D&D Army Optimization (3e and/or Tome)

Reynard · Post by **Reynard** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 8:33 pm

> Given the absence of a rule saying that distance makes it easier to disbelieve illusions, I think that's bullshit.
You know, it is hilarious to hear about absence of rules dealing with long-distance illusions from you.

Of course there are no such rules. But if you are adding rules that make illusions completely indistinguishable from real things, then why can't I add rules that make illusions look unreal by default?

If mine are bullshit, than how are yours not bullshit?

So I say it's a viable extrapolation of the rules (if such extrapolation is necessary - of which I am not persuaded).

I'd say it is even more viable than your extrapolation, since mine does not require resorting to "common speech" or "context" or any other method of divining intentions of game designers (or mago-physics of the DnD). Everything is very firmly based on the existing rules and actual descriptions of illusions.

> Further, in context, it's pretty clear that it's supposed to contrast with [Phantasm]s, which look like different things to different people
Yes. It is stated they are "not personalized mental images". You (essentially) say they are not mental images, but optical, while I'm saying they are not personalized, but generalized mental images.

Since figments are also referred to as "false sensations", I believe my (bullshit) interpretation (mental images) makes more sense than your (bullshit) interpretation.

RadiantPhoenix · Post by **RadiantPhoenix** » Sat Feb 28, 2015 1:17 am

Reynard wrote:I'd say it is even more viable than your extrapolation, since mine does not require resorting to "common speech" or "context" or any other method of divining intentions of game designers (or mago-physics of the DnD). Everything is very firmly based on the existing rules and actual descriptions of illusions.

Please tell me you're just trolling, and not that fucking stupid.

Unlike the rules of Magic the Gathering, the rules of D&D are not computer code. They are not exactingly clear and unambiguous. It is absolutely necessary to consider context and common usage in order to understand what the intended meaning of a sentence is.

Reynard wrote:Of course there are no such rules. But if you are adding rules that make illusions completely indistinguishable from real things, then why can't I add rules that make illusions look unreal by default?

Because the entire fucking point of figments and glamers is that you can't tell that they're illusions.

What you're doing is seeing an ability that does something impressive, and then thinking, "What? Magic can do things? That must be wrong! How can I play with the words of the rules to make it sound like they meant for figments to be completely fucking worthless?"

The examples given of studying illusions are:

PHB wrote:If a party encounters a section of illusory floor, the character in the lead would receive a saving throw if she stopped and studied the floor or if she probed the floor.

Both of which imply needing to be very close to the illusion in order to pierce it.

tussock · Post by **tussock** » Sat Feb 28, 2015 9:37 am

Reynard wrote:[
tussock:
> Wizards work a lot like hardened close air support, airborne engineers, airlift MBTs, and AWAC units all in one
How exactly?

Like, overland flight, prot v arrows, stoneskin, minor globe, and a wand of fireballs and then entire English army just dies. You have walls of stone and iron and fun by mid levels, or mud to rock to help the final charge, or rock to mud to put the English in a worse position. You can summon a lot of melee monsters directly into melee (many of which will not die to mere armies), and you have message and clairvoyance and detect this and that to see what is happening and tell people who need to know.

The defence vs armies spells just get better and better. You can be a Balor eventually.

If you feel like taking some time to do things to the battlefield earlier, there can be a lot of illusionary walls and hallucinatory terrains and other vision-blocking shit that you can see through quite happily, or bind up some things that are functionally immune to armies and leave them ready to pop out of a small hole and eat everyone.

18 damage is useless in D&D, but against armies of War1 who mostly cannot do shit to stop you, you and your wand are a god. Once they scatter into foxholes, things change, but everything changes, which was my point, about the heroes sniping each other.

Pathfinder's wands are less good, but their casters in general are quite a lot better.

IMO, if high-level caster acts like MBT, he is not being an ICBM, while low-level casters don't have the range or mobility to be anything else but forlorn hope/shock troops (with all the life expectancy that entails).

Low level Wizards are not tanks, it's true. A 1st level Wizard can still pick up a wand from a fallen foe or friend and zap it a time or two, or just cast Colour Spray or Sleep a couple times and be mostly responsible for killing 4 to 8 War1. Which is better than a 1st level Fighter by quite a large margin.

Reynard · Post by **Reynard** » Sat Feb 28, 2015 1:07 pm

> Like, overland flight, prot v arrows, stoneskin, minor globe, and a wand of fireballs and then entire English army just dies.
And all of this should be done not on a battlefield, but far away from it, at 4 am, when enemy army is soundly asleep. I.e. ICBM mode.

Wizards fly in, wizards cast spells, wizards fly away. Wizards do not wait for army to wake up, assemble and target wizards with their weapons.

That way middle-level wizards can get away with using only Fly (overland is for 9th level). Some sort of other transportation should be arranged, of course.

> Low level Wizards are not tanks, it's true. A 1st level Wizard can still pick up a wand from a fallen foe or friend and zap it a time or two, or just cast Colour Spray or Sleep a couple times and be mostly responsible for killing 4 to 8 War1. Which is better than a 1st level Fighter by quite a large margin.
Yes. Shock troops. Very useful, but very low life expectancy.

ubernoob · Post by **ubernoob** » Sun Mar 01, 2015 2:00 am

Reynard · Post by **Reynard** » Sun Mar 01, 2015 11:52 am

The google had failed me. Whom are you taking about?

ubernoob · Post by **ubernoob** » Sun Mar 01, 2015 8:15 pm

schpeelah · Post by **schpeelah** » Sun Mar 01, 2015 8:45 pm

Oh, don't be so harsh. Several boards I know have their rules specifically prohibit 4chan-style quoting, and I've seen a number of people use that style elsewhere, though they usually limit themselves to using italics rather than color.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Sun Mar 01, 2015 8:52 pm

4chan style quoting is a legitimate eyesore, especially for multiquotes. I don't blame anyone for not wanting to converse with people who use that format.

schpeelah · Post by **schpeelah** » Sun Mar 01, 2015 8:55 pm

It is an eyesore unless the colors are selected appropriately (it looks fine on 4chan for one). I was mostly talking about jumping to sockpuppet accusations.

ubernoob · Post by **ubernoob** » Sun Mar 01, 2015 8:57 pm

Reynard · Post by **Reynard** » Sun Mar 01, 2015 9:30 pm

schpeelah:
> 4chan-style quoting
I assure you, it's been around longer than 4chan.

erik · Post by **erik** » Sun Mar 01, 2015 9:41 pm

Reynard:
> schpeelah:
> > 4chan-style quoting
> it's been around longer than 4chan.
Well, I'm sold.

ishy · Post by **ishy** » Sun Mar 01, 2015 9:49 pm

>> schpeelah:
>> > 4chan-style quoting
>> it's been around longer than 4chan.
>Well, I'm sold.
Please stop.

Reynard · Post by **Reynard** » Sun Mar 01, 2015 9:54 pm

You are not doing it right.

>> schpeelah:
>> > 4chan-style quoting
>> it's been around longer than 4chan.
> Well, I'm sold.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sun Mar 01, 2015 10:51 pm

>>>>>>You are not doing it right.

>>>>>>>> schpeelah:
>>>>>>>> > 4chan-style quoting
>>>>>>>>> it's been around longer than 4chan.
>>>>>>> Well, I'm sold.

Learn how to use the quote function and then use it you idiot.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Mon Mar 02, 2015 12:46 am

Yeah, I've always wished TGD was just a little bit more like 4chan.

alchemist's fire can't melt adamantine beams

▲
▲ ▲

check 'em

tussock · Post by **tussock** » Mon Mar 02, 2015 1:00 pm

For one, your newsreader colours lines by reply depth, not author, if it's compliant at all.

For two, it's never just a fucking name. People do shit with that author: line.

For three, alt.4chan isn't even a thing, and it's not part of the standard hierarchy, what are you even talking about? I mean, it's a thing now, because I crossposted, but it totally wasn't, at least on my server.

For four, don't fucking top-post. What is this, a binaries group?

For five, the weird pseudo-graphical quote box is not part of any usenet standard, and I can't even see any RFCs for it.

For six, some of you don't have your followups set properly. Please try to find a compliant newsreader.

For seven, google groups is a web interface on an archive of usenet. It is not usenet.

Is anyone keeping a current FAQ? There's none in my header queue back 60 days, this sort of thing should really be in the FAQ. This is not me volunteering to keep the FAQ, but is there at least an old one somewhere I could look at?

on the tomb of Reynard is written:
> schpeelah wrote:
>> 4chan-style quoting
> I assure you, it's been around longer than 4chan.

The above was not top posting, I'm just trying to support the non-standard clients until everyone gets up to speed and stops breaking the threading. Consider this a .sig