Except that's not my point. My point was that EWP:Bastard Sword on a druid is not the average game.
On that specific example I would agree with you.
I must have poorly phrased something. My point wasn't that nobody ever plays like those characters(Although I've previously established that the dev team is generally incompetent. My point was more that the basics of optimization are pretty plainly obvious.
I edited in a note - as I'm avoiding arguments I didn't read the entire thread as deeply as I should have.
Again, it was not my intent to make an absolute claim. Rather, it was that the line is skewed towards optimization, rather than WF(Handax) fighters.
...Oddly enough, a couple of the builds that might get showcased later on actually make use of that very feat (but not for the reason that people on the other end of the distribution might take it - here it was Andarious being crazy awesome with bottom-of-the-forgotten-barrel stuff largely because it's been forgotten.).
If I may inquire, what is this character? I am curious.
An astral-construct-specialized shaper. She's seen a few different revisions - her first incarnation was actually in the atrocity that was 3e psionics (the experiment that motivated her was seeing what a psion with only metacreativity powers would look like, which forced you to pick a lot of creation effects with a small amount of fire on the side. Her current version is a lot better, adding in a bit of pure-magic-manipulation and time control, themed as playing with the boundaries between the material and astral planes.).
Melvin? Really?
Well, not so much in this argument, now that I look at it in more detail. A Vorthos might justify a poor mechanical choice because it looks awesome or feels like part of the world, while a Melvin would see that certain mechanics were more effective and elegant, and would let those mechanics govern his choices. I think my (mis?)characterization of your position as Melvin-esque can be understood.
More importantly, I need to say this: I'm not out to "win" D&D.
Technically, neither is Spike. Our longtime DM (DisposableHero_) is probably best characterized as a Spike/Johnny and isn't out to win either. (He's just quite creative and devasatingly effective at what he does.)
It's totally not the point. The point is to have fun with friends. That said, I, personally, find it boring, if not mildly frustrating, when the character I built fails at its intended purpose. Basically, it interferes with the fun of the game to have a crappy character. It's more fun to have a strong character, and pit it against strong challenges. If I come across another way, it's at least partially due to the fact that this corner of the forum is for optimization, and thus numbers are the most important consideration.
That link also explains how I reconcile that position with different levels of player expertise (apropos of this discussion, this would be if I'm in a group with people who haven't yet seen the math of D&D). We've actually seen this at our table firsthand: when we started, one of my fellow players had been free-form RP/creative writing for ages, but hadn't played D&D before. He was quite capable on the RP front, but was open to us teaching him what to look for mathematically (including warning him of traps). Now he's our team's cuisinart - and his ability to take on multiple personas in quick sequence has, in turn, affected how our DM's writing the story (it'd really take too much time to explain here - serial reincarnation, multiple personalities, dreams within dreams, powerful enemies, time travel / reality revision, multiple continuities... you know, the usual.).
Of course, sometimes a game comes together for ****s and giggles and doesn't particularly care about serious fun. I played a one-shot where I was a telekinesis-focused ghost trapped inside my brother's barbarian's sword, as an example. My brother's a Timmy/Spike, and we had a blast bouncing personas off of each other (if you've played the BioWare D&D games, he was basically Minsc while I was basically Enserric) and getting laughs out of the DM. Had it been more than a simple, goofy one-shot, or had it continued to a higher level, we probably would have died (er... again, in the case of the ghost). I wouldn't dare play this kind of character like I meant it (and if I were stuck on that concept now, I'd've done it a lot better mechanically!), but that doesn't mean that game was badwrongfun for the context in which it was played.
I don't know that they ever got around to making Timmy, though...
Timmy was in Unglued; you're remembering him as Spike (who hasn't been carded yet - Spike isn't about power gaming so much as serious gaming. I imagine his card's flavor text might be "Just wait till I sideboard.")
These are NOT all my creations! The lead authors are identified as follows: [TS] Tempest Stormwind, [AR] Andarious Rosethorn, [RT] Radical Taoist, [SN] Sionnis, [DH] DisposableHero_, [SH] Seishi.
[TS] The Pinball Brothers: Large And In Charge (Melee, Lockdown, Charge, Juggling) [TS] Ashardalon Reborn: I Will Swallow Your Soul (Melee, Fear, Negative Levels, AoE, Theme) [AR] "A"-Game Paladin: Play That Funky Music, Knight Boy! (Team Support, Melee, Theme, Single-Class) [RT] Uncanny Trapsmith: Get in, make it look like an accident, get out. (Skillmonkey, Stealth/Scout/Infiltration, Unorthodox Methods, Theme) [AR] Wizsassin: *Everything* is permitted. (Spellcaster, Support, Sneak Attack, Utility) [TS] Phantom Rush: General Gish Gouda. (Gish, Theme, Setting-Specific(Eberron), Early-Entry PrC) [TS] Storm Knight: Another kind of gish. (Melee/"Gish", Theme, Setting-Specific(Eberron), Unorthodox Methods) [TS] Inevitable Nightmare: The weapon you only have to fire once. (Melee, "Unorthodox" Methods (no charging), Reliability) [AR] Captain Constitution: The number one threat to America. (Melee, TOUGHTOUGHTOUGH, Defense, Theme) [AR] Nuker: I casts the spells that makes the peoples fall down! (Spellcaster, damage, blasting, damage) [TS] Dread Lord of the Dead: Let the Reaping Begin! (NPC-only, Variable (combat/casting/leadership), Iconic Villain, Theme) [AR] Heavy Crusader: No Rest. No Mercy. No Matter What. (Melee, Damage (No charging), Variable, Theme). [TS] Gun Fu: It's bullet time (Ranged, THEORETICAL, Twin weapons, Theme) [RT] Face First: We should talk. (Psionic, social, mind-control, info-management) [SN] Chaingun Porcupine: Never Enuff Dakka. (Ranged, Skirmishing, Spike Damage, Incarnum) [RT] Always On Edge: The Mortal Draw deals death. (Melee, Generalist, Dungeoneering, Stunt) [AR] Feral Druid: Real feral taste. Zero druid calories. (Melee, offense, damage, murder) [RT] Rusty!: Man's Best Friend (Sentry, Support, Backup, Rearguard) [RT] The T3 (Tashalatora Triple Threat): My Kung Fu is More Powerful (Hybrid, Flex-Function, Melee, Caster) [RT] The #1 Snoipah: Boom. 'Eadshot. (Caster, Theme, Spike, Trapscout) [AR] Dreamblade: Rest in Pieces. (Melee, Damage, Single-Class, Combo/Momentum) [AR] Evasion Tank: “When fighting angry blind men, is best to stay out of the way.” (Melee, Tank, Unorthodox Methods (attack negation), Theme) [DH] Psycarnum Warrior: ↑↑↓↓←→←→BA Start (Melee, Tank, Psionics, Incarnum, 1337 h4x) [AR] Heavy Weapons Elf: WHO TOUCHED MY BOW? (Ranged, Cohort, Damage, Unorthodox Methods (ranged ToB)) [RT] Gnowhere Gnome: A little man who wasn't there (Caster, Stealth, Single-Class, Elusive) [AR] Uberflank: I got your back. (Melee, support, stunt, teamwork) [TS] Flip the Bird: Everyday I'm shuffling (Ranged, harrier, unorthodox methods (ranged ToB / off-turn movement), support) [DH] Eat Sleep Gank: Real Ultimate Power (Stealth, Assassination, Spike, Magic Versatility) [AR] Slash and Burn: Mind, Body, Blade, Flame / Aspects of a greater whole / which delivers death. (Melee, Theme (flex-style), Damage, Stunt) [RT] Edge of the Light: Cut, Fade to Black (Melee, Defense/Offense, Momentum, Tactical) [RT] Quiet Murder: Cut throats, not corners. (Melee, Stealth, Harrier, Tactical) [TS] Wand Overdrive: Say Hello to my little friends. (Caster, support/artillery/variable, wand specialist) [RT] God Hand: What did the five fingers say to the face? (Melee/Gish, Unarmed, SAD, Theme) [AR] Zero Buff Time Gish: Try to keep up! (Gish, Speed, Movement, Opportunity) [TS] Robo Tackle: I Am Iron Man. (Melee, setting-specific (Eberron), positioning, theme, stunt)
For the most part Tempest I agree with you, perhaps my original point wasn't as clear as I thought it to be. I meant to point out that in my own personal experience most people are drawn to the role play aspect of the game, not as a demonstrable whole that everyone is. Other than that, I think most of my argument holds. EA"S asurtion that people should inherently and instantly pick up on the numerical patterns that most of us know by now after years of playing I feel for the most part is wrong. Most people starting (or at least when I started out) didn't have accesses to the three core books, so it woul have been rather imposable for the uninitiated to grasp the concept that monster damage output scales faster than curative spell output, also considering that popular gaming culture depicts a "white mage mentality" making people feel as if healing in combat is necessary until they have a chance to get a hang of the system.
Also of course I think it goes without saying that not many people posses your intellect (that is to say a respectably high one). To most patterns such as healing scale VS. damage scale don't really come up until a person steps back and look at the rules from a perspective other than simply as a player, but rather someone interested in using the given system to express their own fantasy. Further more I still stand by my statement that a groups personal play style determines what they get good at. If you have a group of people that grasp how numbers effect each other and have an interest in fantasy, you'll probably wined up with all around good players capable of tier 3-2 builds (of course better math skills could mean a higher caliber of builds however) and decent role playing ability at the table (though terms such as "good' or "bad" role playing are arguable on a personal taste level, but that's beside the point). If you have people soley interested in the role playing aspect, you'll get a bunch of people who pretty much devote time to LARPing probably minus the plastic swords and homemade wizard robes though.
Throw a group together that Has no interest in detailed story and with a high faculty for numbers and you'll quickly get people finding infinite damage loops and making pun-pun through their own understanding of rules and with no input from the internet as a fun test of mechanical theory. All in all there is no right play style, however that's just the assertion that EA makes with a claim that if you can do it and don't you're doing it wrong, and to assume that just anyone can make these connections within a few rounds of game play I feel is a little absurd even.
On to Eruditeape.
You say that people need to give proof in order to bake their claim, I hold it to you that until you posted the line "My point was that EWP:Bastard Sword on a druid is not the average game" I had no idea you where taking a stance on specifically that, as apposed to what simply was what I thought a stance that bastard swords are inferior weapons, and healing in combat has never happened ever. Regardless of this, as to what ever was your assertion, you never mentioned any "proof" to begin with to support either claim. Pretty much as I see this, this started when Slagger asked what type of proof you wanted to him provide to back his claims and you simply answered in turn with rude remarks denoting his intelligence. In order to keep this debate clean I suggest a fresh start. no rude comment, insults, and the such. Simply post your stance, list some references (personally game play, consisting of yours or other peoples in game experiences that your familiar with and so on, whatever yo think constitutes proof so the bar is set and there is a standard) and proceed in a civil manner as apposed to questioning people's intellect when you feel they are wrong.
I'm sorry you find willful ignorance to one of the pillars of the game "cool."
In terms of the game, deliberately not looking through the Monster Manual is little different from not peering behind the DM screen. You're willfully ignorant of the exact challenges that you might face, but so what? People play the game to have fun, and dealing with the new and surprising is often entertaining.
For example, you could try explaining your own position, since I'm not currently clear on what you would think optimization is if it isn't the process of producing optimum results.
Are you ESL? Not meaning to be insulting, this is a serious question.
It's ironic that you should use the acronym, since I would be unlikely to recognize its meaning without a solid grasp of the language.
But no, I am not. Having spent a long time dealing with the language, and encountering the perspectives of people who do not use it natively, I do often pay attention to the fundamental meaning of the words I use (though I don't claim to make a profession of it).
Naturally, I must also ask you in return: are you ESL?
Or maybe they're more representative of a typical new player since they don't have the "benefit" of being indoctrinated by the optimization boards.
So you find mind-boggling idiocy "more representative" of a typical player than the ability to put two and two together and get four?
What seems obvious to someone already familiar with the game is not necessarily obvious to outsiders encountering it for the first time.
As a perfect example, the game designers were capable of producing a fairly complex and involved system for the game, yet were not aware of a variety of important factors that we would consider common knowledge.
Knowledge checks don't typically reveal hit point totals (we have a couple of monster manuals full of examples), and being smarter doesn't innately give them knowledge of hit point totals either.
Reading comprehension is cool. So is understanding the game. You see, you can ID the monster. You can also get a very good ballpark of the HD and the type, and thus HD size. If you can't figure out the monster's probable HP range from there, I feel sorry for you, and feel obliged to suggest you try out this "4e" thing.
Try getting that ballpark figure without using metagame knowledge that your character wouldn't possess. Remember, we were talking about an in-game perspective.
Plus, it's totally reasonable to have every scrap of knowledge you remember if you can actually identify a monster. That's kinda what identify means. Or, of course, you could just have a wizard who's capable of understanding the basic concept of a big, scary monster being able to swat fireballs, or generally be a lot harder to kill than a peasant. That's a very simple concept, don'cha think?
The exact discrimination of how tough a creature is compared to an absolute measure that doesn't exist within the game world is more complicated than just whether or not it's tougher than a peasant.
Since individuals within the game world don't have access to exact information about a creature's statistics, it's not reasonable for a character to know that information simply because they were capable of identifying a creature.
Indeed, if it were reasonable to have "every scrap of knowledge you remember" as a result of merely identifying a creature, there wouldn't be additional information made available for getting a higher Knowledge check result. To identify a creature means that you know its identity, rather than every last detail about it.
That's a bit harsh, but how do you explain Shivering Touch, Thought Bottle, Candle, Mirror Mephits, and the ability to Wish loop? Or, oh gods, Epic Spellcasting and that horrible creature from Serpent Kingdoms?
So I'm going to blame alchohol, poor editors, and a few extasy-ODing hamsters getting on the keyboards
I'd put blame more on imminent deadlines, along with occasional oversights on the broader effects of various elements. If you write enough material, you'll inevitably end up with a few aberrant bits here and there.
For the creatures, it can also be a matter of attitude, since they sometimes seem to be written with the idea that the DM uses them where appropriate, and allows the players to use them as they see fit. In other words, they assume the DM will appropriate moderate their use. The sarrukh, for example, makes a lot more sense if you assume that the writer was leaving the arbitration of appropriate abilities up to the DM.
The kraken stirs. And ten billion sushi dinners cry out for vengeance. - Good Omens
= My most popular campaign item; for all your adventuring convenience.Show
Zauber's Mutable Rod: This rod has a number of useful functions that make it easier to live in the wilderness. It is made of polished wood, with five studlike buttons on one end. Each button produces a different effect when pressed. Unless otherwise noted, the rod’s functions have no limit on the number of times they can be employed. • When button 1 is pressed, one end of the rod produces a small flame, equivalent to a candle. • When button 2 is pressed, the rod unfolds into a two-person tent, complete with bedrolls and warm blankets. • When button 3 is pressed, the rod becomes a one-handed hammer, suitable for pounding pitons into a wall. • When button 4 is pressed, the rod becomes a sturdy iron spade. • When button 5 is pressed, the rod becomes a wooden bucket able to hold 2 gallons of liquid. Once per day, it can be commanded to fill with fresh water. If the rod is seriously damaged or broken in any of its alternate forms (button 2, 3, 4, or 5), it reverts to its basic rod form and cannot be activated for 24 hours. Moderate conjuration; CL 9th; Craft Rod, minor creation; Price 375 gp; Weight 2 lb.
Except that's not my point. My point was that EWP:Bastard Sword on a druid is not the average game.
On that specific example I would agree with you.
Except that was a general point where "EWP: Bastard Sword on a druid" means "That, or other equally-absurd choices that Slagger is apparently in love with."
...Oddly enough, a couple of the builds that might get showcased later on actually make use of that very feat (but not for the reason that people on the other end of the distribution might take it - here it was Andarious being crazy awesome with bottom-of-the-forgotten-barrel stuff largely because it's been forgotten.)
And all of them involve High Sword Low Ax, I'd imagine.
If I may inquire, what is this character? I am curious.
Melvin? Really?
Well, not so much in this argument, now that I look at it in more detail. A Vorthos might justify a poor mechanical choice because it looks awesome or feels like part of the world, while a Melvin would see that certain mechanics were more effective and elegant, and would let those mechanics govern his choices. I think my (mis?)characterization of your position as Melvin-esque can be understood.
It was the name. "Melvin?" I'm pretty sure that name qualifies as child abuse.
More importantly, I need to say this: I'm not out to "win" D&D.
Technically, neither is Spike. Our longtime DM (DisposableHero_) is probably best characterized as a Spike/Johnny and isn't out to win either. (He's just quite creative and devasatingly effective at what he does.)
Oh, okay. I misunderstood what you were saying, then. I took it as "tourney ****."
You say that people need to give proof in order to bake their claim, I hold it to you that until you posted the line "My point was that EWP:Bastard Sword on a druid is not the average game" I had no idea you where taking a stance on specifically that, as apposed to what simply was what I thought a stance that bastard swords are inferior weapons, and healing in combat has never happened ever. Regardless of this, as to what ever was your assertion, you never mentioned any "proof" to begin with to support either claim.
The sheer obviousness of the numbers. That was part of what that whole thing was about. Anyone capable of reading who reads Cure should instantly notice that "Oh, hey, an ogre does more damage in a single attack than the higher-level Cures. Maybe I should rethink this." Or notice the inefficiency of Bastard Swords. Or realize that a Druid has better things to do than swing a scimitar.
So, I'm wanting to know where Slagger got that absurd idea that the average D&D player is a drooling idiot incapable of basic arithmatic.
Simply post your stance, list some references (personally game play, consisting of yours or other peoples in game experiences that your familiar with and so on, whatever yo think constitutes proof so the bar is set and there is a standard)
And you're claiming it's not true, which is also a claim. Again, if you don't know, why are you disagreeing?
Are you familliar with the concept of "burden of proof?" Well, it's on you.
The burden of proof is on me for a claim I make. If you make a counterclaim, the burden of proof is similarly on you for that counterclaim.
If you don't support your counterclaim, the best you've got is "you don't have proof of that".
"Your claim is unsupported" does not require support from me beyond the simple fact that your claim is unsupported, and therefore wrong. Care to try again?
In terms of the game, deliberately not looking through the Monster Manual is little different from not peering behind the DM screen.
...nope. Not at all. False analogies aren't cool.
You're willfully ignorant of the exact challenges that you might face, but so what? People play the game to have fun, and dealing with the new and surprising is often entertaining.
While I'm flattered you think so highly of me, even I am incapable of memorizing every single book. However, a basic knowledge of the system is useful for things like having a comeptent fighter. I mean, it's kinda pathetic for your super-skilled fighter dude to be one-shot, or have massive difficulty hitting same-CR creatures.
t's ironic that you should use the acronym, since I would be unlikely to recognize its meaning without a solid grasp of the language.
Not seeing it
But no, I am not. Having spent a long time dealing with the language, and encountering the perspectives of people who do not use it natively, I do often pay attention to the fundamental meaning of the words I use (though I don't claim to make a profession of it).
So there's your problem. Etymology and meaning are frequently drastically different.
Naturally, I must also ask you in return: are you ESL?
Nope.
What seems obvious to someone already familiar with the game is not necessarily obvious to outsiders encountering it for the first time.
Basic arithmatic isn't obvious?
As a perfect example, the game designers were capable of producing a fairly complex and involved system for the game, yet were not aware of a variety of important factors that we would consider common knowledge.
And, as we've already covered, a good number of them were drooling idiots, or seriously needed an intervention.
Try getting that ballpark figure without using metagame knowledge that your character wouldn't possess. Remember, we were talking about an in-game perspective.
And you have to have an understanding of the metagame to have an in-game perspective.
The exact discrimination of how tough a creature is compared to an absolute measure that doesn't exist within the game world is more complicated than just whether or not it's tougher than a peasant.
Since individuals within the game world don't have access to exact information about a creature's statistics, it's not reasonable for a character to know that information simply because they were capable of identifying a creature.
Wow, again, I'm really flattered, but as I've said, even I am incapable of memorizing every single scrap of text.
Indeed, if it were reasonable to have "every scrap of knowledge you remember" as a result of merely identifying a creature, there wouldn't be additional information made available for getting a higher Knowledge check result. To identify a creature means that you know its identity, rather than every last detail about it.
And how tough it is to kill is part of that.
Or, there's the general idea that how hard something is to kill isn't that complicated. There's also the idea that it's a good idea to know the averages and ranges of stats at every level.
I'd put blame more on imminent deadlines, along with occasional oversights on the broader effects of various elements. If you write enough material, you'll inevitably end up with a few aberrant bits here and there.
I really don't see how it's possible to overlook the absurdity of the Candle, and Wish loops were the first thing I thought of when I saw the Wish spell. It's not complicated. Same with the abomination that is "Hey, have one of the most broken high-level spells in the game as a 2nd level summon!" Mephit.
For the creatures, it can also be a matter of attitude, since they sometimes seem to be written with the idea that the DM uses them where appropriate, and allows the players to use them as they see fit. In other words, they assume the DM will appropriate moderate their use. The sarrukh, for example, makes a lot more sense if you assume that the writer was leaving the arbitration of appropriate abilities up to the DM.
...Nope, it still doesn't. Such a lack of limits is an obvious bad idea. If nothing else, an editor should have shredded that entire entry.
Customer Disservice of the House of Trolls Resident Secretly Ron Paul God of Spite and Sloth
EA, I'm curious: have you ever played 2E? And if so, was that before or after 3.x?
"Today's headlines and history's judgment are rarely the same. If you are too attentive to the former, you will most certainly not do the hard work of securing the latter." -Condoleezza Rice
"My fellow Americans... I've just signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. Bombing begins in five minutes." - Ronald Reagan
This user has been brought to you by the letters "O-R-C" and the numbers "2, 3, 4, and 6"
Resident Pithed-Off Dragon Buttler of the House of Trolls
t's ironic that you should use the acronym, since I would be unlikely to recognize its meaning without a solid grasp of the language.
Not seeing it
Recognizing an acronym involves assembling a logical arrangement of words that applies for the given context. A person with English as a second language (rather than a first) may well have a reduced familiarity with the way words relate to that context when assembled, which can hinder their ability to identify a given acronym.
Etymology and meaning are frequently drastically different.
They certainly can be different, though even the drifts tend to follow a logical path if you know what is occuring and can be very illuminating regarding the nature of the current meaning. But I wasn't referring to merely an etymology somewhere in the distant past and long since divorced from the current meaning of the word.
A glance through a contemporary dictionary is enough to tell us the current meanings of "optimization".
What seems obvious to someone already familiar with the game is not necessarily obvious to outsiders encountering it for the first time.
Basic arithmatic isn't obvious?
I have played with people who did indeed have difficulty with basic arithmetic (it tended to slow them down a bit, but din't otherwise impact on the general quality of play), but that's beside the point. The difficulty is usually not with the arithmetic itself, but the fact that the numbers involved are scattered within the rulebooks, rather than being conveniently assembled in one place for perusal regarding a given concern.
Consequently, people are able to remain unaware of the conclusions that can be drawn even though they may have seen most of the data at one time or another.
As a perfect example, the game designers were capable of producing a fairly complex and involved system for the game, yet were not aware of a variety of important factors that we would consider common knowledge.
And, as we've already covered, a good number of them were drooling idiots, or seriously needed an intervention.
Whether or not they required an intervention, their mental capacity cannot reasonably be in question given the game they managed to produce. Even very intelligent people are not all-knowing or infallible.
Try getting that ballpark figure without using metagame knowledge that your character wouldn't possess. Remember, we were talking about an in-game perspective.
And you have to have an understanding of the metagame to have an in-game perspective.
Exactly. Which is why the characters don't have access to that perspective (and cannot determine ballpark HD figures when identifying monsters), since it depends on metagame knowledge.
Indeed, if it were reasonable to have "every scrap of knowledge you remember" as a result of merely identifying a creature, there wouldn't be additional information made available for getting a higher Knowledge check result. To identify a creature means that you know its identity, rather than every last detail about it.
And how tough it is to kill is part of that.
Or, there's the general idea that how hard something is to kill isn't that complicated. There's also the idea that it's a good idea to know the averages and ranges of stats at every level.
A generalized "toughness to kill" rating is rarely included in any kind of formal description of a creature, even in modern accounts. No-one in the game world is likely to have done rigorous studies on how many sword thrusts it took to kill a blue wyrmling compared to a badger, so the information simply isn't available as knowledge.
I really don't see how it's possible to overlook the absurdity of the Candle, and Wish loops were the first thing I thought of when I saw the Wish spell. It's not complicated. Same with the abomination that is "Hey, have one of the most broken high-level spells in the game as a 2nd level summon!" Mephit.
"Candle" is a bit too vague, so I'm not sure exactly what you're talking about there. It's common to think of ways to essentially wish for more wishes, and it's one of those spells whose design seems intended to make things go glorious wrong. If you try to circumvent the limits, it's just encouraging your DM to take a firmer hand.
And summoned mirror mephits aren't a problem since they won't be using simulacrum.
The sarrukh, for example, makes a lot more sense if you assume that the writer was leaving the arbitration of appropriate abilities up to the DM.
...Nope, it still doesn't. Such a lack of limits is an obvious bad idea. If nothing else, an editor should have shredded that entire entry.
How would you propose they give the sarrukh the mechanical ability to design entirely new creatures of almost any form while remaining within reasonable limits?
The kraken stirs. And ten billion sushi dinners cry out for vengeance. - Good Omens
= My most popular campaign item; for all your adventuring convenience.Show
Zauber's Mutable Rod: This rod has a number of useful functions that make it easier to live in the wilderness. It is made of polished wood, with five studlike buttons on one end. Each button produces a different effect when pressed. Unless otherwise noted, the rod’s functions have no limit on the number of times they can be employed. • When button 1 is pressed, one end of the rod produces a small flame, equivalent to a candle. • When button 2 is pressed, the rod unfolds into a two-person tent, complete with bedrolls and warm blankets. • When button 3 is pressed, the rod becomes a one-handed hammer, suitable for pounding pitons into a wall. • When button 4 is pressed, the rod becomes a sturdy iron spade. • When button 5 is pressed, the rod becomes a wooden bucket able to hold 2 gallons of liquid. Once per day, it can be commanded to fill with fresh water. If the rod is seriously damaged or broken in any of its alternate forms (button 2, 3, 4, or 5), it reverts to its basic rod form and cannot be activated for 24 hours. Moderate conjuration; CL 9th; Craft Rod, minor creation; Price 375 gp; Weight 2 lb.
A lack of support does not indicate that something is incorrect, merely that it hasn't been proven to be correct.
So? Until you've proven it, it doesn't matter here. You've made several very large claims, and backed up nothing.
I could, for example, claim that birds often have wings and be correct even if I haven't yet provided supporting evidence.
And that's another false analogy. Good going there.
Good that this isn't one of those then. The two are alike in avoiding the knowledge of challenges before facing them.
Yes it is. One is private information, the other is public.
So, if you're trolling, please take it somewhere else. I'm not interested.
Recognizing an acronym involves assembling a logical arrangement of words that applies for the given context. A person with English as a second language (rather than a first) may well have a reduced familiarity with the way words relate to that context when assembled, which can hinder their ability to identify a given acronym.
A common acronym frequently applied to them? Why don't you try again?
They certainly can be different, though even the drifts tend to follow a logical path if you know what is occuring and can be very illuminating regarding the nature of the current meaning. But I wasn't referring to merely an etymology somewhere in the distant past and long since divorced from the current meaning of the word.
So do you just like typing, or are you going to make a point. I'm bored already.
I have played with people who did indeed have difficulty with basic arithmetic (it tended to slow them down a bit, but din't otherwise impact on the general quality of play), but that's beside the point. The difficulty is usually not with the arithmetic itself, but the fact that the numbers involved are scattered within the rulebooks, rather than being conveniently assembled in one place for perusal regarding a given concern.
First of all, I very highly doubt that most people have trouble with such basic mathematics as six being less than fourteen. I also really don't see how "core" and "the SRD" is "scattered"
Consequently, people are able to remain unaware of the conclusions that can be drawn even though they may have seen most of the data at one time or another.
Six, from a CL3 CLW, is leses than fourteen from a CR3 monster. It's that simple, and I really don't see how it's possible to miss.
Whether or not they required an intervention, their mental capacity cannot reasonably be in question given the game they managed to produce. Even very intelligent people are not all-knowing or infallible.
Speak for yourself.
More seriously, though, Wish loops. Mirror Mephits. Sarrukh. Shapechange. Candles. The list goes on and on. MY dog could notice those problems.
Exactly. Which is why the characters don't have access to that perspective (and cannot determine ballpark HD figures when identifying monsters), since it depends on metagame knowledge.
I'm really leaning towards the trolling hypothesis right now. You cannot be serious. Or capable of reading, I'm not sure.
A generalized "toughness to kill" rating is rarely included in any kind of formal description of a creature, even in modern accounts. No-one in the game world is likely to have done rigorous studies on how many sword thrusts it took to kill a blue wyrmling compared to a badger, so the information simply isn't available as knowledge.
Now I'm positive you're trolling. Okay, that wasn't particularly fun.
"Candle" is a bit too vague, so I'm not sure exactly what you're talking about there.
Candle of Invocation.
It's common to think of ways to essentially wish for more wishes, and it's one of those spells whose design seems intended to make things go glorious wrong. If you try to circumvent the limits, it's just encouraging your DM to take a firmer hand.
Except the limits are very clear, and wishing for more wishes is WELL within the limits.
And summoned mirror mephits aren't a problem since they won't be using simulacrum.
How would you propose they give the sarrukh the mechanical ability to design entirely new creatures of almost any form while remaining within reasonable limits?
Not doing so? Make it a fluff-thing? Explicitly make it a DM-only thing? Partially copy the Epic Spellcasting rules on it? Make some sort of point purchase system? Or just put some limits on it? Or just not doing it?
Customer Disservice of the House of Trolls Resident Secretly Ron Paul God of Spite and Sloth
