|
3 years ago ::
Jul 15, 2010 - 2:14PM
#21
|
|
|
Your quote is correct, but the terminology is generally used to describe a situation where you cannot succeed because you must have already succeeded to do so. For instance, a Catch-22 situation could be the one I commonly used to run into with programming jobs. They all seem to require 3 years of experience, but without being able to get a job I couldn't get the experience.
I'm not sure where you picked up on that usage of the term, but it is in no way what I have experienced as the usage for the term. The quote I gave you is the actual origin of the term; between the title of the book and its them, plus that quote within the book which directly defined it... well there you get the term Catch-22.
In my personal experience, the actual usage of the term has not been altered from this original intent. When I hear someone talk about catch-22, they simply mean (as I said in my previous post) "damned if you do, damned if you don't" (referring to the catch that if you are sane, you're damned because you are forced to go into battle, if you're insane you're damned because you go into battle willingly).
A D&D version would be if a Defender had 100 AC until someone hit his AC, at which point it would drop to 40. Now the enemies are in a Catch 22, they can't reasonably do it until they've done it. In the quoted example you used, by trying to prove his lack of sanity he proved his sanity.
Catch-22's refer to that exact idea, not to being forced to make a bad decision. Even the glossary that was added to the post somewhat support the idea. The monsters are not faced with an illogical or paradoxical situation. It certainly isn't paradoxical, and while it isn't a good decision, the situation itself isn't illogical. There are names for it, but I don't know any offhand, and none have the simplicity that makes the Catch-22 so prevalent. As I said, it's an uphill battle of semantics, and I'll just have to adjust.
While I believe your personal experience and belief of the meaning for the term is skewed, I'll agree that fighting battles such as these is . . . quixotic at best. I've run into so many perversions of terms and phrases that just irritate the hell out of me, but have made virtually no impact on the masses with all my efforts. I haven't given up yet, but I have learned to pick my battles...
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jul 15, 2010 - 2:23PM
#22
|
|
|
@DM_Ken: We're just interpreting the source text and usage differently I suppose. My circle uses Catch-22 as I've described it exclusively. Although I did remember the term we used for these situations, Sophie's Choice, it refers to having to choose between a set of horrible choices. Given it's relatively terrible origins however Catch-22 just seems, nicer. Edit: Adding links to these two. Not the most credible source, but it's the most accurate examples of how I've always seen the terms used. www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=...www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=...Anyway, how about them defenders?
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jul 16, 2010 - 12:58PM
#23
|
Date Joined:
Aug 27, 2009
|
Sophie's Choice, as per the Penny Arcade Guys: www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2009/10/7/
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jul 16, 2010 - 5:14PM
#24
|
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2006
|
I actually have been wondering about the wisdom of the "Catch-22" style of defending.
Using pre-nerf WLMR as an example, you get out of the realm of giving the monster no choice but bad ones, and quickly enter the state of actively pushing your marks onto your squishier allies.
If you punish your marked target no matter what he does, it makes sense that he would make the tactical decision to take out the source of damage (player) that is easiest to take down. You want to make the decision less complicated then that. If the monster attacks the defender, they are not taking down the source of most damage to them, which is bad. However… If the monster attacks the striker, then they will take enough damage from the defender that the defender is putting out striker like damage, and is less likely to hit because of the mark. This is the type of Catch-22 you want to encourage. If you are putting out striker level damage no matter what the target is doing, then you will be treated as a “beefier” striker, not as a defender. The best marks are the ones that not only hurt your target when violated, but also put a status effect on the target that could prevent them from even reaching or hurting their target (fighter’s Combat Superiority or shielding swordmage’s Aegis).
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jul 16, 2010 - 5:34PM
#25
|
Date Joined:
Apr 25, 2002
|
This is the type of Catch-22 you want to encourage. If you are putting out striker level damage no matter what the target is doing, then you will be treated as a “beefier” striker, not as a defender.
In general, the concern is not actually about the marked target. The concern is about who the enemies choose to try to focus fire on. When the Defender gets promoted to being a beefier striker, that's really bad for the enemies, because he is not the target of choice usually.
What most of the Ultimate builds do is attempt to be that beefier striker *and* really incapacitate the enemy when that happens.
As an example, my Ioun Grey Stone Marker build will get a combo of Combat Challenge, Blurred Step, Combat Superiority, Slide 6/Slow on a melee basic, and +3 total to all defenses against his marked target. It has an interrupt that gives +4 to defenses just in case his mark targets him. This all happens by 11th. What's the good decision if you're marked by him? What's the good decision if you and your friend are marked by him? It isn't at all clear.
NETH4-1 Containing Shadow (co-author) Handbooks
Show
Builds
Show
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jul 17, 2010 - 6:40AM
#26
|
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2006
|
Im not sure what you are doing with that build to affect the ranged monsters. Although it does a good job of defining the battle field front line, the lich standing behind his front line has full reign to go hog wild on your back line.
And if you are treated as a "beefier" striker, then it would make sence to attack the less beefy squishy behind you, as taking him down should be easier, and he is doing the same level of damage you are.
Also I'm not sure what the catch-22 is against your character unless I somehow have to go through you. You are going to start out with the highest defences, and adding +7 to that makes you all but impossible to hit. I would either attack the rogue standing behind me, or use one guy to engage you, while I move the entire rest of my team into position around you.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jul 17, 2010 - 6:58AM
#27
|
Date Joined:
Apr 25, 2002
|
Im not sure what you are doing with that build to affect the ranged monsters. Although it does a good job of defining the battle field front line, the lich standing behind his front line has full reign to go hog wild on your back line.
And if you are treated as a "beefier" striker, then it would make sence to attack the less beefy squishy behind you, as taking him down should be easier, and he is doing the same level of damage you are.
Also I'm not sure what the catch-22 is against your character unless I somehow have to go through you. You are going to start out with the highest defences, and adding +7 to that makes you all but impossible to hit. I would either attack the rogue standing behind me, or use one guy to engage you, while I move the entire rest of my team into position around you.
Melee basic that slides 6 and slows?
Your guy attacking the Rogue just lost his attack because he's no longer in melee range next to the Rogue via the Combat Challenge interrupt. If someone is next to me to try to keep me away from my desired target, I melee basic them and then they slide 6, end up next to my desired target(+any zones that might be in the way), slowed. I then move up to them both, use Battlemind's Demand to mark them both. Sure, I don't have the super defenses at that point, but I think my controller is going to be quite happy.
That's something really important about what my build does - when not doing the mark of death, he's consolidating the enemy into burst 1 formations and skittering them through zones...
And in any case, I have Lightning Rush - the guy in front of me who has the big penalty to attack me isn't at all likely to hit me on an OA - I can Lightning Rush around him to go after someone else...
NETH4-1 Containing Shadow (co-author) Handbooks
Show
Builds
Show
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jul 17, 2010 - 8:13AM
#28
|
Date Joined:
Jun 20, 2009
|
Excellent guide. Defenders were the only character type I hadn't looked at until recently, but they're definitely one of the most fun. Next campaign I have a chance to, I'm planning on playing a Warforged Warden. Because what's more fun than surrounding yourself with difficult terrain, forcing the enemy to either attack you and miss (25+ AC at Level 6), or walk away from you and take an opportunity attack that will slow them? Nothing 
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jul 17, 2010 - 9:01AM
#29
|
Date Joined:
Jul 31, 2005
|
I wish so many CO builds were not hybrids. I dislike Hybrid's so much.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jul 17, 2010 - 9:09AM
#30
|
Date Joined:
Aug 28, 2008
|
I don't know if a statted out version is floating somewhere around there, but there's a variation on Davy Jones that has a little more defensive oomph:
Changes:
Dilettante: Eyebite, not Guiding Strike
Feats:
Bardic Dilettante->Beguiling Charm
This small alteration pretty much gaurantees the enemy setting off your mark (which heals on average and is therefore better than them attacking you which causes damage on average). With eyebite, the enemy is looking at -9 to hit you (invis, psychic lock, beguiling charm) and the usual other negatives to hit your ally. Food for thought.
|
|
|
