Threads that make us Laugh, Cry, or Both

[Leress]

1183326129[/unixtime]]On Paladins: Guest, you are the guy who suggested Terry Pratchett, neh? Cool thread but they need to read the rules a bit.

Leress: How come you didn't post?

Btw, I loved this signature

MY Lifelong goal is to break a monk without using vow of poverty.

I would generally post on a thread but this one is discussion fluff. It is an alignment thread and most people throw there own personal beliefs into what constitutes an alignment.

If I were to pull out a dictionary and use proper definitions, then some thesaurus bullshit to make their position right.

[MrWaeseL]

1183323708[/unixtime]]Non Lawful Monks: an alignment thread

http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.p ... 304&page=2

Gotta love the guy saying monks have to be lawful because a monk/barbarian would be broken.

[Username17]

Wow that's awesome.

Ah, the power of wishful thinking.

Emulate Class Feature lets you get through a pass/fail test like "can only be used by someone with Turn Undead" or "can only be used by paladins" or the like. It doesn't actually give you the class feature, nor does it give you a class feature at any specific level

Emulate a Class Feature: Sometimes you need to use a class feature to activate a magic item. In this case, your effective level in the emulated class equals your Use Magic Device check result minus 20.

Right. Just checking, does anyone read the Player's Handbook anymore? How many rules arguments could we just not have if people were willing to just read the book?

The combination of your "effective level in Cleric" being equal to some number that is over nine thousand with this rule:

Unlike with other sorts of magic items, the wielder can use his caster level when activating the power of a staff if it's higher than the caster level of the staff.

Then yes. Shirak, you are 100% right, and Kurotowa is 100% jackass.

-Username17

[bitnine]

1183328913[/unixtime]]How many rules arguments could we just not have if people were willing to just read the book?

Maybe it's just cynicism, but I'm thinking around 0. In my mind I just see someone reading the text and then saying, "I interpret that to mean [insert crazy made-up and clearly incorrect item here]."

[Username17]

1183339837[/unixtime]]

1183328913[/unixtime]]How many rules arguments could we just not have if people were willing to just read the book?

Maybe it's just cynicism, but I'm thinking around 0. In my mind I just see someone reading the text and then saying, "I interpret that to mean [insert crazy made-up and clearly incorrect item here]."

You're probably right. The very next post is someone proudly announcing that since the errata removed the statement that artificers could "apply item creation feats" to infusions as if they were spells (a statement which does not contain meaning, as item creation feats are not applied to spells under any circumstances), that therefore you cannot make magic items that cast infusions.

This despite the fact that the very same paragraph still states that if an Artificer has a magic item that casts an Infusion and he knows that Infusion that he still has to make a UMD check to cast that Infusion out of a magic item.

---

So yeah. I guess that even when people read the rules, and they read the errata right side by side they still just get to the end and make shit up. It's really kind of disheartening.

-Username17

[Bigode]

Guys, I've read the artificer discussion from the linked post to the end, but I'm still not seeing anything that overrides this:

Emulate a Class Feature
Sometimes you need to use a class feature to activate a magic item. In this case, your effective level in the emulated class equals your Use Magic Device check result minus 20.

Spell Trigger
(This is the case even for a character who can’t actually cast spells, such as a 3rd-level paladin.)

(emphasis mine)

Therefore, as retarded as that may be (whether from the rules or from me), it seems like this: spells class feature unneeded to be had by the actual character -> only need is the spell on the class list -> "In this case" clause (1st quote) unfulfilled (as "you" means "actual character", with no appreciable bearing on levels still to be gained, as is the case with the paladin) -> use of "emulate class feature" function impossible -> suck it and use idioticly-named "use wand" function to use a staff (how retarded ...) with its own CL instead of UMD - 20 (a very high number for sure).

Most funny is that this argument would've already crumbled if not for the retardedness of this "spellcaster" which isn't so at 1st level (well, I know the idea itself is workable, but we all know the paladin implementation of it is worthless). But still, any explanation to the contrary would be thanked (that UMD + staff issue is something I wondered about of late - I'd probably end up posting the question on another thread).

[Crissa]

A spell being on your list doesn't require that you know it. Just that someone could know it... Eventually. Maybe. It's on the list, right?

And a spell casting class (like Paladin) that haven't gotten spells yet still has a rule for their spell caster level. It's either that rule or perhaps zero plus something, depending upon the class. For a Paladin, it's half his Paladin level, so a level 3 without spells still have at least a caster level of 1. (see class description)

-Crissa

[Bigode]

Spells
Through 3rd level, a paladin has no caster level.

As said, I do find the paladin design retarded, but that's exactly what keeps some doubt at all about this - "to have a spell in the spell list" really doesn't mean "to have a caster level", as idiotic as it is.

[User3]

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=49378 is an awesome mix of third-hand Wizards apologetics and idiocy.

[shirak]

1183414453[/unixtime]]Guys, I've read the artificer discussion from the linked post to the end, but I'm still not seeing anything that overrides this:

Emulate a Class Feature
Sometimes you need to use a class feature to activate a magic item. In this case, your effective level in the emulated class equals your Use Magic Device check result minus 20.

Spell Trigger
(This is the case even for a character who can’t actually cast spells, such as a 3rd-level paladin.)

(emphasis mine)

Therefore, as retarded as that may be (whether from the rules or from me), it seems like this: spells class feature unneeded to be had by the actual character -> only need is the spell on the class list -> "In this case" clause (1st quote) unfulfilled (as "you" means "actual character", with no appreciable bearing on levels still to be gained, as is the case with the paladin) -> use of "emulate class feature" function impossible -> suck it and use idioticly-named "use wand" function to use a staff (how retarded ...) with its own CL instead of UMD - 20 (a very high number for sure).

Most funny is that this argument would've already crumbled if not for the retardedness of this "spellcaster" which isn't so at 1st level (well, I know the idea itself is workable, but we all know the paladin implementation of it is worthless). But still, any explanation to the contrary would be thanked (that UMD + staff issue is something I wondered about of late - I'd probably end up posting the question on another thread).

Technically, Paladins get a Caster Level when they get the Spells Class Feature but that CL is propagated backwards through time all the way back to 1st (3rd?) level in Paladin. If this sounds incredibly arcane and/or stupid to you it's because it is. I have no idea who is the genius who wrote the Paladin but he deserves a Darwin Award for his hard work.

[Iaimeki]

Despite WotC's claims about playtesting, the evidence of the rules shows that 3rd edition's playtesting was wholly inadequate in several respects. Do we have reason to think that 4th edition will be any better? (I strongly suspect, given the economics of the situation, that it will be worse.)

[shirak]

1183448596[/unixtime]]Despite WotC's claims about playtesting, the evidence of the rules shows that 3rd edition's playtesting was wholly inadequate in several respects. Do we have reason to think that 4th edition will be any better? (I strongly suspect, given the economics of the situation, that it will be worse.)

What I don't understand is why they don't take a bunch of people from forums, people who actually live and breathe rules exploitations, and have them playtest. I know I'd accept in a heartbeat and I think most if not all of us here would too. Even the WotC CharOp regulars would do a better job then those idiots whose names are in the PHB.

[MrWaeseL]

1183434757[/unixtime]]http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=49378 is an awesome mix of third-hand Wizards apologetics and idiocy.

Oh god I can't breathe

[SunTzuWarmaster]

I think that a core class that:
-can only do one thing... mediocrely
-has no unique features
-has nothing noteworthy about it
-is good for 2 levels

is a good thing? Especially because it is just like real lifez!!!one11!
http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=824217

[shirak]

1183463286[/unixtime]]I think that a core class that:
-can only do one thing... mediocrely
-has no unique features
-has nothing noteworthy about it
-is good for 2 levels

is a good thing? Especially because it is just like real lifez!!!one11!
http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=824217

He says this almost as if it is a good thing. In fact, he says it as a good thing.

Why do people keep confusing "realistic", "consistent" and "useless"? Why don't they see that the Fighter class is bad for the game? Why is the sky such a wonderful shade of blue?

[MrWaeseL]

Because light scattering is a function of the wavelength of the light to the 4th power. Since blue has the highest wavelength of all visible light it is the main component of (visible) scattered light.

[PhoneLobster]

Damn you MrWeasel for getting to that juicey nugget before me.

[shirak]

Being in the middle of Major in Physics, this was a rhetoric question. In other words:

Ha bloody ha

[tzor]

1183463286[/unixtime]]I think that a core class that:
-can only do one thing... mediocrely
-has no unique features
-has nothing noteworthy about it
-is good for 2 levels

is a good thing? Especially because it is just like real lifez!!!one11!
http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=824217

That one definitely called for a rebuttal, even though it is old as dirt. And not really from a min/max perspective but from an old fart 1E player perspective. Since this is on Regdar’s Suppository I'll post my reply here.

You state you find the fighter “perfect,” yet at the same time you also state that “The fighter does what the class suggest. Fight. Even the biggest anti-fighter should agree with me that this is what the fighter does. I’m not saying he’s good at it, I’m not saying he’s bad at it. I am saying that the Fighter can’t do much else but fight.” That is the problem in a nutshell. If you have a class called the fighter and that class is supposed to be focused on fighting then they better be good at it.

The problem with the fighter class is at the core everyone is an amateur fighter. Even the wizard can, on occasion, poke someone with a dagger. While the fighter gets a few fighting related things slightly better than non fighters the key problem is that it is only slightly. His slight advantage in fighting is opposed by the fact that he has no partial abilities of the other classes that have partial abilities as a fighter. The wizard has some fighting skill but the fighter has no wizardly skill whatsoever.

If you come with me into the way back machine you will notice that pure fighters had more than slightly better fighting options, they had actual unique features. The very rare multiple attacks per round in 1E was a perk that gave a big advantage to the fighter. I remember a campaign where my dwarf fighter was given the option of a slightly rule breaking chance at being a paladin and I turned it down because I thought that loosing the specialization wasn’t worth it for the character.

As I stated before the fighter doesn’t currently have anything “unique” in his class. One can even argue that his slight advantage in fighting is often upset by other classes getting a greater fighting assist through class features. Thus the best way to describe the fighter is the “little engine that almost could.” He does look good at first chugging up the mountain of level progression but he can never make the top. He is worse than being a “vanilla character.” He is the “unflavored gelatin character.”

In conclusion: The fighter ought to be better than the semi-fighters (ranger, paladin, barbarian and monk) when it comes to fighting. The fighter definitely needs to be better at fighting than clerics, druids, wizards, sorcerers, etc. The former is because every other class, including all the semi-fighter have some other somewhat unique feature that the fighter doesn’t get. Getting a few extra feats is not enough of a unique feature to balance out the class, either mechanically or flavor wise. This is why people find the fighter tasteless. (Because he is in fact unflavored.)

[RandomCasualty]

1183463286[/unixtime]]I think that a core class that:
-can only do one thing... mediocrely
-has no unique features
-has nothing noteworthy about it
-is good for 2 levels

is a good thing? Especially because it is just like real lifez!!!one11!
http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=824217

This thread was perhaps the stupidest thing I've read in a long time... I just want to hit that guy to slap some sense into him.

[MrWaeseL]

Guys like that are the reason why magic is held to a different standard than feats and skills

[RandomCasualty]

1183478313[/unixtime]]Guys like that are the reason why magic is held to a different standard than feats and skills

I can live with people who want to keep a non-magical flavor to the fighter, but this guy seems to be saying it's okay to mechanically suck because it's "realistic".

He's not even approaching it from a game balance standpoint, or even the point of view that it's part of a game. He's operating in his own universe where concepts like reason and logic are alien incomprehensible things.

I can pretty much guarantee he's never played a fighter beyond like 5th level in his life.

[Username17]

1183423037[/unixtime]]

Spells
Through 3rd level, a paladin has no caster level.

As said, I do find the paladin design retarded, but that's exactly what keeps some doubt at all about this - "to have a spell in the spell list" really doesn't mean "to have a caster level", as idiotic as it is.

The key goes back to the requirements to cast a spell out of a wand with UMD - you have to roll a 20. Not a 21, a 20. If you roll a 20 on your UMD check, you cast as a 0th level Wizard for the purpose of activating the wand, and you successfully activate the wand of fireball.

But if you have a UMD result of over nine thousand then you cast as a Cleric of level over nine thousand for the purposes of activating the staff of holy word. And this allows you to successfully activate the staff.

But because of the special rule of staves, where if the character activating it has a high caster level they can choose to have the spell go off at that caster level instead of the staff level - having a level of over nine thousand for the the purpose of activating a staff actually makes a difference.

---

It's actually all very simple. People make it hard because at the end of the day, it doesn't do anything good.

-Username17

[shirak]

snip CL and Staffs

Right now, I don't even care. The best argument (hell, the only argument) in the entire thread was "Magic of Eberron contains additional rules that change this". As I don't have the book, I can't judge the validity of this statement. What bugs me is the second best "argument", presented mainly by Wolfwood2 or whatever he is called but shared by many people in there:

"The rules don't matter because nobody would allow this in a real campaign"

I don't know what drives me nuts. The incredible condescension, the sheer lack of understanding of what I'm saying or the fact that these fucking assholes breathe the same air as I do. I don't even know whether I should laugh at their faces and go do something more productive like watch paint dry.Hell, I've succumbed to the Oberoni Fallacy myself but this takes the fucking cake. I actually quoted them the Fallacy, I explained why they should stop doing it and they ignored me! Maybe I'm too naive but when I tell people the sky is blue I don't expect them to answer "Yes, but rotten food smells". WHAT THE FVCK?!?!?!

[Naar]

Did you seriously expect any sensible discussion at rpg.net? Thanks for helping make that one of the funniest threads I've seen recently, though.