Is this what the average player/GM thinks "powergaming/optimization/min-maxing" looks like in D&D?
>>47547294
>warrior/rouge
no
>>47547294
No. Its not a caster. It is pretty edgy though
>>47547294
>warrior/rogue
Lol, as if an optimizer would fill his headband slot with something that just looks good.
>>47547294
>Extra attack in broad daylight
>Can sneak attack every attack while in shadows
Garbage combo
>>47547430
>average player/GM thinks
>>47547294
>No rule says you can't wear two
It clearly states that you can only use one shield at a time. This isn't min/maxing, this is shitty DM who's too beta to call his players out on their bullshit.
>>47547494
Maybe 3.P players, but I don't think its right to make fun of people with brain damage lime that.
>>47547464
No, see, you just have to make most of your attacks from the shadows, then 5-foot step out into daylight and gain your bonus attack.
>>47547505
>It clearly states that you can only use one shield at a time. This isn't min/maxing, this is shitty DM who's too beta to call his players out on their bullshit.
It doesn't matter anyway, because shield bonuses don't fucking stack.
>>47547294
>+10 headband (no mechanical bonus)
I have half a mind to keep him around for potential humor.
This is like an example of a inexperienced GM seeing something he doesn't know how to deal with. Like oh no! He outdamages my poorly optimized overleveled dmpc!
>>47547294
Nah, it's more like this
>>47547294
>average player/GM
Maybe back in early 2000s and before, but unlikely these days. It mainly depends on what how you define average player/GM in D&D. One who did not play past level 4 in 3.0 and stopped paying attention to the game after 11 years might think of this character as powergaming. Nowadays this character is more of a joke about disruptive scrubs than min-maxers.
So like a 'Timmy card'.
Hey I remember reading that comic
>>47547545
I feel like people forgeting what bonuses do and don't stack is pretty commen
>>47547646
I love that joke post. It was an ironic troll because 9/10th of the options listed don't work on the dragon and the others allow a save.
>>47547795
>Ivory tower was some group of designers assuming their playerbase was intelligent and didn't need interactions explained.
>Invented as a derogatory term for the system by one of the designers
>Used to blame selfsame designer because he apologized and acknowledged it while the others remained silent.
Da fuck am I scrying? Is this real?
>>47551758
Yep. 3.5 was intentionally designed with bad mechanics *on purpose*.
Don't worry, though, there's still clearly no such thing as caster superiority. That would be absurd.
>>47551718
You're an idiot.
>>47551718
I think the dragon symbolizes combat encounters in general rather than solely signifying a dragon.
>>47551828
Nah, just been around long enough to remember that images origin.
There's plenty of cool history.
>>47547294
This isn't a powergamer. This is a martial player attempting to bridge the gapand failing
>>47547294
Nope, that's just Shamus.
I recall reading DM of the Rings and enjoying it, but the comments that inevitably hinted at a super-railroady DM style that basically agrees with the comedic parody sort of put a damper on it.
>>47551906
>Shamus
What? Who?
>>47547646
>direct damage
>I'm an autistic faggot who doesn't allow creative use of martial abilities, but I will gladly spread open my ass cheeks to let my caster use his spells in the most effective way due to non-lateral thinking
This is the cancer that killed 3rd Edition.
>>47552377
And what creative use of martial abilities would these be?
>>47552377
Nigger, as 'creative' as you can be with your martial? I can be just as creative with all my spells and my SUMMON THAT FIGHTS JUST AS GOOD AS YOU CAN.
>>47552408
Blinding enemies with arrows, slitting enemies throats, sundering limbs.
Have you ever played D&D?
>>47552377
Give examples
>>47552593
>my SUMMON THAT FIGHTS JUST AS GOOD AS YOU CAN
I once killed a Hezrou that a level 10 Wizard summoned for a fight as a level 9 Barbarian just because he kept bragging about how powerful his summoning was.
He ragequit the skype session, and it took an hour of his friend convincing him to come back.
Good times.
>>47552675
Alright. Enjoy having all those things done to you.
They only have to be lucky once, remember. You? Every single fucking time.
>>47552675
All of which allow the enemy a chance to prevent it from happening, why give them a chance when you can just magic them into a pocket dimension or grease the ground under them & toss a fireball in their near vicinity.
>>47552708
Way to avoid the actual argument, you fucking faggot. All the 'creativity' you can do? I can do, and oh so much more because I have more options. You want to try and push horse-shit rules like hurdur arrow to the eye? Enjoy the fireball I just flicked into your mouth. Enjoy the summon water cantrip I just cast that went off in your skull. Enjoy the literally infinite options I have, you stupid dipshit.
>>47552675
>Blinding enemies with arrows
So a called shot to the eyeball to permanently maim someone. Enjoy your -5 while the Wizard can either cast blindness or creatively point out that he has an unnerring bolt of force that he can just direct towards the enemy's eyes, since we're being 'creative'
>slit their throat
You mean what your character tries to do on every single attack? Because you're trying to kill someone?
Either way, if we're allowing one-shot kills for creativity, then a caster can just cast Create Water in the enemy's lungs. Less messy and less difficult.
>Sundering limbs
So just called shots to the limbs. I'm sure glad the wizard can't summon a bear and have it rip people's arms off instead.
And this is also assuming that they didnt decide to pick up a sword and some strength themselves and buff themselves to do all this in the same way but better.
>>47552675
How do any of those things possibly compare to what casters can do? Slitting a throat is literally just fluff when you kill someone, or a Coup de Grace. Sundering limbs or shooting eyes is just a type of Called Shot.
All of these are purely examples of damage and debuff, and are fucking nothing compared to the amount of shit casters can do in any situation.
You've made a lot of fuss about creativity, but the fact is that games like D&D are governed by their rules. The rules give structure and provide a mechanical framework to roleplay in. And in the case of 3.x, that framework is heavily stacked against martials, no matter how much you might want to pretend otherwise. Martials can attack, or attempt to do things with a limited amount of skill points. Casters, with their bloated lists of spells, have something for every conceivable situation a GM could come up with that isn't designed purely to fuck them over.
>>47552708
>Martials are fine and I have the anecdotes to prove it!
Nigga, for all we know that fight basically came down to you getting super good dice rolls and the Hezrou not hitting once, and the Wizard left because you would not stop bragging about how good your barbarian when it was all just dumb luck.
>>47552767
Brain damage. I swear to god, the fucking edition induces aggressively cancerous brain damage in people.
>>47552815
Not like it matters. The Barb won a fight with a single spell slot, without the wizard backing it up.
Imagine if he summoned one, and then next turn he summoned another. And if he was worried about the barbarian going for him, he can just cast fly first before he starts dropping monsters
>>47552751
Lol, wow you're mad.
>charge with my 80 foot movement phase
>I grapple you
Wow, look at all that fancy sorcery I just avoided.
>>47552751
>All the creativity you can do
None of that is in the rules you "stupid dipshit", so if you want to rules lawyer, than rules lawyer. If you want to be an interpretive asshole, well then a single arrow aimed at your skull has about the same effect as your little "water cantrip", you "stupid dipshit".
Jesus kid, get a life.
![65033f_5128951[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/KGmSBC2.jpg "65033f_5128951[1].jpg")
>>47552408
>>47552593
>>47552725
>>47552750
>>47552751
>>47552759
>>47552767
>>47552815
>>47552860
I've never seen this level of butthurt from one simple post that merely was saying that martials can do things with weapons.
Jesus Christ, when did this board become infested with literal 12 year olds.
>>47552903
That, my triggered little fucktard, is the point.
None of your garbage is in the rules either, so if you want to go down that route, I have so many more options.
>>47552883
I win initiative, because I have a Int boosting familiar and have more open feats I can do without crippling myself(I get scrbe scroll for free, and that's all I really NEED), cast invisibility. Next turn I cast fly. What do you do now, faggot?
>>47552928
>Hurduur, I can totally win if I'm allowed to utterly invent rules!
>People called me out?! Uh, uuhhh, y-you're all babies!
Fuck off, kid.
>>47552903
If you follow the rules, Casters have more options than martials and are therefore better
If you allow 'creativity', Casters have a wide variety of magical powers to improvise and are therefore better.
Do you have a point?
>>47552861
>single spell slot
>Barbarian Rage is a spell
How come it still activates in Anti-Magic Shell then?
>>47552928
The anger is because they tried to imply that the problem was somehow fixed if you allowed Fighters to bounce arrows off of walls, when the issues run much deeper.
'Just be creative' doesn't fix anything.
>>47552951
Sorry. I phrased that poorly.
I meant, 'the barbarian won a fight AGAINST a single spell slot'
As in, the wizard used one use of his many, many daily abilities, and the Barbarian probably burned a rage and lost a fair chunk of hitpoints in the process.
>>47547394
>*average* GM
yes
>>47552928
>dispute is now butthurt
I told you about "safespace degradation" effect /tg/,I told you ,dog.
>>47552928
I don't know what to tell you. I just really hate anecdotal evidence.
>>47552934
>winning initiative
>against a Barbarian
Looking at the players handbook right now. Which familiar gives the Sorcerer an Initiative bonus again? Because uhh, says here none of them do.
Do you have a point?
>>47552708
>Look, the little barbarian is proud he was able to defeat one of the summons of a Wizard.
This alone should show you how many miles above you he was in terms of power in the first place. Its far worse than being proud you were able to defeat the druids animal companion.
>>47551758
literally lol if you think sean reynolds has ever come close to acknowledging the faults of 3e
>>47552943
>Hurduur, I can totally win if I'm allowed to utterly invent rules!
>win
Found the kiddo.
Also:
>Hurduur, I can totally win if I'm allowed to utterly invent rules!
How exactly is sundering limbs making up rules? They give you rules for sundering limbs for enemies such as the Kraken and Hydra, so it can be applied to any other in the game.
>53 replies
>28 posters
There be an awful lot of samefagging going on in here.
>>47553042
That comes down to what, little less than 2 posts per poster?
>>47553030
Citation needed.
See, D&D is a joyful little creation called an Exception Based System. Meaning that unless the rule is explicitly general, it's only for those things.
But if you really want to go that route, ok. Every foe is going to be targeting your limbs now.
And yes, my little bitchboy, it is in fact, win an encounter.
>>47552675
So, called shots? They are in the rules.
>>47552995
>dispute
Disputing what? That players can think about how to approach combat?
"THIS GAME IS FANTASY
The action of a dungeons and dragons game takes place in the imaginations of the players. Like actors in a movie, players sometimes speak as if they were their characters or as if their fellow players were their characters. These rules even adopt that casual approach, using "you" to refer to and to mean "your character." In reality, however, you are no more your character than you are the king when you play chess. Likewise, the world implied by these rules is an imaginary one."
Aside from the fact that it specifically states in the 3.5 edition DMG guide under DETERMINING OUTCOMES "You're the arbiter of everything that happens in the game. Period."
So if the DM allows it, it's allowed and you have absolutely no say. Get over it I guess? Not sure what else to tell you.
>>47553063
>my little bitchboy
Lol, well at least we know why you play RPG games now, you're a power-fantasy loser who's so pathetic in real life he makes up how cool and edgy he is online and in the world of make believe.
"My little cuntboy." Now come over here so daddy can fuck your little pussy.
>>47553125
>if the DM explicitly goes against the rules the game is balanced
/tg/ I love you but how many times do we have to have this discussion?
>>47553125
Disputing that it matters.
Yes, if the DM allows, your fighter can make Jump checks to lop off the head of every enemy in one shot.
No, that doesn't mean Wizards are worse off, since they can still use spells to do the same thing, help out outside of fights, or boost their strength and jump skill to also chop of heads.
What are you not getting about this?
>>47553063
>citation needed
Never read the 3.5th edition Monster Manual huh?
>>47552968
>the anger
>he's literally getting angry over an RPG game
....Really?
>>47553135
>I have literally no argument, so let me spew insults
The 3.PF mindset, people. Fucking. Brain damage.
>>47553143
too often to count right now.
>>47553162
You literally can't read, can you? Exception. Based. You fucking faggot. Why do you think those rules are only under those monsters, rather then in the corebook itself?
>>47553143
>explicitly goes against the rules
>the rules state he's the arbiter of the rules and can allow whatever he wants
Are you a fucking tard?
>>47553163
>>I have literally no argument, so let me spew insults
>I ignore all the points being made because I have literally no argument outside of my insane little nutshell
You're a fucking nutter.
>>47553162
>....Really?
Yeah, I'm really confused why you're getting so upset about this.
>>47553212
You made no points, retard. Don't expect another reply unless you actually have anything to say.
>>47553162
>so it can be applied to any other in the game.
Not the guy you're replying to. This is the part that needs citing. It's sort of like saying "The game has rules for destroying a lich's phylactery, that means owlbear's have phylacterys."
>>47553185
>Rules clearly lay out how called shots work
>DM decides he's not going to handle called shots that way
>Not explicitly going against the rules
He's allowed to do it, sure. I'm not disputing that. But it doesn't mean that the rules are any good.
>>47552759
>So a called shot to the eyeball to permanently maim someone. Enjoy your -5
Also you need two arrows to get it.
>And this is also assuming that they didnt decide to pick up a sword and some strength themselves and buff themselves to do all this in the same way but better.
That's mainly a divine caster fare, though.
>>47553153
>your fighter can make Jump checks to lop off the head of every enemy in one shot.
Nice false equivalency, but I don't think Jumping would decapitate an enemy. Now a sword, there's something that could do that. Now if only there were rules for decapitation.
Now if only there was a way to attack with a sword...Well, damn, too bad but no luck here. Guess I'll just have to use these boots to jump!
>>47553221
>so upset
Lol, okay
>>47553236
>Rules clearly lay out how called shots work
There's multiple rules for many various things people are talking about scattered all throughout different supplements for 3.5.
Using the core rulebooks as the standard is not winning anything in your favor.
>>47553266
>Now if only there were rules for decapitation.
I'm honestly not aware of any rules for decapitation in 3.5. I know I'd fluff a killing blow that way sometimes, but it wasn't a special maneuver or anything, the player had just made an enemy's health tick down to 0.
>>47553266
>Nice false equivalency
It literally does not matter. Your entire argument was that the DM could make up the rules to let you do it.
He could rule that you need to lift his refrigerator, or pat your head and rub your belly.
Making it an attack roll changes nothing
>>47553235
>You made no points!
>As long as I ignore them they won't exist!
Nice ad hominem btw, I can tell you're not stranger to being a huge hypocritical faggot.
I can also guess that you have no friends and have never had a GF and are a kissless virgin.
>>47553289
>There's multiple rules for many various things people are talking about scattered all throughout different supplements for 3.5.
Yes. I'd label this as one of 3.5s problems. It makes it hard to "just be creative" about something because now you've completely nullified some feat or class, going by rules as written.
>Using the core rulebooks as the standard is not winning anything in your favor.
This bit I don't understand. I didn't say anything about core, and AFAIK there isn't anything about called shots in core that isn't a variant rule.
ITT: butthurt for miles
>>47553323
If someone were to post the forbidden one would it get the thread deleted or just a ban?
>>47553266
>combat is now based on how well someone can perform a skill
>having people with jumping contests flying into pieces
>people having duels to the death with lyre's and lutes
This sounds like a hilarious setting to use.
>>47553356
CHILDRENS CARD GAMES
>>47553302
>could make up rules to let you do it
>making it an attack roll changes nothing
Well, essentially, every single spell in the spell book is just a "problem solved" spell, so it's no more than just saying the magic words of "my spellcaster does X" and it's done, so there's actually more gameplay involved in combat.
>>47553406
>So upset that he spent time linking every single person who is proving him wrong
See >>47553337
>>47553370
ON MOTORCYCLES
>>47547294
>GM gives overpowered equipment to the fighter: The Image
>complains about "powergaming/optimization/min-maxing"
literally what
if you don't want them to have it, don't give it to them
>>47553458
Bingo!
>>47553297
Well, idealistically speaking, if you're going to go that route, then all actions in the game are binary, and all spells, actions, and skills used are made merely to make an enemy go from 1 to 0.
That is, unless you actually use the fluff as roleplaying mechanics.
The rules are literally just there for you to feel safe and secure as a fall-back. The original comment was stating that you could use your weapons for more than just a standard attack and use them to disable foes, perhaps to not just 1HKO them and to cause them to surrender or disable them temporarily or permanently.
>>47553417
>if I say they prove him wrong, that means I'm right!
Aside from the various posts in direct response to them that objectively proves them to be wrong, and ignoring the ones that are simply stupid personal attacks, what are you talking about exactly?
>>47553458
>A barbed kukhri is overpowered
I'm fucking dying.
>>47553180
>exception
>based
A term you literally just made up on the spot which says nothing about what it says in the DMG or players handbook, congrats on being a fucking moron.
>>47553535
You know what I'm talking about, the image implies that it's overpowered, but even if it was overpowered in the first place, what's to stop you from denying it to the players?
>>47547505
Where does it state that, and you DO realize that this is a non-existent system(albeit one heavily based on D&D)?
>>47553458
Maybe he bought it with starting wealth.
>>47553547
>what it says in the DMG or players handbook
Following the conversation, nobody mentioned either of those. Some idiot was trying to claim that because a hydra has rules for decapitation, you can use those same rules against a dragon. Which doesn't follow, because if you could, the decapitation rules would also be listed under dragon, or be in another book as a generic thing you could do to anything.
>>47553547
Oh hey, look, it's the retard that tried to argue against Wizards/Clerics/Druids being top dogs in 3.PF opening his stupid trap once more.
I'm sorry you are so goddamn stupid, but here, let me google it for you.
https://www.google.com/search?q=exception+based+design&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
Don't come back until you've educated yourself, faggot.
>>47552928
>butthurt
If you want to see butthurt, envision people doing """"""""""""""""creative"""""""""""""""" things to your character.
>>47553555
Nothing. The trope comes from the rules interpreted as-is.
Usually you see min-maxers in a game when the DM is utter shit at roleplaying.
>>47553576
No it's fine you can just get the DM's okay to use those rules on everything because Rule Zero is definitely a meaningful argument :^)
>>47547294
There's so much wrong with both that image and the text around it that I just had a tiny aneurysm.
I don't understand this image. There's no reference to magic at all. It references SNEAK ATTACK so it has to be 3.x. Additionally, the most "overpowered" thing on it is sneak attacking with each attack roll, but there's nothing harmful about a rogue who manages to sneak attack with each attack roll.
>>47547294
This is what Dungeon World fans actually think D&D is like
>>47553576
>Some idiot was trying to claim that because a hydra has rules for decapitation, you can use those same rules against a dragon.
>some idiot
I assume you're the idiot in this conversation, seeing as I don't see why you'd be able to decapitate one monster but not another.
It all depends on the DM's wishes. If he wants to allow the fighter to do that, then who the fuck cares? It's the DM's wishes, you have no say as the player, so if it were allowed, again, you would be the idiot.
>because if you could, the decapitation rules would also be listed under dragon
There's a reason it doesn't say "hey, you can turn this monster" whenever it lists an undead in the monster manual.
>>47553598
Oh hey it's "I don't care who you are because I'm not an angry fuck-off."
>Don't come back until you've educated yourself, faggot.
Edgy, is that what your dad calls you?
From the looks of it you really like to throw that term around. Projecting much?
>>47553631
Seriously, if anything it just makes him slightly less underpowered.
I mean, that Will save is still gonna see him dropped on what, turn two or three against a villain NPC designed for minmaxers to handle.
>>47553013
Holy shit, the Ivory Tower IS real.
>>47553651
Proven wrong at literally every turn, so you avoid the actual cites and callouts, especially the proof the term wasn't invented on the spot. How pathetic.
>>47553673
At least Monte Cook admitted he was an idiot who made an idiot mistake.
>>47553651
>There's a reason it doesn't say "hey, you can turn this monster" whenever it lists an undead in the monster manual.
No, that's listed under the umbrella of the Undead subtype. So in a way, it does, whereas the decap rules are ONLY under those individual monsters.
>>47553651
>I don't see why you'd be able to decapitate one monster but not another
>I don't see why you'd be able to exploit Bludgeoning vulnerability on Skeletons but not Slimes
You see why that's dumb? Because Skeletons say they're vulnerable to bludgeoning and slimes don't. The Hydra says you can decapitate it so you can, the dragon doesn't so you can't.
>If he wants to allow the fighter to do that, then who the fuck cares?
If the DM wants to do that, he can. That wasn't the argument though. The idiot was trying to claim it was RAW, which it isn't.
If the DM decides to houserule, that's fine. It doesn't change anything, since a caster can just buff themselves and also do that, but whatever.
>There's a reason it doesn't say "hey, you can turn this monster" whenever it lists an undead in the monster manual.
Literally, read the rest of the sentence.
>or be in another book as a generic thing you could do to anything.
Turn Undead is a Cleric ability, so it works on all the undead you face. It's not listed under each undead because it's listed elsewhere.
Decapitation is listed under hydra, so you can't do it to whatever you want. If it was a general thing, it would be listed under the general combat rules instead of a single monster in the monster manual.
It's like arguing you should be able to attack any monster from the inside because some monsters have rules for attacking their stomachs when you get Swallowed Whole.
>>47553704
I don't know why you're surprised. A needless tripfag who doesn't know what he talks about is hardly something new.
>>47553712
Somewhat, but his ideas of what were a mistake and overpowered were:
1. Not pointing out Toughness was for level 1 wizards
2. Making the longsword "obviously" superior to other choices.
Absolutely none of the people in 3.x development have ever remotely acknowledged that anti will save effects are superior, conjuration shit that doesn't even allow a save or SR is superior, etc.
>>47553720
>The Hydra says you can decapitate it so you can, the dragon doesn't so you can't
Really, so that's how that works? So, uh, what are the rules for dismembering Trolls? Because it clearly states "Regeneration (Ex): Fire and acid deal normal damage to a troll. If a troll loses a limb or body part, the lost portion regrows in 3d6 minutes. The creature can reattach a severed member instantly by holding it to the stump".
There's no "rules" to it losing those limbs, so one should assume that mentioning it is completely superfluous, right?
>>47553704
Oh, sorry, it's a term that other players made up and he's merely repeating, sorry.
How pathetic.
>>47553723
Nice samefag.
>>47553756
Its in case PCs chop up an unconscious troll.
>>47553756
Trolls have a head, a Vorpal effect can decapitate them.
>>47553574
a good DM remembers he has the final say in what characters and gear players can start with and use.
>>47553769
>chop up an unconscious troll
Again, there's no "rules" anywhere for that, so it's completely superfluous.
>>47553772
It clearly states "limb or body part." Not "head."
>>47553802
Head's a body part.
> A hydra can be killed either by severing all its heads or by slaying its body. To sever a head, an opponent must make a successful sunder attempt with a slashing weapon. (The player should declare where the attack is aimed before making the attack roll.) Making a sunder attempt provokes an attack of opportunity unless the foe has the Improved Sunder feat. An opponent can strike at a hydra’s heads from any position in which he could strike at the hydra itself, because the hydra’s head writhe and whip about in combat. An opponent can ready an action to attempt to sunder a hydra’s head when the creature bites at him. Each of a hydra’s heads has hit points equal to the creature’s full normal hit point total, divided by its original number of heads. Losing a head deals damage to the body equal to half the head’s full normal hit points. A natural reflex seals the neck shut to prevent further blood loss. A hydra can no longer attack with a severed head but takes no other penalties.
So, making this a global rule:
>you can do Sunder on somebody's neck.
Ok.
>their neck has amount of HP equal to their total HP divided by their number of heads (1 for most cases)
Ok.
>when you deplete that HP, the body is dealt half of neck's HP in damage, they can no longer bite you but suffer no other penalties
Ok.
So, you can cut people heads off, but you still need to kill the body after that and they don't suffer any penalties.
Sure legit.
>>47553723
It's a particular degree of extra special retardation, though.
>>47553805
So are arms and legs.
>>47553766
>I'm backed into a corner so I'll try to deflect and pretend it's not a thing!
Pa. Thet. Ic.
>>47553807
>A Hydra can be killed either by severing all its heads or slaying its body
>EITHER BY
>severing all its heads
>or slaying its body
So what you're saying, is that people have more than 1 head? Are you high or just stupid?
>>47553802
>heads aren't body parts
Literally retarded
>>47553828
>backed into a corner
Sure, whatever helps you sleep at night.
>>47553835
Ok, so you can kill people by doing their full HP of damage as "sunder the neck" or by doing their full HP of damage as regular attacks.
WHAT A GAME CHANGER
>>47553837
>limbs aren't body parts
Literally mentally disabled.
>>47553807
Technically speaking, it does say it is killed if all its heads are severed.
Applying that means you can kill someone by cutting off their head, yes, but that requires doing their HP/1 damage.
Meaning all their HP.
So to kill them, you have to kill them.
>>47553807
I think you're missing something rather key there.
>their neck has amount of HP equal to their total HP divided by their number of heads (1 for most cases)
Say a giant has 100 hitpoints. It also has 1 head. This means it's neck has 100 hitpoints.
So you still have to do the exact same amount of damage you would to kill the thing at all, meaning this is entirely pointless unless you're talking about monsters with multiple heads.
>>47553844
Oh and remember that every sunder provokes an AOO.
>>47551942
Shamus Young, the author of DM of the ring, that other one about Star Wars as a d20 campaign, and OP is from Chainmail Binini, a webcomic that didn't really take off.
>>47553853
>Literally mentally disabled.
Yes, you've thoroughly established that as an accurate description of yourself.
>>47553862
>that other one about Star Wars as a d20 campaign
I think that's by different guys.
>>47553862
Darths and Droids isn't by Shamus, it's by David Morgan-Mar and his friends.
>>47553844
>full HP of damage as sunder neck
Or just use Kraken rules instead ;)
>>47553882
>>47553882
>Using Kraken rules for decapitation
I wasn't aware that Krakens had necks
>>47553865
Wow, nice redirection, you almost convinced that 2 year old playing the corner with your lego's that it was a clever insult *clap clap*
>>47553890
No, it applies a standard amount of hit points per limb.
>>47553882
So you agree, then, that different monsters have different rules for decapitation? And since most monsters don't have any, you can't decapitate them.
>>47553893
So you're basically the new Virtual Optim, huh? That's wonderful.
>>47553882
> Krakens strike their opponents with their barbed tentacles, then grab and crush with their arms or drag victims into their huge jaws. An opponent can make sunder attempts against a kraken’s tentacles or arms as if they were weapons. A kraken’s tentacles have 20 hit points, and its arms have 10 hit points. If a kraken is currently grappling a target with one tentacle or arm, it usually uses another limb to make its attack of opportunity against the sunder attempt. Severing a kraken’s tentacle or arm deals damage to the kraken equal to half the limb’s full normal hit points. A kraken usually withdraws from combat if it loses both tentacles or three of its arms. A kraken regrows severed limbs in 1d10+10 days.
>Severing a kraken’s tentacle or arm deals damage to the kraken equal to half the limb’s full normal hit points.
>No further penalties listed
ok, you can sunder everybody's 10 hp arms, but it doesn't stop them from hitting you.
>>47553868
>>47553869
Oh, sorry, you're right. It's heavily inspired (as in, virtually the same style), and I stopped reading years ago.
>>47553905
>So you agree, then, that different monsters have different rules for decapitation?
Sure.
>>47553909
Right, because I care enough to know what that is?
>>47553910
Well, I've never played in a Monty Python setting such as the ones you clearly play it, but I'm open minded
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjEcj8KpuJw
>>47553943
>Right, because I care enough to know what that is?
He's pointing out the fact that you're either a massive retard or a troll
>>47553934
>It's heavily inspired (as in, virtually the same style),
Wat. It's inspired by DMotR as in, it has virtually the same premise applied to Star Wars, but the writing style is almost completely different.
>>47553943
>Right, because I care enough to know what that is?
Lurk more newfag
>>47553934
>as in, virtually the same style
Same concept, yes, although the GM is much less railroady and more willing to go with the PC's zany schemes and improvise.
Personally I'd take 5e over 3.5 any day.
>>47553970
That is rather like saying "I'll eat a very plain sandwich over a flaming pile of garbage any day".
>>47553957
Hmm, why, he's another namefag that proves him wrong on multiple occasions?
>>47553985
But hey, it is true.
>>47553970
"I have the advantage!"
>>47553985
made me chuckle a bit
>>47553993
No, he's another idiotic troll much like yourself.
>>47553985
More like a very plain tofu burger, which at that point, is the same exact thing as a flaming pile of garbage, just with different taste.
2E surpasses all of them.
>>47554005
Butthurt much cry-baby?
>>47553993
More like he was the sort of idiot who would compare eating a tofu sandwich to burning garbage, and just generally having that level of faulty logic for everything.
I mean honestly, a Tofu burger isn't great or anything, but I would certainly prefer it to 3rd degree burns and whatever diseases or inedible materials are in the garbage.
I just hope you're not stupid enough to make that sort of comparison.
>>47554030
Protip: When literally everyone else disagrees with you and you have double digit IQ, they're disagreeing with you because you're wrong.
>>47554020
>>47554001
You can't even taste anything, you're a skeleton!
Besides, smack some soy sauce on that bitch and you're stellar.
Guys, there's a better solution then arguing with a Chinese knock-off of Virt for a thread.
>>47554078
I don't think I would dislike this guy as much if he didn't come off as a bargain bin version of Virt.
...So this is how Bruce feels about the Jokerz street gang. He hated the Joker, yeah, but there's something annoying about seeing a cheap wannabe of even someone you hate.
>>47553854
>>47553855
>So to kill them, you have to kill them.
Its a way to get free +10 hp damage if nothing else
>>47554148
Maybe, but martials don't exactly have trouble killing things as it is. It's everything else that's the problem.
>>47554148
It's not free, it costs you AOOs or a feat.
>>47553985
Ah yes, the old "The fact that I can't find anything to complain about in 5e is something that I can complain about" complaint. Never gets stale, that one.
>>47547505
Where does it state that this is DnD?
>>47553969
The whole point of DMotR was "what if a GM wanted to force his players to act out the LotR story?"
Remember how 4e and 5e had to flat out state that a major rest that once a day? That was one of the big issues with 3e; a lot of important, key rules that could limit casters were written in the same kind of obvious, plain language that AD&D used to have and that worked fine so long as the reader had a bit of common sense and didn't instantly aim for the most autistically literal reading possible.
Sadly they didn't foresee charoppers.
>>47553013
>Sometimes people choose bad options to play interesting characters.
So why is the interesting shit bad and the boring shit viable?
>>47552675
>I want to be creative with martials
>Every creative option comes down to damage and called shots.
Okay...
>>47553006
Green Scorpion
Gives you a +4 bonus to initiative.
Also, divination wizards get an inherent bonus to their initiative due to their class feature that allows them to add 1/2 their wizard level to it.
Then, of course, there's the bonus from having DEX and improved initiative.
>>47555397
See there is only a limited amount of fun you're allowed to have.
You can play your special snowflake OR you can minmax your powergaming, but not both, capiche?
No having your cake and eating it too unless you're caster with summon infinite cakes.
>>47547430
In the next panel he starts talking about some feat called "spell affinity", and based on the comedic timing (he starts saying it immediately after another character says something along the lines of what you said), I'd say it basically makes him a caster.
Not that he ever uses spells in the comic.
>>47554187
What kind of deflection is that? 5E is a very basic, serviceable system. It is not, however, a very interesting or developed system.
"It is average, neither particularly good nor bad" is a complaint, now?
>>47552750
All of which would allow the enemy a chance to prevent it from happening, why give them a chance when you can just kill them with a weapon.
>>47552759
>So a called shot to the eyeball to permanently maim someone. Enjoy your -5 while the Wizard can either cast blindness or creatively point out that he has an unnerring bolt of force that he can just direct towards the enemy's eyes, since we're being 'creative'
Meanwhile they save and proceed to beat the fuck out of the wizard because it only affects one creature at a time, and it's a fort save most common good save in the game. Also allows for spell resistance,
>You mean what your character tries to do on every single attack? Because you're trying to kill someone? Either way, if we're allowing one-shot kills for creativity, then a caster can just cast Create Water in the enemy's lungs. Less messy and less difficult.
Actually a fair point, but in slitting someone's throat would probably require them to be pinned or helpless in my opinion. Might work for a sneak attack, but regardless gag reflexes would probably counter the Create Water thing. Unless you restrained them, but fuck...Create Water is a pretty convenient way to water board someone.
>So just called shots to the limbs. I'm sure glad the wizard can't summon a bear and have it rip people's arm's off instead. And this is also assuming that they didn't decide to pick up a sword and some strength themselves and buff themselves to do all of this in the same way but better.
That's basically the equivalent of a fighter going umd to replicate what the wizard does but better. (Except neither can do the other's role better really) Also while you're taking an entire round to summon that bear the opposition slathers themselves in a potion of hide from animals or something to protect their precious limbs. Or just dealing damage to you/counterspelling.
>>47555741
Well you are dragging it down from the throne of BEST GAME EVER.
>>47555817
Nobody even remotely claimed that.
>>47555814
>Meanwhile they save and proceed to beat the fuck out of the wizard because it only affects one creature at a time, and it's a fort save most common good save in the game. Also allows for spell resistance,
How about we compromise and use Glitterdust, which uses a will save, can castrate a whole encounter in one go, and allows no save?
>>47554746
>resting times
>charoppers
Er... this is just a very basic action. Clerics rest once a day, and it has to be at a given time -- every time. Wizards rest for 8 hours to prep spells.
This will virtually never come in handy, but its a mildly interesting trick.
>>47552944
If you follow the rules martial have reasonable access to potions/magic items that do the casters job better.
If you allow "creativity", you could make that same argument for martials.
Point is, you're the typical martials can't have nice things 3.5/pf crybaby who have had nothing but shit GM's unable/unwilling to challenge casters in any capacity what so ever.
>>47555814
>Meanwhile they save and proceed to beat the fuck out of the wizard because it only affects one creature at a time, and it's a fort save most common good save in the game. Also allows for spell resistance,
As opposed to the Fighter, whose arrows also only affect one creature at a time, and has to land two of them, and is doing this instead of just killing something. And this is the Wizard just trying to match what the Fighter is doing, instead of just doing something outright better.
>Create Water is a pretty convenient way to water board someone.
Yep, welcome to why 'martials can be more creative' is a dumb argument.
>Except neither can do the other's role better really
Wrong, but Wizards aren't the best at replacing fighters. That's what Druids are for.
>>47555435
You could come up with or find a splatbook giving the Barbarian similar or better bonuses I'd wager.
>>47555848
>If you follow the rules martial have reasonable access to potions/magic items that do the casters job better.
You mean EVERYONE has access to those, except casters can also pick up feats to make them for half price, so they get better access as well
>shit GM's unable/unwilling to challenge casters in any capacity what so ever.
Come up with a challenge a martial can solve that a caster can't that doesn't involve an anti-magic field.
>>47555848
>If you follow the rules martial have reasonable access to potions/magic items that do the casters job better.
Nigger, what? Casters LITERALLY. MAKE. THE MAGIC. ITEMS.
>>47555848
Your argument solely relies on insulting the person you're talking to, and insulting a DM you will never meet, as well as making up a host of assumptions.
This is also total hyperbole.
>nothing but shit GM's unable/unwilling to challenge casters in any capacity what so ever.
Its easy to challenge casters. That, however, is not what is discussed.
Point the First: If you allow people to "stunt" the rules, casters and martials both benefit, but casters do so more, as they have more to work with.
Point the Second: Whether the caster can be challenged by any okay DM that shows up (which he can), that doesn't affect whether allowing players to basically free form stuff favors martials or casters.
>>47555843
Rope Trick had a tendency to be seen as some kind of low level mage nuke.
>>47555832
I remember Glitterdust having a ridiculously short duration.
>>47555880
>Actually being glorified magic IT
>>47555906
Minimum duration is 3 rounds. Most fights against equal or lesser numbers tend to last only two rounds.
>>47555906
1 round/level.
Sure it is pretty small when you're a newbie. But even that allows a window for the rest of the party to deal quite a lot of damage.
At higher levels, it lasts long enough to get them all killed.
>>47555906
1 round per level, so 3 when you get it and only up from there.
>>47555932
>>47555931
>>47555927
And for reference, a spell that disables an entire enemy encounter to the same degree for one round is a steal of a deal in, say, 4e, even if you can only use it once per fight.
>>47555863
By default, if we assume 16 DEX for our Wizard and Barbarian, the numbers heavily favor the Wizard.
The wizard, with green scorpion, the divination wizard ability, and improved initiative, has a +12 bonus to their initiative at level 1. This bonus will also increase further thanks to a combination of stat progression at every fourth level and the wizard gaining more levels.
A Barbarian by contrast will only really gain the benefits from his DEX, and improved initiative if he decides to take it instead of a feat that would help to increase damage. At the end of the day, he'd only receive a +7 bonus at level 1.
This also doesn't take into account spells and magic items that increase initiative, which would, again, heavily favor the wizard since they have the ability to not only access these spells but also produce these magic items.
>>47555848
Anything that would feasibly ruin the caster's day would be practically impossible for the martial to overcome.
It's just easier to play another system at that point.
>>47555932
>>47555931
>>47555927
Are you assuming your caster starts with an 18 or something? I'm pretty sure I've had enemies make that save more often than not.
>>47555832
Haha, it doesn't allow a save against the stealth/hide penalty. It does allow for a save against the blindness however it's only a 10ft radius...You would have to be up against...idiots to clump up in that for you?
>>47555858
>As opposed to the Fighter, whose arrows also only affect one creature at a time, and has to land two of them, and is doing this instead of just killing something. And this is the Wizard just trying to match what the Fighter is doing, instead of just doing something outright better.
The spell has a range of 110 ft, comparable to a a composite bow, except it can go for a maximum of 1,110. Wizard caps at 200 at level 20. The fighter can easily get off three or four arrows in a turn, while that wizard can maybe get off two assuming he burns a quickened spell. Both are aiming to disable the target so not killing them isn't an issue. Obviously if killing them was the ideal thing to do over blinding them then both have reasonable means to do so. I mean I'm just not seeing where the wizard is doing this better, 2 potentially blinded targets or 2 attempts at blinding a target compared to 3 or 4 targets or attempts that has a higher range?
>Yep, welcome to why 'martials can be more creative' is a dumb argument.
Not really, there are a 1000 ways to torture someone. Being creative in doing so is hardly limited to magic or mundane tools.
>Wrong, but the Wizarads aren't the best at replacing fighters. That's what the Druids are for.
Sorry, but none of your examples actually proved the Wizard to be better at blinding someone with an arrow than a fighter can. You could spend a spell to cast true strike but you have to wait another turn to attack, meanwhile the fighter has 2 or 4 times to do so to your 1 or 2 at best. Wizard summons are pretty weak too, and the same can be said for Druids as well. I mean if you sit there and let the Druid buff himself and his companion to all hell fine but the fighter probably just fucking killed them
>>47555963
I can easily, as a DM, imagine something that fits the bill.
I also realize, as a DM, that I'm not actually bound by the rulebook in everyway and that rules lawyers can find another table if they really plan on implying the game should always be played to the expectations of the "sacred RAW" (which relies on interpretation just as much as everything else)
>>47555982
If we're talking about any legitimately optimized caster, you're looking at 20 stat plus at least +1 from Spell Focus, so baseline DC of 17 or more at first level.
>>47547294
What a stupid misreading of the rules. No rule states you can't carry 2 shield, but you only get the deflection bonus of one, because bonuses of the same kind don't stack. Additionally, you could but attack with both weapons and then draw more under any interpretation, due to the rules for attacking as a full action. You couldn't even sneak attack more than once.
>>47555994
Then fucking tell us, jackass. Come on, lay it on us.
>>47555987
The fighter shoots an arrow to blind, and misses.
The Wizard casts true strike, shoots an arrow, and nails the enemy in the brain.
>>47555876
> You mean EVERYONE has access to those, except casters can also pick up feats to make them for half price, so they get better access as well
thankfully pf introduced the mastercraftsman feat, so you could potentially keep up as a martial if you've got the skill-points/feats to spare.
>Come up with a challenge a martial can solve that a caster can't that doesn't involve an anti-magic field.
Kill something with an improvised weapon as your only tool? I mean this doesn't hold much weight considering the martial can solve all his problems the way the caster does if you're playing buy the rules.
Need to fly?
Buy Potion/magic item
Need to swim?
Buy potion/magic item
Need to be invisible?
Buy potion/magic item
Social Campaign?
Buy potion/magic item
>>47555951
This. Even a spell that only disables the entire encounter for 1 round already allows your party to do massive unopposed damage to your enemies.
Given the rocket-taggy nature of D&D 3.5 combat having an encounter that isn't over or at least in the mop-up phase by round 3 means your party is too weak for the encounter unless it's a high level boss.
>>47555952
Most barbarians are STR based though, so 16 DEX is pretty damn generous even with 32 point buy. It's very likely going to be only 10-12 with a 14 at most for very high point builds.
Same thing for wizards who likely won't go over 14 DEX before racial boni (but elven wizards get great ACFs in 3.5, so there's that).
Also: Nerveskitter for another +5 once you can afford to spend the 1st level slots on it or buy a wand.
And all that ignores that D&D is not actually a PvP game. It doesn't matter which PC kills which other PC how easy - what matters is how you deal with the challenges presented by the game, not all of which are combat.
For a full caster that's "a really fucking big toolbox". For a fighter or barbarian it's "i can stab it with my sword" and 2-3 maxed out skills of you're lucky.
>>47547294
>warrior/rogue
>min-maxing
That's just being effective.
>>47555994
It's not that it's necessarily hard to come up with something that negates magic, it's the fact that in the process of nerfing casters, you've rendered martials even more irrelavant because they depend on magic just as much as casters do.
A caster can afford to lose one spell out of the 30-40 or so they have available. A martial without the aid of magic items/weapons/armors/etc. is basically worthless.
>>47547646
>dragon
>sleep
>dragon
>bad saves
>dragon
>not wrecking your weak d4 ass
>>47555982
>Are you assuming your caster starts with an 18 or something?
We can assume anything you like since ability scores raise saving throws and saving throws DC.
>I'm pretty sure I've had enemies make that save more often than not.
There are quite a few classes and types of enemies that have bad will saves and who will fail it more often than not.
Against an average enemy with a good will save? Say, a 3 HD creature? Its going to probably have a +3 will save when you get it, vs a DC of (lets assume a very sloppy wizard) 14. 50/50 chance of being wiped out of a fight.
>>47555987
>You would have to be up against...idiots to clump up in that for you?
Nope. 10' radius, remember? That covers quite a wide area, and most enemies in the game are melee, who have no choice but to clump up to fight.
>>47553042
>muh samefagging
Could somebody explain this meme to me please? Are we just supposed to post once and move on or something? I've been coming to this place for bloody years now and I don't have a clue what the fuck this meme is supposed to mean.
>>47556014
>overrating True Strike this much
>>47556003
Peasant Railgun was a misreading of the rules, Locate City Nuke was a misreading of the rules, most wish abuses were a misreading of the rules, wealth by level was never actually a rule, it's in the DMG as a recommendation (which is stated in the text), Pun-Pun required cheating, most wish and gate based exploits required reading the rules in a way that selectively ignored everything either of these spells had that could go wrong, and so on and so on.
The god wizard builds required a party to carry them to the point where they started being useful.
A ton of 3e mathomancy was halfway between window licking and literally cheating.
>>47555885
I didn't mean to offend you, lol.
I'm not the original guy arguing over why martial can't be creative. I was discussing the fact that in general you're not likely to find a GM who would counter a caster as much as a martial.
My point was stunting the rules or not if you play the game how it's supposed to be played you have a free market and some kind of reasonable access to what you need for your specific quest or task at hand. Denying them access to that is no different than not allowing them a weapon, or allowing the caster his components or symbol or focus or whatever. So there's your first.
The second? I guess I already addressed. Free form or not it could go either way if you play to your strengths. See the arrow to the eye vs. blindness/deafness or glitterdust argument.
>>47547795
The thing is, Timmy cards aren't made to make people feel smug and superior for eschewing them because they know they aren't great. They're made to satisfy the player that just wants to cast the biggest spells or summon the biggest creatures because big effects and big creatures are awesome. These players may be new or inexperienced, but they're just as important to satisfy as the Spikes that want to win tournaments or Johnnies that want to combo their way to victory. Not to mention, there's plenty of room for overlap between the categories.
>>47556025
>Mastercraftsman
I mean, if you want to invest two feats minimum to do it, also skills, and a shitload of time, yes, technically that is a thing you can do.
Or you can be a caster and get access to spells that just do it natively, get feats that give you crafting ability automatically.
>Kill something
You are never realistically going to be without your weapon, or the ability to create something that counts as a proper weapon. As a caster, this goes double.
>Need to fly
Caster invests a single spell slot, martial needs to burn two feats and gold to do the same thing, and it deprives them of an item slot better spent on something else, and gold that could have been spent elsewhere. Also, potions are a horrible waste of gold 90% of the time.
>Swim
This will literally never matter because all the DCs for swim are so fucking low that an anemic peasant can complete them, or you can get a shitload of bonus by just investing one rank in the skill, or the caster can just cast a spell and TADA SOLVED.
>Invisible
Again, spell is way more efficient. A per-day use item of invisibility is going to cost way more than it's worth unless you're a rogue, or it's Greater Invis, and even greater invis is only really useful to the rogue.
>Social campaign
Charisma-based caster has literally every social skill as a class skill, enough ranks to take them all, gets a shitload of utility spells, and outperforms the martial in every concieveable way.
>>47556062
>I didn't mean to offend you
Your post wasn't addressed to me, so...
>I was discussing the fact that in general you're not likely to find a GM who would counter a caster as much as a martial.
You were equating some nonsense about "if a GM doesn't make casters = martials, then he's a shit GM who can't challenge casters." Of course you can challenge both, but making them "equal" is subjective and leads to very strange places.
Unless there's another way to interpret:
>Point is, you're the typical martials can't have nice things 3.5/pf crybaby who have had nothing but shit GM's unable/unwilling to challenge casters in any capacity what so ever.
> if you play the game how it's supposed to be played
I don't know how the game is "supposed" to be played. Actually, I do: its "supposed" to be played with, on average, one monster of a given CR vs a party of 4 of the same CR, and 13 encounters to levellup.
>>47553318
>doesn't know what the term ad hominen means
>starts bringing up peoples sex lives
Confirmed for retard.
>>47552928
Take your hurt feelings and go.
>>47556103
>Thinks ad hominem is about personal insults that have nothing to do with the argument
>>47555987
D&D combat rarely takes place in wide open spaces. A lot of it actually takes place in dungeons or other buildings, where a 10ft radius is most of a room or a big chunk of corridor.
>>47555982
Unless you roll your ability scores, yes. Even with a very low PB it should never be lower than 16.
And casters should put their available resources into increasing their saving throws. Spell Focus, + INT/WIS/CHA item, putting your ability increases into your casting stat, various items that increase spell DCs... That's not min-maxing, that's common sense.
>>47556025
Most peoples games do not, in fact, have unlimited gold for the party.
And martials need to spend quite a lot of their expected wealth on a weapon, armor and various items that cover their enormous list of weaknesses.
There really isn't that much left for "just buy a magic item" after you've covered the necessities unless your DM is incredibly generous with loot. Casters not only spend less on weapons, they can also cover a few of those weaknesses with spells, so they actually have more money to buy situationally useful magic items with.
>>47555952
The green scorpion isn't core though, in theory you could come up with a class feature or magic item that gave the Barbarian an initiative bonus to match that scorpion. After all you're allowing splat material for the Wizard in this example.
>>47556042
Most humanoid enemies have options for both ranged and melee combat though. I mean if you have this many people clumped up on you, you're fucked by AoOs/Flanks alone.
>>47556014
Wizard casts true strike, opposition throws up obscuring mist and you have no LoS.
Or even better, Fighter gets off 2 or 3 attacks against a target that can deflect one. Wizard spent one turn using true strike, and the next getting deflected.
>>47556030
Unlike the Barbarian, the Wizard can afford to invest in DEX since all they need is high INT.
Either way, D&D isn't a PVP game but it is built around the idea of optimization. If your character isn't pulling 100% efficiency, you're basically less capable than a hireling of equal level.
This is why trap options and the like exist, to trick new players and to give veterans an undeserved sense of superiority.
>>47556131
So basically what you're saying
Lemme get this straight
What you're saying
Is that the martial
Somehow
has a magical solution to the same exact tactic that just fucked the wizard
Despite NOT having anything that actually solves that
Meanwhile the wizard can use various swift-action teleports to move himself to regain LoS, then called shot the guy in the eye
It's almost like the only way to really play PF is to use magic, because only magic can legitimately defeat magic
>>47553318
>Accuses of ad hominem in the same breath as calling them a hypocritical faggot, continues on to declaring them a kissless virgin.
Boy, you sure showed him not to use insults instead of actually refuting arguments.
>>47556131
>Most humanoid enemies have options for both ranged and melee combat though.
These are among the weakest in the game for their CR, their ranged attacks are generally weaker than their melee attacks, and they are fighting with one hand behind their back against casters in such a situation as they give up their shot at trying to corner them with AoOs and so forth.
>I mean if you have this many people clumped up on you, you're fucked by AoOs/Flanks alone.
Er, your image points out that a glitterdust covers an area that is a 5x5 cube with the corners taken out. Again, by the standards of people used to 4e, that's a fucking HUGE area. I use big damn battlefields and even if the enemy's main concern is spreading out, its really fucking hard and impractical to spread out that much.
And if the enemy wishes to engage in melee, they probably lose any hope of being able to spread out, almost automatically putting themselves into nice, tight areas to glitterbomb.
>>47554020
2E is a clusterfuck. Take your nostalgoogles off. That shit's too tight it's affecting your brain.
>>47551876
Still enjoying 3.5?
>>47547795
>system mastery
What pretentious nerd bullshit. Literally anyone can google all this stupid shit on the rules
>>47556131
>Wizard casts true strike, opposition throws up obscuring mist and you have no LoS.
How are you casting obscuring mist?
Also, true strike gives you a +20 to your attack roll. If anything, it'd be considered concealment.
>>47556047
It's when you act like you're multiple people, usually to pad your own arguments or votes. It's also an easy way to discount a large amount of opinions as irrelevant.
>>47556073
>I mean, if you want to invest two feats minimum to do it, also skills, and a shitload of time, yes, technically that is a thing you can do.
Or you can be a caster and get access to spells that just do it natively, get feats that give you crafting ability automatically.
Good, glad you see my point here. Fighter will have a harder time matching the Cleric in making wondrous items, but the same could be said for a Cleric that wants to wade into the frontlines without taking two or three turns to buff.
>You are never realistically going to be without your weapon, or the ability to create something that counts as a proper weapon. As a caster, this goes double.
You would in the challenge you asked me to create...
>Caster invests a single spell slot, martial needs to burn two feats and gold to do the same thing, and it deprives them of an item slot better spent on something else, and gold that could have been spent elsewhere. Also, potions are a horrible waste of gold 90% of the time.
Objectively false, sure sink all your money into making that +2 weapon and find it useless when the opponent is flying out of range and you can't. Martials get more bang for their buck out of potions than casters by raw, since casters have access to their benefits with their spells. If that martial gets fucked up and the caster isn't around to heal him that investment in a cure serious wounds potion would do him better than more damage. I've seen people die to something as simple as bleed damage from cancerous mentality like this.
>Swim
To be fair I should've elaborated on going underwater for a long period of time. Which again, potion/magic item TADA!
>Invisible
Never mind the tactical advantage a melee fighter would have with greater invisibility, +2 to attack, 50% concealment, INVISIBLE.
>Social Campaign
You really only described the Bard, martial would get a shitload of utility items/weapons in a social campaign presumably because combat isn't the focus.
>ITT: pic related
>>47552759
>called shot
>playing 3.PF
>>47556249
The cleric has a number of buffs with hour per level duration of 10 minutes per level, easilly allowing them to buff far before the fight.
>Using potions
>Not just having your caster make a fucking scroll and investing in UMD
>Not just having the caster just cast the spell on you
>Again, potions
>Invisibility
>What is True Seeing, Blindsight, and Blindsense, and Tremorsense, and a number of other ways to negate blindness
>Bard
Oh, I'm sorry, do the Oracle, Sorceror, DSP Warlord, the charisma-based Druid archetype, various 3pp charisma casters, kinda-sorta Arcanist, kinda-sorta Cleric, Paladin, and at least one Inquisitor not count?
>>47556102
>Your post wasn't addressed to me, so...
I mean you came off as particularly offended at my non specific-name calling. Based on your reaction here: >>47555885
I pretty much assumed you took it personally for some reason and got nothing else out of my post.
> You were equating some nonsense about "if a GM doesn't make casters = martials, then he's a shit GM who can't challenge casters." Of course you can challenge both, but making them "equal" is subjective and leads to very strange places.
It's hardly nonsense, in most of the examples of caster supremacy they're granted explicit favortism. Summoning a bear to do the fighters job for example is a very easy act to punish. Just as a fighter can be punished for sinking all his gold into his weapons to do damage and has absolutely no utility of his own. Can't even climb a wall because all he has to his name is the most powerful weapon his WBL will allow.
Making them "equal" means being able to effectively challenge the party composition and do your basic job as a GM. I mean you can throw big bad melee monsters at your party but no counter spelling magic masters? Charmers who turn your summons against you? etc. My point was that in most games people aren't creative enough when it comes to opposing casters and that's what leads to state of affairs 3.5/PF is in. And why 4e and 5e really don't solve them.
>I don't know how the game is "supposed" to be played. Actually, I do: its "supposed" to be played with, on average, one monster of a given CR vs a party of 4 of the same CR, and 13 encounters to levellup.
I guess you were right the first time. 1 monster versus CR 4 leads to a one-way roflstomp by mechanics alone. Either the monster has to be too strong to challenge them, or the PCs are going to win on action economy alone. Mix it up, throw a trap or hazard or minions or something in there. Nothing wrong with the solo fight every now and then but that's stuff you got to account for in a challenge.
>>47556151
Unless you plan to specialize in ranged touch spells i'd rather get 16 CON on a wizard than 16 DEX (after maxing INT of course). Unless you plan to go necropolitan i guess.
And there really is no need to go 100% efficiency, or every veteran would always play a full caster.
The point is to have fun after all, and a well-built martial can be plenty of fun. He's just not as strong as a well-built caster, which is why most veterans i know either limit themselves to keep the game fun or play a weaker option and optimize that. And warn the newer players away from trap options.
And that's all it is in the end. 3.5 has its balance issues, but it can be plenty of fun if you have a good group and i like the wealth of options it gives players.
If you have a that guy in the group he'll optimize far beyond the rest of the party and make everyone else a spectator to his mary-sue fantasy, which is where most bad 3.5 experiences come from imo.
But even in a game with better balance that guy will find a way to ruin it for the rest, because he's that guy.
>>47556249
Ingesting a potion provokes an attack of opportunity and it also prevents you from making a full round action.
Healing in combat is also a waste of a turn because unless you're fighting something that's much much much weaker than you, the damage you heal isn't going to make up for the damage you're going to take once your opponent makes their own attack(s) against you.
Think about it, you're trading the opportunity to deal damage and kill the threat to prolong your life for a turn, maybe even less, and worse still, you're spending gold and an item slot to do it.
If you must use healing, invest it in a wand or something.
>>47556124
D&D combat rarely takes place in wide open spaces. A lot of it actually takes place in dungeons or other buildings, where a 10ft radius is most of a room or a big chunk of corridor.
Which again would beg for a generous GM/DM to give you all the enemies clumped up and not shutting down the caster before he can cast somehow.
>Most peoples games do not, in fact, have unlimited gold for the party.
And martials need to spend quite a lot of their expected wealth on a weapon, armor and various items that cover their enormous list of weaknesses.
There really isn't that much left for "just buy a magic item" after you've covered the necessities unless your DM is incredibly generous with loot. Casters not only spend less on weapons, they can also cover a few of those weaknesses with spells, so they actually have more money to buy situationally useful magic items with.
Which kinda relates back to my first point in playing the game properly, martials need situational useful magic items more than casters since casters have access to their benefits by default and martials do not.
>>47556328
>I pretty much assumed you took it personally for some reason and got nothing else out of my post.
What can I say, this level of hyperbole gets old:
>Point is, you're the typical martials can't have nice things 3.5/pf crybaby who have had nothing but shit GM's unable/unwilling to challenge casters in any capacity what so ever.
>Making them "equal" means being able to effectively challenge the party composition and do your basic job as a GM.
You can't seem to make up your mind. The DM's job isn't to make the samurai and the artificer equal, period, and yes it is nonsense. You are attempting to equate a number of disparate things -- primarily, "challenging" wizards (an unambiguous good thing) vs "making them equal to fighters" (a subjective somethingorother of questionable value).
>but no counter spelling magic masters? Charmers who turn your summons against you?
Producing challenges =! making the wizard and the fighter "equal."
>and that's what leads to state of affairs 3.5/PF is in.
You don't seem to understand what the conversation is about. When people say wizards>fighters, its a simple declaration of fact. Read up on the tier system. It has absolutely nothing to do with bad DMing. Think about that carefully. Regardless of whether the DM sets out to produce a world full of challenges for mage types or not, that doesn't affect their standing in the tier system.
>I guess you were right the first time.
Man, you are struggling with reading comprehension today. How the game is "supposed" to be played means how the developers intended for it to be played.
> Mix it up, throw a trap or hazard or minions or something in there.
No shit. Few people play the game how its "supposed" to be played, they generally play it better.
>>47556154
What I'm saying in a sarcastic manor of jest is that you're providing heavily biased favor toward the wizard in the scenarios provided.
The deflect arrows scenario isn't' even a magical solution.
Also the LOS in an Obscuring Mist is like what...5 ft? Good luck.
You're kinda part of the problem with PF.
>>47556330
>Unless you plan to specialize in ranged touch spells i'd rather get 16 CON on a wizard than 16 DEX (after maxing INT of course). Unless you plan to go necropolitan i guess.
The point I was making was, the wizard can afford to invest in it and gain a little extra out of their initiative bonus.
I agree though, CON is a more valuable asset overall but if that's what the Wizard wants to invest in, they have the option.
>And there really is no need to go 100% efficiency, or every veteran would always play a full caster.
Everyone with even a shred of awareness of Pathfinder's design will always recommend a full caster over anything else, simply because it's where the bulk of your efficiency will come from.
Most people who run Martials do it because they want to prove how not shit martials are and how weak casters truly are, even though it requires you to either ignore the rules or outright break them.
>The point is to have fun after all, and a well-built martial can be plenty of fun. He's just not as strong as a well-built caster, which is why most veterans i know either limit themselves to keep the game fun or play a weaker option and optimize that. And warn the newer players away from trap options.
Unfortunately, having fun in Pathfinder can only be done in spite of the system, not because of it.
You shouldn't have to dedicate months of play just to play the character you want to play.
You shouldn't have to choose a "weaker" option just so everyone has an opportunity to have fun with one another.
You shouldn't have one group of classes that are so powerful, they set the pace for the difficulty of the average encounter.
Lastly, you shouldn't have options that are designed to be shit to trick newbies.
>But even in a game with better balance that guy will find a way to ruin it for the rest, because he's that guy.
Except that Pathfinder encourages rules lawyers and power gamers by rewarding system mastery and optimization.
>>47556330
>And there really is no need to go 100% efficiency, or every veteran would always play a full caster.
To do a minor quibble, there are a few non-fullcaster types that are largely considered worth it: artificer (not sure if 6/9 counts), spellthief (infinite spell likes if nothing else are worth -something-), factotum (action economy and versatility), and warblades (white raven tactics = dole out free actions to allies). But yeah.
>>47556433
Listen, guy, I know that you're bad and math is hard and all that, but actually look at the system. The problem with PF is the fucking ridiculously retarded SJW jackasses purposely keeping martials from being good because, and this is literally a quote from James Jacobs, "We need to keep the status-quo set out in the core book"
>>47547294
Ill take this character to a high tier tea party and watch him fail charisma checks miserably.
>>47556489
Things had been getting better, but we probably won't reach parity before the heat death of the universe, at this rate.
I just wonder what the wizard equivalent in Starfinder will do to lord it over the silly people who just want to play space-fighters.
>>47556527
I mean, the wizard equivalent is just a wizard with the technomancer archetype, or just a normal wizard since the systems are the same. Starfinder is just an expansion.
If you weren't a bleach-chugging retard, you'd know that.
>>47556433
You are comparing a guy with a level 1 spell vs a guy with level 1 spell. Both are equally likely to be a wizard.
>You're kinda part of the problem with PF.
People who get personally upset over frank discussions of balance are the problem.
>>47556180
>These are among the weakest in the game for their CR, their ranged attacks are generally weaker than their melee attacks, and they are fighting with one hand behind their back against casters in such a situation as they give up their shot at trying to corner them with AoOs and so forth.
Anecdotal evidence I assume?
Because a 10ft radius accounts for 23 squares, and only 8 of them can possibly join you in melee. Maybe more if they're using reach weapons? You would have to be pretty lucky to beat their initiative and blind them all first. Even then in a small room that many enemies, finding you while blind is actually possible. You would've been better off blasting them.
>>47556180
I've never played 4e, can't comment one what's typical there. Regardless unless they're on par with the party (and they're not unless the GM is an ass) spreading out is really there only viable tactic. Basic formations for skirmish is their only hope of causing any true trouble to the party, clumping them all up to get rektd by one spell is hardly a "challenge".
>>47556242
By being another caster? A spell like ability? Or maybe a smokestick?
+20 to your attack roll means nothing if you can't actually see your target. Your spells that target a creature don't either, AoE's help though.
Started with 3.5, reading 2e right now. Is it more or do feats hurt the fighter more than help? In ad&d a 0 lvl commoner can do more stuff without penalties than a 1 lvl 3.5 fighter.
>>47556340
You don't ingest a potion in melee combat obviously unless they're out of AoOs, and if making a full attack is a better idea then you do that instead of drawing your potion and drinking it.
I never said anything about healing in combat either, the entire point of potions is to cover things you can't do. For example you took bleed damage somehow and the healer too busy to heal you, or the healer is actually incapacitated and needs to be healed. etc.
Not every encounter is a damage race, not to mention plenty of classes and builds that can actually heal in combat quite effectively.
>>47556576
>Anecdotal evidence I assume?
Nope. 20 years of DMing and playing. Some things never change, though.
>Because a 10ft radius accounts for 23 squares, and only 8 of them can possibly join you in melee.
Guess what? You're not the only combatant involved, and they will generally have to get closer to approach you, depending on layout. I use primarily use TSR and WotC maps, neither of which tend to enable huge amounts of space. They have to approach from somewhere.
>You would have to be pretty lucky to beat their initiative and blind them all first.
You can't seem to decide whether you want a large outdoor plain battle or an indoor battle, but suffice to say indoors its borderline impossible to avoid clumping together, wherein keeping 6 squares between you and all your allies is the norm.
>spreading out is really there only viable tactic.
Good fucking luck. Completely improbable for melee enemies, still hard for ranged/caster enemies.
>clumping them all up to get rektd by one spell is hardly a "challenge".
We're not discussing clumping up, is the problem. Keeping 6 squares of distance between you and all your allies is very difficult, and often counterproductive.
>>47556602
Feats either lock useful abilities behind obnoxious prerequisites or make basic abilities for heroic characters something that necessitate a feat in order to avoid penalties.
In older versions of D&D, you just did it and hoped you passed the roll.
>>47556602
Its many things: scaling saving throws, fighters having going from having among the best save progression to among the worst, monsters getting strength scores (and VERY high strength scores), free attacks on you with reach, etc. Its a mess.
