More Threads that make us Laugh, Cry, or Both

[Username17]

All you have shown me is someone who spends a lot of time thinking about D&D and looking through sourcebooks and very little time actually considering holistic effects and/or playing the game. It appears that he's like any of a dozen regular posters to the charop board (though I don't know if JaronK is specifically a charop board person).

Cleric/Rogue Gestalt must be bad because Rogues have to concentrate on Int and Dex; but Druid/Monk is strong because they both focus on Wisdom. That's the kind of statement that comes from in-the-box thinking. Nothing forces a Rogue to concentrate on Int and Dex. They don't have to concentrate on anything. Their class features and skill list follow them around regardless of what stats they focus on. The Rogue can, in short, simply add its formiddable Sneak Attack and useful non-combat skills directly to a standard melee cleric and you lose nothing. Meanwhile, the Monk's only meaningful contribution to giant panda form is Wisdom to AC - which a Druid could get any way with a Monk's Belt.

Also, I have no idea what he intends to do as an Archivist/Artificer that he wouldn't do better as a Wizard/Artificer. Archivists make scrolls which are neither arcane nor divine, meaning that Archivists can't activate them or learn spells off of them. On the other hand, the Wizard can't activate them but he can learn spells off them. So if his plan was some sort of scribing spells to cycle into your own spell's known loop, a Wizard can (technically) do that and an archivist cannot.

Basically the guy is just putting Internet Memes together. His rolodex of established tricks is impressive, but he seems to have no grasp whatsoever on which of those tricks actually work, why, or whether these tricks are even good in actual play.

-Username17

[Neeek]

I just re-read the Gestalt rules. Wow, are they incredibly vague on how leveling up works. As in there is no information whatsoever.

So what the Fort save of a Fighter 2/(Ranger 1 + Paladin 1)happens to be is entirely unclear.

[Fwib]

Not quite 'none whatsoever' but it is certainly unclear what 'a similar procedure' means you do.

[Username17]

The writeup in Unearthed Arcana is bad, but they do say that you take the best of your character classes - meaning that multiclassing is a really bad idea as far as saves go - because at that point you might have four different classes which all provide a +3 Fort Save - fo a total of +3 (not +6).

The CharOp people seem to have latched on to the idea that they should be allowed to keep track of a total save bonus for the "left" and the "right" and then take the better of those for Fort, Reflex, and Will. Some of them seem to go so far as to claim that they take the better of the sides each level, which is blatantly not the case because the examples in the book don't give Fighter/Wizards (or whatever) a +4 Fort at 3rd level.

The most narrow reading of that book is that you get either the "Good" save progression or the "Bad" save progression for your character level, getting the "Good" progression so long as you have taken at least one class somewhere in there with a Good progression in that save. The most castigatory reading is that you get the highest save of any single one class you have taken.

A Fighter 2 / (Ranger 1/Paladin 1) would have a Fort save of +3. They would have a Will Save of +0, and would have a Reflex Save of +2 or +3 depending upon what you think any of this means. There are CharOp people who are trying to convinces you that the answer is +4 Fort save, but that is because their rules cheese fu isn't strong enough to make actual rules loop holes.

-Username17

[Leress]

As a sample, here's a spellcasting pirate build I made a while ago: Rogue 13/Swashbuckler 3/Scarlet Corsair 3/Assassin 1//Beguiler 11/Mindbender 1/Shadowcraft Mage 5/Sea Witch 3. When I make the same level 20 character without Gestalt, it's just Beguiler 11/Mindbender 1/Shadowcraft Mage 5/Sea Witch 3. For comparison, the non gestalt character (assuming fractional BAB and saves, which is highly recommended in gestalt, and useful in normal play), has For 11 Ref 6 Will 18 as a base set of saves. The gestalt version, however, has 16/14/18. That's a pretty big difference. You seem to be assuming that someone who's in gestalt won't bounce around through classes nearly as much as a non gestalt but I haven't found this to be true.

How in the hell did that person get those numbers. I don't have all the books that these classes come from but it looks very suspicious.

[Jacob_Orlove]

My favorite is where they put Wizard 20 on one side of the progression and then something like Fighter 1/Sorcerer 19 on the other side, and argue that because the Wizard and Sorcerer levels stagger their BAB increases, they simply get +1 BAB per level, for a total of +20 at level 20.

The rules are very specific that you add one pair of levels at a time, but also that you take the best "progression". It's a mess, and one that's not even interesting to try to salvage.

[JonSetanta]

1198871611[/unixtime]]

As a sample, here's a spellcasting pirate build I made a while ago: Rogue 13/Swashbuckler 3/Scarlet Corsair 3/Assassin 1//Beguiler 11/Mindbender 1/Shadowcraft Mage 5/Sea Witch 3. When I make the same level 20 character without Gestalt, it's just Beguiler 11/Mindbender 1/Shadowcraft Mage 5/Sea Witch 3. For comparison, the non gestalt character (assuming fractional BAB and saves, which is highly recommended in gestalt, and useful in normal play), has For 11 Ref 6 Will 18 as a base set of saves. The gestalt version, however, has 16/14/18. That's a pretty big difference. You seem to be assuming that someone who's in gestalt won't bounce around through classes nearly as much as a non gestalt but I haven't found this to be true.

How in the hell did that person get those numbers. I don't have all the books that these classes come from but it looks very suspicious.

They used this ability..

Flurry of Numbers (Su): Gain an additional attack for each number spewed out in a rambling manner. This overwhelming quantity of calculations allows you to get away with the ability Rules Cheese. While the dazzling digits are impressive against most, they will automatically fail in the presence of an experienced optimizer.

[Leress]

Wouldn't that be an (Ex) ability?

[Username17]

No, it doesn't have a tag, it's like spellcasting. You can make weirder arguments that way.

In any case, his basic premise is that if you use Fractional Save Bonuses AND allow people to get the 1st level Save Bonuses more than once AND allow people to take the total save bonus from all the classes on "A side" and add them together to form a super save and use that as your "Gestalt Progression" then your saves would be really high.

Which I guess is true. If you used that particular set of optional rules, house rules, and non-standard interpretations, then indeed by 20th level your saves would be large.

-Username17

[JonSetanta]

Naw it's not (Ex) because it won't work in the low-Cheese environment that is any other forum outside of the Chaotic Limbo of CharOp.

[Voss]

I never quite figured out why someone thought the Gestalt characters were a good idea to put in a book. Even in a shitty, optional book like UA. Beyond, of course, a subtle admission that they recognized that a good chunk of their player base was too stupid to modify the fucked up CR system for less than 4 players.

[Koumei]

Gestalt is a mess, as already pointed out. Even if they did make it clear though, I'd still hate it. Here's a novel idea for creating stronger characters: give them higher levels and/or a higher point-buy. Don't have as many PCs? Lower the challenges they face!

Pure rocket science, I tell you.

[SunTzuWarmaster]

I happen to like Gesalt, just not for what it was originally intended for. D&D is a cooperative storytelling game where the DM makes a world and the characters do awesome things. Gesalt makes doing awesome things much easier. I mean come on, the Druid/Monk that uses the powers of nature to transform in to a Tekken Karate Panda with Flaming (Produce Flame) paws is totally awesome. A Rogue/Wizard that uses Invisibility, Blink, and Expeditious Retreat to simply walk into a compound and sneak-shank a leader is awesome (level 5). The Cleric/Warblade that casts buffs and heals from the front lines while full attacking is awesome.

Aside from being difficult to calculate, their heart was in the right place in an attempt to make some fairly non-standard characters using existing standard abilities. It has the side effect of covering up any bad classes (The Fighter/Druid never notices that the fighter side sucks badly because all of the fighter abilities are giving bonuses to druid abilities). However, it gets crazy-difficult on paperwork past level 3. It is much more difficult to make a character that is not level-appropriate when you are getting things from 2 sides of the coin. Even a Fighter-Monk or Paladin-Ranger doesn't completely suck nuts (well, not as much as normal anyways).

However, it has the side-effects of making spellcasting even more powerful, and dumpster-dive-for-feats-foo taken to a whole new level.

[Leress]

Well here is the build...

Here it is.

Whispergnome Pirate Spellcaster

Rogue 1//Beguiler 1 Spell Focus Illusion
Rogue 2//Beguiler 2
Swashbuckler 1//Beguiler 3 Heighten Spell
Swashbuckler 2//Beguiler 4
Swashbuckler 3//Beguiler 5
Rogue 3//Mindbender 1 Earth Sense
Scarlet Corsair 1//Beguiler 6
Scarlet Corsair 2//Beguiler 7
Rogue 4//Shadowcraft Mage 1 Earth Spell
Rogue 5//Shadowcraft Mage 2
Rogue 6//Shadowcraft Mage 3
Rogue 7//Shadowcraft Mage 4 Easy Metamagic (Heighten Spell)
Rogue 8//Shadowcraft Mage 5
Scarlet Corsair 3//Beguiler 8
Rogue 9//Sea Witch 1 Arcane Thesis (Silent Image)
Rogue 10//Sea Witch 2
Rogue 11//Sea Witch 3
Rogue 12//Beguiler 9 Residual Metamagic
Rogue 13//Beguiler 10
Assassin 1//Beguiler 11

Totals: BAB 16, 9d6 Sneak Attack, For +14, Ref +16, Wil +18

Now, if you're crazy enough not to use Fractional BAB, those get much higher, but that is unwise to say the least.

JaronK

IN OTHER NEWS...

Unfortunately, I didn't have room(there's a cap off on how much crap it'll let me type). That was how you make a system. You use that logic that one player class should have as good a chance at beating another player class as being beat itself by the opposing player class. It's the ideal way to create an RPG. It starts with coming up with some rough estimates of what might be what power. From there you test & fine tune until it's not a broken piece annoyance(like GURPS).

Umm...GURPS is very breakable, like any other point based system game.

Since we don't have that luxury, we instead take the classes that don't suck(Samurai & Swashbuckler are balanced towards/weaker than Fighter, & Fighter is kinda under powered itself). How you pick classes for comparison is pretty simple. Take some of the more potent core classes for comparison. Ranger & Barbarian for melee. Cleric & Wizard for casters. And Rogue for stealthy type thingy(it gets it by default, though Rogue often does a good job of doing what it's supposed to do).

How would you know that a Ranger is more potent than a fighter or any other class. You can't just pull that out of thin air.

A good Barbarian(or any halfway decent one) usually stomps Fighter into the ground. While a Ranger, not only does decently against the Fighter in combat, but kicks the crap out of it in the Skills department, too. Ranger & Barbarian are good combat classes. Paladin is usually just taken up to lv 6 and abandoned for a prestige class(Fighter suffers from that too, but usually, people get out of it after lv 4). Once you've taken 6 lvs in Paladin, there's little reason keep going in it & Fighter's a dip & prestige into something else class.

Many of those problems happen either before the class is even taken (feats in the case of the fighter) or a first level (Paladins not having casting and reduced turning).

By beefing up Fighter(& all the classes that used Fighter for a power comparison) to the point where it better compares to Ranger & Barbarian(not greatly exceeding either, but not being stomped into the ground by them, either), you would balance melee against one another. Though, it might would help to give Monk full BAB(but don't give them any more than that).

But each of those classes fill a different niche or just only overlap. You can only compare classes like that if they are meant to completely replace.

That won't, however, change the fact that the casters will still stomp melee guys into the ground. So, the caster guys would either have to be toned down or have all the melee guys beefed up more. I'd avoid doing either, since the casters have a few key weakness that the melee guys(if they're smart) can take advantage of. If all the martial classes are balanced towards the strong ones of the category, then the power gap between casters & combat guys can be bridged with good strategy.

Good strategy can only go so far. The numbers don't lie many of the "strategies" that are done don't work so well against the monster you are suppose to fight. A level appropriate full caster will still most likely eat your lunch and tell you to go fix them a sandwich.

However, I would have the casters balanced against one another. Druid, Cleric, & Wizard are the 3 best casters in the game. Cleric & Druid have a combination of blasting, utility, & healing pretty early on(Wizards have to use a few tricks to get themselves healing, but they can still pull it off with relative ease). Of those 3, Druid is the one that needs to be scaled back the most. 9th lv spells + Wild shape + Animal Companion = Holy crap that's mean. Wild Shape can be watered down by just about any variant for it in existence & Animal Companion can always be scaled back(like how the Ranger's is). If that doesn't cut it, the Shapeshift variant in PHB2 will. Wizard's fine as is. Cleric could stand to be toned down a little(turning them into a Spontaneous Caster would do that quite effectively). Sorcerer just needs 4 + Int Mod skill points & a limited selection of bonus feats at lvs 5, 10, 15, & 20(they seriously over-estimated Spontaneous Casting).

I agree with the over-estimation of Spontaneous casting since you are nerfed beyond belief. Giving them bonus is help but really doesn't actually matter all that much.

Using Shape-shift doesn't make it that much better. It has is own host of problems. Natural Spell still makes you cry. Making the Animal companion like the ranger's...you might as well just take it off the list all together.

Changing Cleric into spontaneous divine does absolutely nothing to change the power of the class.

The Repsonse:

I said Gurps was broken(cause it is... it also sucks too, but that's not the point)

I read Lone's sentence wrong.

I've played a Ranger & I've played a Fighter. In that experience, I find Ranger to be an overall better & more solid class(although Ranger needs very minor improvements).

The basic power of Codzilla is that most of the spells it needs it only needs to cast once, meaning that if you've got 5 spells per day for a given spell lv, you can prepare 1 of each spell you need, thus having 5 spells in your arsenal, rather than the one to three(or less at higher spell lvs) spells with spontaneous casting(because their spells known means that they . By giving them only a few spells available at any given point in their career, you weaken them. I've actually played 2 clerics in 2 games, one Spontaneous, one prepared. The prepared one ended up kicking more arse than the spontaneous one(I was actually really surprised by that one).

Shapeshift in PHB 2 doesn't let you use Natural Spell & you don't don't get the Animal Companion. Shapeshift single-handedly waters the Druid down a lot.

[Surgo]

We need to get back to threads that make us laugh or cry instead of arguments with idiots. I mean, I know there has been a bit of a dearth lately because linking to the WotC boards is just too easy, but still.

[Leress]

1198902967[/unixtime]]We need to get back to threads that make us laugh or cry instead of arguments with idiots. I mean, I know there has been a bit of a dearth lately because linking to the WotC boards is just too easy, but still.

Fair enough.

[Username17]

Now, if you're crazy enough not to use Fractional BAB, those get much higher, but that is unwise to say the least.

He means "lower."

Basically he just said "my builds are optimum under my house rules, and if you don't use my house rules, you are crazy!"

Whatever dude.

-Username17

[Catharz]

1198916848[/unixtime]]

Now, if you're crazy enough not to use Fractional BAB, those get much higher, but that is unwise to say the least.

He means "lower."

Basically he just said "my builds are optimum under my house rules, and if you don't use my house rules, you are crazy!"

Whatever dude.

-Username17

Frank, I'm pretty sure he really does mean higher, and that he's referring to the Wizard 20//Fighter 1/Sorcerer 19.

[Crissa]

So, uhh... Half of half times twenty and half of whole plus half of half times nineteen?

@-@

Who cares?

-Crissa

[Fwib]

Referring to this strange theory:

1198871854[/unixtime]]My favorite is where they put Wizard 20 on one side of the progression and then something like Fighter 1/Sorcerer 19 on the other side, and argue that because the Wizard and Sorcerer levels stagger their BAB increases, they simply get +1 BAB per level, for a total of +20 at level 20.

The rules are very specific that you add one pair of levels at a time, but also that you take the best "progression". It's a mess, and one that's not even interesting to try to salvage.

[Koumei]

No, he's assuming it works like this:
Level 1: BAB +1 (Fighter 1)
Level 2: BAB +1 (Wizard 2)
Level 3: BAB +1 (Sorcerer 2)
Level 4: BAB +1 (Wizard 4)

And so on, up to BAB 20 at level 20.

Likewise, saves would be:
Fort +14 Ref +12 Will +22

So base Will is nearly double that of a standard class 1-20, and their worst save is still that of a standard class 1-20 that has it as a good save.

That being said, that's only one interpretation of how that works. You could also say they get BAB +10-11 (level one is +1, then 19 levels of a +1 per 2 levels class) and Fort +8, Ref +6 and Will +12. Not so clever now.

There's also the valid point Crissa made of "Who cares?" I'd go so far as to say "It doesn't fucking matter, it's stupid either way."

[Jacob_Orlove]

That's what I meant by staggered BAB increases, yeah.

Anyway, this thread is hilarious, as the posters quickly shift from mocking stupid arguments, to making them. The later pages are awesome:

Dumbest arguement you heard?

[MrWaeseL]

Oh boy anime!

[shirak]

1198902967[/unixtime]]We need to get back to threads that make us laugh or cry instead of arguments with idiots. I mean, I know there has been a bit of a dearth lately because linking to the WotC boards is just too easy, but still.

OK. Out of the first page of rpg.net we see:

1)Do you trust WotC to know D&D?
The OP convincingly argues that since Mike Mearls dislikes Keep of the Borderlands and some other designer dislikes "the old Barrier adventures" WotC has lost it. And people fvcking agree with him!

2) The Warlock from Complete Arcane
OP: Was I an idiot for choosing this class?
Others: Hellz no, Warlocks are teh rockxorz!!1!

3)lets make a setting using all of D&D concepts..
OP: Let's!
Others: Bah! Ptolus and Eberron do that already!

[Koumei]

Well, Ptolus and Eberron DO do that already. Just, poorly. Now, actually thinking the whole thing through, such as "D&D leads to the Wish Economy. Let's make that a standard part of the setting." and all would be kind of cool/funny.

Also, Tieflings apparently like having zig-zag based weapons. None of their weapons incorporate curves or long, straight lines. Zig-zags are the new in thing. Multiple pointy bits equals multiple wounds!