus increases the chance you'll get an unlucky break and die. And that's without considering all the things that don't give a damn about your AC.

What's more, even the stuff that does attack AC rarely actually cares, as they will still hit just as reliably regardless. So it isn't just that trading offense for defense doesn't work - it's that your defense doesn't fucking matter, with or without it.

Physically holding a shield means losing a lot of offense for nothing. After all you could just get a floating shield to store your special properties on (the basic AC is irrelevant).

Using a Tower Shield means losing offense for defense, and since the other function involves letting your stuff get broken (worse than getting blasted for piddly shit by far) those can be ignored.

CE is the iconic example of turtle fail, because conceptually it is withdrawing into your shell. It fails for the above reasons and because D&D doesn't have an aggro mechanic, so even if enemies did actually miss you it is not as if they have any incentive to attack you.

What's more, all the effective means of boosting your defense do not require nerfing your offense so even if all of the above were not true and therefore turtling would otherwise be worthwhile, the fact you don't have to fucking do that to be protected still means it is turtle fail.

The Final Destination bit is for when things are grossly oversimplified. Super Smash Brothers Melee with no items, only one character, and a flat, static stage is a grossly oversimplified version of the game. Likewise, pretending tactics, buffs, and items do not exist is a grossly oversimplified version of D&D. Not hard to understand.

Similarly, Sundertard is a direct hybrid of Sunder and Retard, making it Exactly What It Says On The Tin. It is named such because there are no conditions you can use it in that do not make you mentally deficient for thinking that was a good idea.

The usefulness of items is tied to their cost. Stronger items cost more. Yet in order for anything to be worth even considering being a Sundertard on, it must be valuable enough to be powerful enough to be a critical threat... yet it cannot cost over 1,000 gold, and it cannot be so inexpensive despite its importance the enemy won't just have duplicates, which if Sundertards exist at all in the world they will. If it does not meet all of these criteria, you are literally better off dead than breaking it. Of course since the criteria took a lesson from the Judeo Christian Bible in 'Stuff that contradicts the other stuff' this is impossible. Full stop.

Then you get into the odd creatures you're supposed to go Sundertard on... but then you think about it and realize you're better off just auto attacking?

Hydra? Hm, play around with it one head at a time, or just hit it, since its fast healing will only nullify one attack a round at most and for the action cost it takes to remove one head you can attack twice.

Roper? Being a Sundertard makes it worse as losing a strand costs it no actions and gives it another chance to do that weakening thing, which is the only thing it has going for it and that it would normally only get one shot per person at.

This isn't like Bull Rush where you can find a small number of valid uses if you have Knockback and Dungeoncrasher. The entire concept exists as a trap. As such it is unworkable, and unfixable as it is conceptually flawed. 'Turtle Fail' and 'Sundertard' both illustrate those things and their invalidity in one catchy phrase.

Roy wrote:Except that that isn't true.

In D&D all forms of turtling are turtle fail, because trading offense for defense makes the fight take longer and thus increases the chance you'll get an unlucky break and die. And that's without considering all the things that don't give a damn about your AC.

And this is unqualifyingly wrong.

Is a Wizard using his immediate action to cast Greater Mirror Image instead of saving it for a swift action quickened spell next round (or Assay Resistance) fail?

No. Depends on the situation.

Is spending cash on a cloak of displacement fail? No.

Is an Incantatrix using his Metamagic effect to Persist Greater Blink or that 8th level spell that gives you all the benefits with none of the costs of being undead instead of using it to Persist a spell that gives a fighter +10 damage fail?

Of fucking course not.

Roy wrote:Similarly, Sundertard is a direct hybrid of Sunder and Retard, making it Exactly What It Says On The Tin. It is named such because there are no conditions you can use it in that do not make you mentally deficient for thinking that was a good idea.

Your entire post was full of your usual bullshit again (or, in your words, Royfail) but for now I am just going to pick out this gem.

There are monsters in D&D that use weapons. Most of them do not have improved unarmed strike. Sundering their (nonmagic, non-adamantine) weapon is not going to lose you anything at all and will reduce their offense so significantly you might as well ignore them until everything else is dead. Similarly a ranged sunder on an archer's bow is going to absolutely cripple that opponent, at the cost of one bow to you (and the bow well be a simple Greater Magic Weapon).

That is without going into how, by the rules, sundered items do not lose their worth. Without constructing cases where it's time to sunder or die. Without going for Holy symbols, spell pouches, focuses or the like. These are standard encounters where sundering is indeed a valid tactic.

And there goes the dumbfuck squad, proving the OTHER reason why it's called being a Sundertard - it takes retardation to defend it, which is why those two posts are so irredeemably stupid. Fail.

Roy wrote:And there goes the dumbfuck squad, proving the OTHER reason why it's called being a Sundertard - it takes retardation to defend it, which is why those two posts are so irredeemably stupid. Fail.

Figures. Oh well. Back on ignore you go. Have fun living in your own special world.

Murtak wrote:

Roy wrote:And there goes the dumbfuck squad, proving the OTHER reason why it's called being a Sundertard - it takes retardation to defend it, which is why those two posts are so irredeemably stupid. Fail.

Hurk durk hurk? Hurk durk, hurk durk, hurk durk.

...

I'm wondering whether all the iconic characters are supposed to be of the same power level and go around in the same group.

The Fighter has been shown to be about an equal match to a CR7.
The Sorceror uses stupid spells and is arguably about CR7-8.
The Ranger uses a crossbow and doesn't have a meatshield and so is probably CR7 or so.

(To be honest, I'm making up the actual CRs because I can't be bothered to actually compare them more accurately)

So, is it the case that it shows that the fighter should be 3/4 levels ahead of everyone else to be able to keep up?

Parthenon wrote:I'm wondering whether all the iconic characters are supposed to be of the same power level and go around in the same group.

I think that's ascribing too much thought to the process.

I can't wait to see what spells the iconic Cleric has memorised

Parthenon wrote:I'm wondering whether all the iconic characters are supposed to be of the same power level and go around in the same group.

The Fighter has been shown to be about an equal match to a CR7.
The Sorceror uses stupid spells and is arguably about CR7-8.
The Ranger uses a crossbow and doesn't have a meatshield and so is probably CR7 or so.

(To be honest, I'm making up the actual CRs because I can't be bothered to actually compare them more accurately)

So, is it the case that it shows that the fighter should be 3/4 levels ahead of everyone else to be able to keep up?

You know, that is an interesting theory. You're giving them too much credit, but it would explain why the higher level ones fail more.

Which means instead of being actively counterproductive, they've graduated to moving backwards. Specifically, 1st and 2nd edition style stuff where weaker classes level faster (and are thus higher level at any given time). Which means they're now only failing as bad as 4.0. Give them another 10 years and they will have a half decent product.

Edit: Probably lots of cure spells. And a Wisdom of 16.

Which means they're now only failing as bad as 4.0.

What's wrong with 4th again?

Iron Mongler wrote:

Which means they're now only failing as bad as 4.0.

What's wrong with 4th again?

Most of the issues are due to backwards movement. Many of the things in it, concept wise are stuff that was in 1st and 2nd. Then there's quite a bit that's backwards movement without being any specific edition simply by creating problems that didn't exist before.

Roy wrote:

Iron Mongler wrote:

Which means they're now only failing as bad as 4.0.

What's wrong with 4th again?

Most of the issues are due to backwards movement. Many of the things in it, concept wise are stuff that was in 1st and 2nd. Then there's quite a bit that's backwards movement without being any specific edition simply by creating problems that didn't exist before.

I've been kinda hopping back and forth between 4/3.5, but I'm hoping that Eberron and Psionics will be well-written.

Back on topic, we have Paizo's wonderful design theories:

3. Do you encourage your players to create well-thought-out backgrounds complete with hooks that you can insert into your campaign?

Lisa Stevens: I do, but don't reward. I basically tell my players that if they come up with interesting backgrounds, then they'll get more out of my campaign; it will be more personal for them, as I'll take their hooks and use them in the plot. If you don't create a background, then you'll still have fun, but maybe the story won't be as personal for you. Either is fine; I let the players decide what they want out of the campaign.

F. Wesley Schneider: Yes. They don't have to write up elaborate histories, but I usually ask them to at least provide me with their characters' shticks.

James Jacobs: Yes, absolutely. Absolutely.

Erik Mona: Doesn't matter. If a player is really into that, then I'll take the hooks and weave them back into the campaign, but if a player doesn't care then neither do I.

Jason Bulmahn: I'll ask but won't mandate it. I leave it to player discretion. I'll definitely reward the effort, in that the story will be tied to their history and generally benefit them in some way and be more personal.

Sean K Reynolds: Encourage.

Joshua J. Frost: Yes, I encourage.

James Sutter: Once their concepts are made I like to work with them to get them all together, but there are some players who just like to show up and go, and that's fine. I think well thought out is more fun, but of course sometimes my problem is that I'll create a really long and detailed history and then die after one session. (laughs)

Chris Self: Absolutely.

I've always thought this was one of the best parts of running a campaign!

Hank Woon
Editorial Intern

Remember - if you don't care about hooks, the DM shouldn't either!

Don't count on it. Both of those require creativity to work well. 4.0 is the antithesis thereof. After all, you can bot playing it. You can even bot running it.

Roy wrote:which is why those two posts are so irredeemably stupid. Fail.

Really Roy? Didn't we just fucking talk about this? Do you ever learn?

You said every single instance of trading offensive power for defensive power is turtle fail. I pointed out multiple occurrences where sacrificing offense for defense is very justified.

Your response: "Only a retard would ever defend trading offense for defense."

Go sit in time out.