Threads that make us Laugh, Cry, or Both, Continued

[tzor]

1194567825[/unixtime]]Yeah, but making suboptimal decisions for RP reasons is for chumps.

I'm going to disagree here. I think stupid decisions is for chumps and really suboptimal decisions is probably just as wrong, but if given the choice between two nearly equally things, the one that is slightly inferior is technically suboptimal. If they are both good enough for government work then they are qually viable.

[angelfromanotherpin]

It's more about asking the questions: 'can these RP reasons support other, less suboptimal choices?' and 'can I come up with RP reasons for taking the optimal choices that are just as compelling?'

[cthulhu]

1194617810[/unixtime]]

1194567825[/unixtime]]Yeah, but making suboptimal decisions for RP reasons is for chumps.

I'm going to disagree here. I think stupid decisions is for chumps and really suboptimal decisions is probably just as wrong, but if given the choice between two nearly equally things, the one that is slightly inferior is technically suboptimal. If they are both good enough for government work then they are qually viable.

The 'on a more serious note' thing in the next sentence was suppose to indicate that the previous sentence was spoken with my tongue firmly planted in my cheek

I do agree actually, aslong as someone doesn't make a character that is so completely crap the DM has to take emergency artificat giving action to save the game, suboptimal choices are fine.

[Fwib]

If you take 'less powerful' decision for roleplaying reasons, that doesn't make it less optimal, you have merely decided to optimise for fun, rather than for greatest power.

Of course, if the decision you made was so weak that your character or other members of your character's party die from it, then that is unlikely to be optimal fun.

[Hey_I_Can_Chan]

If you take 'less powerful' decision for roleplaying reasons, that doesn't make it less optimal, you have merely decided to optimise for fun, rather than for greatest power.

I'm playing in a game now wherein I'm running a Clr3/Wiz3/Mystic Theurge 5, and I was originally aiming for archmage (as arcane reach, mastery of counterspelling, mastery of shaping, and spell power high arcana do not specify arcane spells or arcane caster levels (as appropriate), as the other archmage high arcana (arcanum?) do), but that 4th level of loremaster grants a bonus language, which because it states, "A lore master can learn any new language [like you'd want to learn one you already knew? WTF?]," means my character could pick up Druidic.

Druids are a major force in the campaign and being able to speak and read their language would be an incredible coup for a non-druid.

So I'm still deciding between loremaster and archmage, assuming we get to that kind of level.

Why'd I choose mystic theurge, a class everyone knows blows? Because I knew I could crush the campaign as a single-class cleric, druid, or wizard, and I didn't want to because I like the DM. So I hobbled myself to avoid temptation.

Why go loremaster instead of archmage? To piss off the campaign world. Because that's fun.

It's a lot easier to aim for fun when you trust the DM and the DM trusts you.

Ramble. Ramble.

[Koumei]

Yeah, my priestess of Loviatar wears spidersilk instead of full plate (even though that'd make an awesome Sister of Battle type look. And ever since starting NaNoWriMo this year, I've had new respect for those girls!), and though I've suffered for it a few times, it's helped to force me to spend actions buffing my AC, and to actually fight defensively, use cover and all that. It feels like I'm not just treading all over everything, so everyone has fun.

I'm not saying I'm a better roleplayer because of it, I'm not even saying it's intrinsically linked to the fun. But it is working out well. And even though I said I don't like challenge... I dunno. Maybe it's just enough challenge.

[Jacob_Orlove]

This post is one of the worst I have ever seen.

[Koumei]

I don't know. It's bad, but not excruciating. The rest of the thread isn't much better, though, especially the "2Ed is better because I say so!" guy. But there's always one of those.

[Jacob_Orlove]

It's mostly the little details that get to me. Like how his "optimized" swordsage knows that "save-or-dazzle" maneuver, AND uses it against creatures with light sensitivity. Way to show up the new players there, champ.

[CalibronXXX]

1194633566[/unixtime]]It's mostly the little details that get to me. Like how his "optimized" swordsage knows that "save-or-dazzle" maneuver, AND uses it against creatures with light sensitivity. Way to show up the new players there, champ.

In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king.

[tzor]

1194628167[/unixtime]]I don't know. It's bad, but not excruciating. The rest of the thread isn't much better, though, especially the "2Ed is better because I say so!" guy. But there's always one of those.

One of the best of the worst is the notion that somehow 2E playtested and 3E was not. The fact was that 2E was so little of a change from what was already in 1E with all the supplements that it really didn't need playtesting as it was mostly being practically playtested by the public at large. I don't think D&D has ever been properly play tested. (In terms of major editions.)

[Hey_I_Can_Chan]

I agree. What does playtesting actually entail? Finding the brokenest things you can do under the rules and explaining to the designers why they're brokenated and having them fix them prior to the game's release. When my buddies and I were playtesting Spycraft 2.0, we did exactly this, which meant the rules for kicking, sticking folks to walls with shuriken, and a variety of other stuff were changed prior to release of the game (or, at least, prior to the release of the second printing which included the errata). I've never heard of one single playtester saying his ingame results led to the change of a single D&D rule.

Ever.

And, honestly, I'd love a pointer to any thread that claimed that. That'd be awesome.

[Neeek]

1194642145[/unixtime]]I agree. What does playtesting actually entail? Finding the brokenest things you can do under the rules and explaining to the designers why they're brokenated and having them fix them prior to the game's release. When my buddies and I were playtesting Spycraft 2.0, we did exactly this, which meant the rules for kicking, sticking folks to walls with shuriken, and a variety of other stuff were changed prior to release of the game (or, at least, prior to the release of the second printing which included the errata). I've never heard of one single playtester saying his ingame results led to the change of a single D&D rule.

Ever.

And, honestly, I'd love a pointer to any thread that claimed that. That'd be awesome.

This is just a vague memory in a drunken stupor, but I seem to recall a series of articles that delineated some of the playtest based changes to 3.0 before it was released.

[Hey_I_Can_Chan]

Just for clarification, I know there were things like, "Paladins and monks should have multiclassing restrictions because, like, they're special." I know that was playtester feedback that was integrated, but I mean things like, "Dude, the two-bladed sword is so overpowered by weighing only 8 lbs.--it should so weigh 10 lbs." and the designers agreeing and changing it.

A number. A mechanic. Not just flavor.

[RandomCasualty]

I think half the problem with WotC playtesting is that they have some crappy playtesters. A lot of DMs (and players) out there still believe in the old arrogant Gygax motto that nothing in the rules is actually broken, because the DM can compensate for it.

I mean if you look at most of the stupidity on the boards everytime someone brings up a broken spell or ability, then you realize why WotC may have trouble with playtesting. Half the people still think you can balance polymorph just by requiring the wizard to "study" the form that he wants to turn into. There are a lot of gamers who for whatever reason are absolutely opposed to saying anything is broken, and that holds the game back more than anything else.

And if you get one guy on the design team with a Gygax style god complex, nothing ever gets fixed.

[MrWaeseL]

I like shitty games so much I must incorporate them into every aspect of my life!

[Voss]

I only wandered somewhat down the page, but whatever this little flying thing is, he's only moving it from one game to another. Unless his life is sad and small and only involves D&D and FF, it doesn't seem to involve 'every aspect of his life'.

The only thing particularly mockable is that stupid sig.

[MrWaeseL]

I'm pretty sure his life only involves D&D and FF, that's why I posted it.

[Manxome]

Is there some way in which wanting d20 stats for moogles is worse than wanting d20 stats for, say, pokemon, jedi, hydralisks, armored bears, or any other fantastic creature borrowed from other source material? Doesn't strike me as all that remarkable, particularly considering how much official D&D material is thinly-veiled theft from other sources in the first place.

[Surgo]

Speaking of armored bears, what with the Golden Compass movie coming out and all, what CR do we think the Panzerbjorne should have?

[Leress]

1194830598[/unixtime]]I like shitty games so much I must incorporate them into every aspect of my life!

I can't believe someone recommended that piece of shit FF 3.5 d20 supplement by Radizuo. It's shit with fucking glitter on it.

[angelfromanotherpin]

1194837335[/unixtime]]Speaking of armored bears, what with the Golden Compass movie coming out and all, what CR do we think the Panzerbjorne should have?

I'm pretty sure those are just awakened bears with Fighter levels.

[NineInchNall]

Pounce is totally overpowered for melee classes

[Jacob_Orlove]

4chan Game (Recruiting/OOC)

I couldn't bring myself to actually look at that thread, but I assume it's awful.

[CalibronXXX]

I read pieces of the first post, apparently it's magical tea party with a few ill defined and ultimately pointless d% rolls with the flavor of being a btard in a vaguely D&D-like setting.