|
13 months ago ::
Jun 06, 2012 - 2:47PM
#71
|
|
|
PvP has no place in CO, especially with TO builds that have no place at a real table.
This is a widespread misconception.
CO has its place in every type of D&D game. It could be practical. It could be RAW only. There could be houserules and homebrew. It could be strictly theoretical. And it could be PvP.
All of these situations can call for optimized characters. And so they all have a place here in CO.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 06, 2012 - 3:01PM
#72
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
I'd also call a misconception the idea that "TO builds have no place at a real table."
Who are you to say what a 'real' table is? Lair Assault, to take a popular example, encourages TheoOp-style builds.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 06, 2012 - 4:25PM
#73
|
Date Joined:
Jan 24, 2010
|
Khan, I don't disagree with you, at least not completely. CO has a place in PvP, but PvP does not have a place in [the] CO [forum board]. 4e is not designed for PvP. If you are going to PvP, even though it's a bad idea, then yes, you can apply CO methodology to it. But the general principles of the CO board as I (and others) see them are about optimising within the games normal rules and playstyle, which PvP does not and is not.
And Mand12: I have little experience with Lair Assault, so I'll concede that point, but I do know that it is hardly a normal home game table, which Unkillable RevenantsTM should not be brought to, which is what I was referring to specifically.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 06, 2012 - 4:43PM
#74
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
Who are you to say what "normal" means?
Note: This may be coming across as more harsh than I intend.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 06, 2012 - 4:50PM
#75
|
Date Joined:
Aug 17, 2007
|
Who are you to say what "normal" means?
Note: This may be coming across as more harsh than I intend.
Not only harsh, but inane. The assumptions for what the CharOp board considers "normal" are easy to find, and they're mostly derived from LFR, which has a free .pdf you can read.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 06, 2012 - 4:53PM
#76
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
Now that's harsh.
Really? You're beating me up for a semi-serious statement, that was only meant to say that TheoOp builds have a place here?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 06, 2012 - 5:06PM
#77
|
|
|
Those assumptions are more useful to theorycraft than anything else LDB. We assume a default RAW setting because we can't assume anything else. Everyone's game may be (and will be) different. But if someone is posing a theoretical build just for the sake of playing with the game mechanics or showcasing a particular feat or paragon path, then we go by RAW.
But if someone else comes asking for help, and happens to be playing in a game with PVP or various houserules or homebrew features, that has a place here as well.
There is a huge assumption it seems that this board is strictly for optimizing builds in a RAW-vacuum and then pointing people to those builds for "CharOp". But that is not what this board is really solely for.
As a place where people come asking for help with their character, anything goes that's relevant to the request.
While the board has changed to become more "Look at this handbook or build, that is optimized", I don't take that to mean that any builds not adhering strictly to RAW have no place here.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 06, 2012 - 5:06PM
#78
|
|
|
Now that's harsh.
Really? You're beating me up for a semi-serious statement, that was only meant to say that TheoOp builds have a place here?
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 06, 2012 - 5:10PM
#79
|
|
|
Mand12 isn't mocking anyone. He's challenging what is considered "normal" and "appropriate" for this board as put forth by another member.
Relevant to the discussion... you're not appealing to popularity are you Tektonik?
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 06, 2012 - 5:25PM
#80
|
Date Joined:
Sep 17, 2007
|
Nah, he's pointing out that the exchange that led to this mess was, frankly, (content removed). It wasn't particularly interesting TheoryOp - it's literally only relevant for the two people discussing. Since it wasn't to anybody else's interest, it made sense to take it to PMs. Theory Op, and all other forms of optimization really, are only relevant inasmuch as they're worth something to people, and to most, that wasn't. If you want to discuss TheoryOp nobody minds, so long as it isn't a huge, immense bore and super niche. If it's niche, have the decency to at least make it amusing so it isn't a waste of time. ( ORC_Chaos: Edited-Inappropriate Content is against the Code of Conduct)
Moderated by
ORC_Chaos
on Jun 06, 2012 - 11:39PM
Mountain Cleave Rule: You can have any sort of fun, including broken, silly fun, so long as I get to have that fun too (e. g., if you can warp reality with your spells, I can cleave mountains with my blade).
|
|
|
