Community

Just post the pic. You know you want to.
And, Tempest, it's more fun if you autocard [=Johnny, Combo Player]Johnny[/c] and Spike . I'm pretty sure they've made a Vorthos, too. I don't know that they ever got around to making Timmy, though... And where the hell did "Melvin" come from? 

Jan 24, 2013 -- 2:15AM, EruditeApe wrote:

 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.

I would agree with this wholeheartedly, and have expressed similar sentiments before.

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.

Jan 24, 2013 -- 2:47AM, draco1119 wrote:

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.")

And where the hell did "Melvin" come from?

Yeah, that's a common reaction - common enough to be addressed by MaRo while also going into the archetype, in classic form.

Pointless arguing isn't fun.

Yes it is. It's among the most enjoyable things in the world.

I win. You're arguments are invalid, your advice is suspect. Thank you and have a nice day. The ORCs will see you out.

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.

Jan 24, 2013 -- 12:27AM, EruditeApe wrote:

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".

Jan 24, 2013 -- 12:27AM, EruditeApe wrote:

I'd love to have a reasonable discussion, but the burden's still on you, and you've done nothing to support it.

You've yet to tell me what kind of support you'd like.

Jan 24, 2013 -- 12:27AM, EruditeApe wrote:

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.

Jan 24, 2013 -- 12:27AM, EruditeApe wrote:

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?

Jan 24, 2013 -- 12:27AM, EruditeApe wrote:

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.

Jan 24, 2013 -- 12:27AM, EruditeApe wrote:

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.

Jan 24, 2013 -- 12:27AM, EruditeApe wrote:

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.

Jan 24, 2013 -- 12:50AM, EruditeApe wrote:

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.

Jan 24, 2013 -- 2:47AM, draco1119 wrote:

Just post the pic. You know you want to.

Sadly, I could not find that picture. I'll dig it up next time Onesite does it's thing. 

Jan 24, 2013 -- 2:50AM, Tempest_Stormwind wrote:

Jan 24, 2013 -- 2:15AM, EruditeApe wrote:

 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 ****."

Jan 24, 2013 -- 2:53AM, Vortsukoto wrote:

Pointless arguing isn't fun.

Yes it is. It's among the most enjoyable things in the world.

I win. You're arguments are invalid, your advice is suspect. Thank you and have a nice day. The ORCs will see you out.

... nope. Care to try again? Or are you just going to concede the point?

Jan 24, 2013 -- 2:56AM, Lashius wrote:

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)

Sadly, anecdotal evidence is just that.

Jan 24, 2013 -- 6:30AM, Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:

Jan 24, 2013 -- 12:27AM, EruditeApe wrote:

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.

EA, I'm curious: have you ever played 2E? And if so, was that before or after 3.x?

Jan 24, 2013 -- 7:52AM, EruditeApe wrote:

"Your claim is unsupported" does not require support from me beyond the simple fact that your claim is unsupported, and therefore wrong.

A lack of support does not indicate that something is incorrect, merely that it hasn't been proven to be correct.

I could, for example, claim that birds often have wings and be correct even if I haven't yet provided supporting evidence.

Jan 24, 2013 -- 7:52AM, EruditeApe wrote:

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.

Good that this isn't one of those then.  The two are alike in avoiding the knowledge of challenges before facing them.

Jan 24, 2013 -- 7:52AM, EruditeApe wrote:

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.

Jan 24, 2013 -- 7:52AM, EruditeApe wrote:

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".

Jan 24, 2013 -- 7:52AM, EruditeApe wrote:

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.

Jan 24, 2013 -- 7:52AM, EruditeApe wrote:

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.

Jan 24, 2013 -- 7:52AM, EruditeApe wrote:

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.

Jan 24, 2013 -- 7:52AM, EruditeApe wrote:

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.

Jan 24, 2013 -- 7:52AM, EruditeApe wrote:

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.

Jan 24, 2013 -- 7:52AM, EruditeApe wrote:

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?

Never had the opportunity. My RPG experience is mostly limited t0 3.5, 4e, WHF, and Dark Heresy.

No spoilers tempest, but I get your point there. Also Discipline Focus (Weapon Focus: Tiger Claw) is freekin' hot.

Jan 24, 2013 -- 9:01AM, Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:

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.

Oh, really?

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?

You know there are many problems with saying that "simple math" shows what is optimal and what isn't.  Need an example?  How about answering a little question like "how much does getting +1 on an attack help my damage?"  There are two answers to that question.

1.  You deal 5% more damage.  This is because you look at the number you needed to roll and now have one more number that hits on the d20.  1/20 is a 5% increase.

2.  It depends on what you originally needed to hit but somewhere between +0% and +100%.  If you need a 21+ to hit and thus only a natural 20 hits the +1 on you attack will not have you dealing any more damage.  If a 20 hits normally then getting +1 on the attack will mean you hit on a 19 as well; this means you hit TWICE as often which doubles (+100%) your expected damage.  This "math" is 100% correct although the expected damage is actually very low to start with.  Going to the other end if a natural 1 only misses because it is a natural 1 then getting +1 on the attack will not improve damage at all by itself.  If you needed to roll a 3 or higher to hit then the +1 will improve your damage output by about that 5% mentioned the first time.

The same question with two very different, but both correct, answers.  At issue it that people often don't see both answers as being valid and if you expect one you usually ignore the other.  If most players are asked this question they will see the first answer but fewer will see the second.  The same is true when it comes to the higher levels of optimization where answers aren't always so clear.

p.s.  Sorry that this doesn't contribute to the Ranger/HorizonWalker discussion but it seems this thread has gone well away from that topic.
 

Jan 24, 2013 -- 9:20AM, EruditeApe wrote:

Jan 24, 2013 -- 9:01AM, Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:

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.

Since you're the one asking for proof, you'll need to answer my inquiry about what we should go for on that.

Jan 24, 2013 -- 9:20AM, EruditeApe wrote:

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.

Since they're analagous in the manner that I was describing, it's unimportant whether or not they're analagous in some other way.

Jan 24, 2013 -- 9:20AM, EruditeApe wrote:

A common acronym frequently applied to them? Why don't you try again?

It's an acronym applied to them from the perspective of an English-speaking person and using English words.  People with English as a second language aren't going to automatically define themselves by an acronym based on that second language as opposed to their native tongue.

Why don't you give up Joker's bad habit of asking people to "try again" as if they somehow failed in the imaginary land of jokerworld?

Jan 24, 2013 -- 9:20AM, EruditeApe wrote:

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.

Sorry, I didn't realize this was Twitter.

Jan 24, 2013 -- 9:20AM, EruditeApe wrote:

I also really don't see how "core" and "the SRD" is "scattered"

So on which page is the relevant information?

Jan 24, 2013 -- 9:20AM, EruditeApe wrote:

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.

And how did you learn that figure of fourteen for a CR 3 monster?

Jan 24, 2013 -- 9:20AM, EruditeApe wrote:

 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.

Which part of the idea that characters without a perspective on the metagame concept of Hit Dice won't be able to determine ballpark figures based on those Hit Dice doesn't make sense?

Jan 24, 2013 -- 9:20AM, EruditeApe wrote:

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.

The only thing I'm trolling for is a reasonable response.

Jan 24, 2013 -- 9:20AM, EruditeApe wrote:

Except the limits are very clear, and wishing for more wishes is WELL within the limits.

Not if your DM is awake.

Jan 24, 2013 -- 9:20AM, EruditeApe wrote:

And summoned mirror mephits aren't a problem since they won't be using simulacrum.

Oh, really?

I didn't realize that Diplomacy or charm spells could make a summon monster effect last for 12 hours.

Jan 24, 2013 -- 9:20AM, EruditeApe wrote:

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?

Limiting it to fluff or DM use would prevent a PC sarrukh from having fun with it, and they did include a variety of examples, so it's not like they left it completely without guidance. 

Limits would be relatively easy to apply for spell-like abilities (due to their connection to the normal spellcasting structure), but much harder to define for extraordinary and supernatural abilities, and you do want something that can fit in as an ability in a single creature entry.

Jan 24, 2013 -- 10:23AM, Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:

Since you're the one asking for proof, you'll need to answer my inquiry about what we should go for on that.

..I'm not going to dignify this with an answer.

Since they're analagous in the manner that I was describing, it's unimportant whether or not they're analagous in some other way.

No, they aren't.

It's an acronym applied to them from the perspective of an English-speaking person and using English words.  People with English as a second language aren't going to automatically define themselves by an acronym based on that second language as opposed to their native tongue.

Why not? It's in every ESL class, it's basically what's done. So not recognizing it is more like "English as a Not Spoken Language" than ESL.

Why don't you give up Joker's bad habit of asking people to "try again" as if they somehow failed in the imaginary land of jokerworld?

So what, would you rather me be as sarcastic as the responses deserve? I think "Try again" was among the best option.

Sorry, I didn't realize this was Twitter.

And, again, how is this relevent?

So on which page is the relevant information?

Enough that there is basically no excuse to miss it all.

And how did you learn that figure of fourteen for a CR 3 monster?

An ogre is a pretty normal CR 3 challenge. I don't recall the precise average damage for a CR 3 creature, but an Ogre wasn't too far off, and quite normal.

The only thing I'm trolling for is a reasonable response.

Nope. You are quite the master baiter, however.

Not if your DM is awake.

Ah, hello Rule Zero fallacy, I was wondering when you'd show up again.

I didn't realize that Diplomacy or charm spells could make a summon monster effect last for 12 hours.

...I really don't know how to respond to this except by assuming you're trolling. Did Oma break into your house or something?

Limiting it to fluff or DM use would prevent a PC sarrukh from having fun with it,

Which is a bad thing? It's basically unlimited power.

and they did include a variety of examples, so it's not like they left it completely without guidance.  

Again, how is this relevent?

Limits would be relatively easy to apply for spell-like abilities (due to their connection to the normal spellcasting structure), but much harder to define for extraordinary and supernatural abilities, and you do want something that can fit in as an ability in a single creature entry.

Meh. 40K did something like that a couple years ago. I'm not seeing the problem.

EA, here's the "burden of proof" that YOU are the one trolling:
1) Slagger makes claim.
2) You say "Nuh-uh; prove it."
3) Slagger says "Ok. What standard of proof do you want?"
4) Your response is, AND I QUOTE, "I'm not going to dignify that with a response."


Yeah... Time for you to put up or shut up. Again. You actually managed to do a halfway decent job of it yesterday; maybe you should give it a try in the real world.

Jan 24, 2013 -- 3:19PM, draco1119 wrote:

EA, here's the "burden of proof" that YOU are the one trolling: 1) Slagger makes claim. 2) You say "Nuh-uh; prove it." 3) Slagger says "Ok. What standard of proof do you want?" 4) Your response is, AND I QUOTE, "I'm not going to dignify that with a response."

Why should I dignify that with a response? It's hardly my fault he's incapable of posting proof in the first place.

But, fine, sure, I'll spell everything out, and type slowly this time, just for you guys. I want empirical facts. That's it. No anecdotal crap. Empirical facts, and on a scale to back up those whoppers of claims.

Which should be blatantly obvious to anyone who has been within a mile of someone who took a logic class.

Jan 24, 2013 -- 2:55PM, EruditeApe wrote:

Jan 24, 2013 -- 10:23AM, Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:

Since you're the one asking for proof, you'll need to answer my inquiry about what we should go for on that.

..I'm not going to dignify this with an answer.

Then you can find the proof you need all by yourself.

Jan 24, 2013 -- 2:55PM, EruditeApe wrote:

Jan 24, 2013 -- 2:55PM, EruditeApe wrote:

So on which page is the relevant information?

Enough that there is basically no excuse to miss it all.

Oh, too scattered for you to name one?  I thought so.

Jan 24, 2013 -- 2:55PM, EruditeApe wrote:

And how did you learn that figure of fourteen for a CR 3 monster?

An ogre is a pretty normal CR 3 challenge. I don't recall the precise average damage for a CR 3 creature, but an Ogre wasn't too far off, and quite normal.

Perhaps, but how did you learn the figure in question?

Jan 24, 2013 -- 2:55PM, EruditeApe wrote:

I didn't realize that Diplomacy or charm spells could make a summon monster effect last for 12 hours.

...I really don't know how to respond to this except by assuming you're trolling.

I'm sorry, do you not understand that there's a problem with summoning mirror mephits for simulacrum when it has a 12-hour casting time, and that it's not a problem that can be solved with Diplomacy or charm spells?

Forgive me for accidentally "trolling" you with valid responses.

Jan 24, 2013 -- 2:55PM, EruditeApe wrote:

Limiting it to fluff or DM use would prevent a PC sarrukh from having fun with it,

Which is a bad thing? It's basically unlimited power.

It's a bad solution, since it excludes the problem instead of fixing it.

Jan 24, 2013 -- 2:55PM, EruditeApe wrote:

and they did include a variety of examples, so it's not like they left it completely without guidance.

Again, how is this relevent?

Again?  I didn't mention it before.

It's relevant to the idea that the writer might have expected the DM to adjudicate the effect of the ability.

Jan 24, 2013 -- 2:55PM, EruditeApe wrote:

Jan 24, 2013 -- 2:55PM, EruditeApe wrote:

Limits would be relatively easy to apply for spell-like abilities (due to their connection to the normal spellcasting structure), but much harder to define for extraordinary and supernatural abilities, and you do want something that can fit in as an ability in a single creature entry.

Meh. 40K did something like that a couple years ago. I'm not seeing the problem.

Assuming that the 40K rules just drop neatly into place from the grim darkness of the future where there is only war in a completely different game system, I guess there isn't a problem.

Jan 24, 2013 -- 4:04PM, Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:

Then you can find the proof you need all by yourself.

Not how it works, buddy.

Oh, too scattered for you to name one?  I thought so.

Too many example for me to bother naming. Difference, which you'd know if you weren't trolling.

Perhaps, but how did you learn the figure in question?

Basic arithmatic. It's pretty cool like that.

I'm sorry, do you not understand that there's a problem with summoning mirror mephits for simulacrum when it has a 12-hour casting time, and that it's not a problem that can be solved with Diplomacy or charm spells?

Forgive me for accidentally "trolling" you with valid responses.

#implyingdurationsaren'tlulz

So, yeah, you're pretty much trolling.

It's a bad solution, since it excludes the problem instead of fixing it.

Nope, it's a good solution because it solves the problem. Funny how that works.

Again?  I didn't mention it before.

English is cool. I suggest you learn it.

And Pulp Fiction jokes are too easy, so I'm going to leave it to others.

It's relevant to the idea that the writer might have expected the DM to adjudicate the effect of the ability.

Funny thing about that is they didn't. The text is perfectly clear.

Assuming that the 40K rules just drop neatly into place from the grim darkness of the future where there is only war in a completely different game system, I guess there isn't a problem.

#notpayingattention #noideawhathestalkingabout

I must say, though, you really are a master baiter and great troll.

Jan 24, 2013 -- 4:39PM, EruditeApe wrote:

Too many example for me to bother naming.

Then since you have no proof of it, I'll hold you to your own standards.

Jan 24, 2013 -- 4:39PM, EruditeApe wrote:

Perhaps, but how did you learn the figure in question?

Basic arithmatic. It's pretty cool like that.

I'm surprised that your school included the average hit points of a CR 3 monster under D&D 3.5 rules as part of basic arithmetic (if it did, then you're about 15 years old).

Normally, you'd need to gather data from all the CR 3 creatures in the Monster Manual, determine the average damage per creature, and the averages across all those creatures.  You'd also need to account for average chances to hit against a party of any given level, and then presumably determine an absolute average of the chance to hit at all levels so that you can determine a single total.

Jan 24, 2013 -- 4:39PM, EruditeApe wrote:

#implyingdurationsaren'tlulz

So, yeah, you're pretty much trolling.

You can answer a valid issue with the 12-hour casting time, or you can just go spouting on about imaginary trolls.

Jan 24, 2013 -- 4:39PM, EruditeApe wrote:

It's a bad solution, since it excludes the problem instead of fixing it.

Nope, it's a good solution because it solves the problem. Funny how that works.

It doesn't allow you to use the sarrukh's signature ability on a sarrukh PC, so the problem isn't solved, but merely absent.

Jan 24, 2013 -- 4:39PM, EruditeApe wrote:

It's relevant to the idea that the writer might have expected the DM to adjudicate the effect of the ability.

Funny thing about that is they didn't. The text is perfectly clear.

Oh, you've got proof of the author's intent?

Jan 24, 2013 -- 4:39PM, EruditeApe wrote:

Assuming that the 40K rules just drop neatly into place from the grim darkness of the future where there is only war in a completely different game system, I guess there isn't a problem.

#notpayingattention #noideawhathestalkingabout

Oh, more of Joker's feeble attempts at insulting?

Jan 24, 2013 -- 3:30PM, EruditeApe wrote:

But, fine, sure, I'll spell everything out, and type slowly this time, just for you guys. I want empirical facts. That's it. No anecdotal crap. Empirical facts, and on a scale to back up those whoppers of claims.

Okay, that's cool.  Since we're sticking to empirical facts, we'll need a source that we can observe.  So let's go with the three core books "PHB, DMG, and MM, which we can reasonably assume will be available to anyone playing the game (and are significantly more representative than books which groups may not possess) and are officially printed, so that it's a formal account that can be verified rather than an anecdote.

Now, to our points of issue, which were several specific in-game activities, namely clerics healing in battle, wizards casting xd6 damage spells when a kill isn't guaranteed (and when not trying to kill a golem while unprepared), fighters making full attacks, and having Exotic Weapon Proficiency (bastard sword).  These can all have observable evidence, which is good for our purposes.

The claim was that these are commonplace, so we need evidence of them appearing in an ordinary circumstance.  Since you've already spelled out everything in your description, and have asked for it to match an undefined scale I'll be going with "any amount" of evidence in the core books, which should be reasonable for our purposes since everyone can consider the books fundamental to the game to be commonplace.  Onto the specifics (fighters making full attacks was a withdrawn objection, so I'll skip it):

1. Clerics healing in battle.  To find evidence of this, we'll want an example of a cleric casting any healing spell during a battle, and the absence of a suggestion that it's unusual.  Page 137 of the PHB describes a character paralyzed by a ghoul receiving a remove paralysis spell, and page 133 of the DMG describes a second wave of clerics healing the fallen in battle, so we've got evidence for healing and it isn't described as unusual.

2. Wizards cast xd6 damage spells without it being a guaranteed kill (and without it being a golem when the wizard would have a more suitable spell given time to prepare).  To find evidence of this, we'll want an example of a wizard casting such a spell when its minimum damage isn't sufficient to kill the target, and the absence of a suggestion that it's unusual.  If the target is a golem, we'll want to see that there is no better spell in the wizard's list of known lists that might have been prepared with more time.
I'll broadly include any spells which deal hit point damage in an amount expressed in damage dice.  Page 25 of the DMG has a phase spider blasted by a wizard's magic missile, so we've got evidence again.

3. Exotic Weapon Proficiency (bastard sword).  To find evidence of this, we'll want to see possession of the feat described in statistics or in general, in the absence of a suggestion that it's unusual.  Page 117 of the DMG has a hobgoblin fighter with EWP (bastard sword) as a sample NPC, so we've evidence here too.

Now, I expect a response along the lines of "that's not a good enough scale".  But that's just too bad; everything was spelled out (and even typed slowly!) and that "everything" didn't include any quantifiable requirements of scale between the claims and amount of evidence required, so this meets the requested conditions.

Jan 24, 2013 -- 7:41PM, Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:

The claim was that these are commonplace, so we need evidence of them appearing in an ordinary circumstance.  Since you've already spelled out everything in your description, and have asked for it to match an undefined scale I'll be going with "any amount" of evidence in the core books, which should be reasonable for our purposes since everyone can consider the books fundamental to the game to be commonplace.

Nope. "Any amount" is not sufficient evidence for the massive claim of that kind of idiocy being normal.

1. Clerics healing in battle.  To find evidence of this, we'll want an example of a cleric casting any healing spell during a battle, and the absence of a suggestion that it's unusual.  Page 137 of the PHB describes a character paralyzed by a ghoul receiving a remove paralysis spell, and page 133 of the DMG describes a second wave of clerics healing the fallen in battle, so we've got evidence for healing and it isn't described as unusual.

Not even any real examples.

2. Wizards cast xd6 damage spells without it being a guaranteed kill (and without it being a golem when the wizard would have a more suitable spell given time to prepare).  To find evidence of this, we'll want an example of a wizard casting such a spell when its minimum damage isn't sufficient to kill the target, and the absence of a suggestion that it's unusual.  If the target is a golem, we'll want to see that there is no better spell in the wizard's list of known lists that might have been prepared with more time.
I'll broadly include any spells which deal hit point damage in an amount expressed in damage dice.  Page 25 of the DMG has a phase spider blasted by a wizard's magic missile, so we've got evidence again.

So you've got one example from among the least-balanced books ever printed, and think that's enough to declare that it's normal?

3. Exotic Weapon Proficiency (bastard sword).  To find evidence of this, we'll want to see possession of the feat described in statistics or in general, in the absence of a suggestion that it's unusual.  Page 117 of the DMG has a hobgoblin fighter with EWP (bastard sword) as a sample NPC, so we've evidence here too.

So? A sample NPC isn't even a proper character, and the fact that you've only found one such fringe example just goes to show my point.

Now, I expect a response along the lines of "that's not a good enough scale".  But that's just too bad; everything was spelled out (and even typed slowly!) and that "everything" didn't include any quantifiable requirements of scale between the claims and amount of evidence required, so this meets the requested conditions.

No, it really doesn't. So are you going to come back with some real evidence? Or are you going to just concede? This is getting tiresome, I really shouldn't have to walk you through this whole process.

Jan 24, 2013 -- 6:33PM, Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:

I'm surprised that your school included the average hit points of a CR 3 monster under D&D 3.5 rules as part of basic arithmetic (if it did, then you're about 15 years old).

Nope. My school did, however, cover that 7+7=14, 3.5+3=6.5, and 14>6.5. 

Normally, you'd need to gather data from all the CR 3 creatures in the Monster Manual, determine the average damage per creature, and the averages across all those creatures.  You'd also need to account for average chances to hit against a party of any given level, and then presumably determine an absolute average of the chance to hit at all levels so that you can determine a single total.

Are you even reading what I'm typing?

You can answer a valid issue with the 12-hour casting time, or you can just go spouting on about imaginary trolls.

So you seriously mean to tell me you cannot think of a single way to keep a mirror mephit around for over 12 hours?

It doesn't allow you to use the sarrukh's signature ability on a sarrukh PC, so the problem isn't solved, but merely absent.

Which prevents the Sarrukh's abilities from being used by a PC. Which solves the problem quite nicely.

Oh, you've got proof of the author's intent?

The text doesn't say so. That's enough.

Oh, more of Joker's feeble attempts at insulting?

Nope. But once you're willing to talk with the grown-ups, I'll try to stop hurting your delicate little feelings. But, since you appear to have no idea what I'm talking about, and lack the cajones to admit it, I think there is very little point in continuing.

Jan 24, 2013 -- 8:21PM, EruditeApe wrote:

"Any amount" is not sufficient evidence for the massive claim of that kind of idiocy being normal.

Jan 24, 2013 -- 8:21PM, EruditeApe wrote:

Not even any real examples.

We're trying to determine if these things are commonplace.

Jan 24, 2013 -- 8:21PM, EruditeApe wrote:

So you've got one example from among the least-balanced books ever printed, and think that's enough to declare that it's normal?

Jan 24, 2013 -- 8:21PM, EruditeApe wrote:

So? A sample NPC isn't even a proper character, and the fact that you've only found one such fringe example just goes to show my point.

Jan 24, 2013 -- 8:21PM, EruditeApe wrote:

So are you going to come back with some real evidence? Or are you going to just concede? This is getting tiresome, I really shouldn't have to walk you through this whole process.

You already spelled out everything you wanted, and I met the conditions that you requested.  It's your own fault if you don't understand how to properly define requirements.

I've given you empircal evidence from books demonstrating that the examples in question are sufficiently commonplace that they appear as examples in the core books that define the game. 

It's pretty thin, but beating a total no-show as the opposing evidence doesn't require much.

Jan 24, 2013 -- 8:21PM, EruditeApe wrote:

So you seriously mean to tell me you cannot think of a single way to keep a mirror mephit around for over 12 hours?

Are you intending to describe a method by which you're keeping a mirror mephit you're getting from a 2nd-level summoning spell around for 12 hours, or are you just intending to dodge difficult questions in the hope no-one will notice you failing to answer them?

Jan 24, 2013 -- 8:21PM, EruditeApe wrote:

It doesn't allow you to use the sarrukh's signature ability on a sarrukh PC, so the problem isn't solved, but merely absent.

Which prevents the Sarrukh's abilities from being used by a PC. Which solves the problem quite nicely.

The problem involves using a sarrukh with the ability as a PC; if you can't use it, you haven't done anything to fix the problem of how to use it.

Jan 24, 2013 -- 8:21PM, EruditeApe wrote:

Oh, you've got proof of the author's intent?

The text doesn't say so. That's enough.

In case you've forgotten, we were talking about hypothetical intentions of the author.  The text describes what that author did write, but it doesn't encompass all of what they might have intended.

If we were to go from only what the text say, we would have to assume that the author intended to give the ability in question to players, unconstrained as it is.

Jan 24, 2013 -- 8:21PM, EruditeApe wrote:

Oh, more of Joker's feeble attempts at insulting?

Nope. But once you're willing to talk with the grown-ups, I'll try to stop hurting your delicate little feelings. But, since you appear to have no idea what I'm talking about, and lack the cajones to admit it, I think there is very little point in continuing.

And an attempt at belittlement as well?  You've just wasted another paragraph trying to feel superior with the same Complete Jokes I've seen a dozen times before.

Jan 24, 2013 -- 9:21PM, Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:

We're trying to determine if these things are commonplace.

Which you've failed to do.

You already spelled out everything you wanted, and I met the conditions that you requested.  It's your own fault if you don't understand how to properly define requirements.

It's not my fault you are incapable of reading.

I've given you empircal evidence from books demonstrating that the examples in question are sufficiently commonplace that they appear as examples in the core books that define the game.

And I can find more examples of people spontaneously combusting. It doesn't mean that it's "sufficiently commonplace."

It's pretty thin, but beating a total no-show as the opposing evidence doesn't require much.

Except the burden is on you to prove it.

Are you intending to describe a method by which you're keeping a mirror mephit you're getting from a 2nd-level summoning spell around for 12 hours, or are you just intending to dodge difficult questions in the hope no-one will notice you failing to answer them?

It's like you're typing, but not actually trying to communicate or understand the topic.

The problem involves using a sarrukh with the ability as a PC; if you can't use it, you haven't done anything to fix the problem of how to use it.

Except preventing the use solves the problem just fine.

In case you've forgotten, we were talking about hypothetical intentions of the author.  The text describes what that author did write, but it doesn't encompass all of what they might have intended.

And, of course, you, in your brilliant brilliance, can magically tell precisely what an author meant, and that, for some absurd reason, actually matters? Yeah, okay

And an attempt at belittlement as well?  You've just wasted another paragraph trying to feel superior with the same Complete Jokes I've seen a dozen times before.

Trying to feel superior? No. Feeling superior? Yes. Trying to get you to participate, so this is actually a discussion? Yes.

You just aren't going to get away with making massive, unsupported claims while I'm around. It's that simple. Why don't you drop the horribly offended act, and either form a decent argument or concede? I'm sure baseless accusations and faux outrage is easier for you, but I'm tired of putting up with it.

But, seriously, you're like a copy of Oma, with knowledge of the shift key, just for us in PE Optimization.

Jan 24, 2013 -- 10:25PM, EruditeApe wrote:

It's pretty thin, but beating a total no-show as the opposing evidence doesn't require much.

Except the burden is on you to prove it.

I've proven it on the level you requested.

Jan 24, 2013 -- 10:25PM, EruditeApe wrote:

Are you intending to describe a method by which you're keeping a mirror mephit you're getting from a 2nd-level summoning spell around for 12 hours, or are you just intending to dodge difficult questions in the hope no-one will notice you failing to answer them?

It's like you're typing, but not actually trying to communicate or understand the topic.

It's like you're typing, but haven't got the faintest clue how to make that 2nd-level summoning spell last 12 hours despite your claims.  The burden of proof is on you for that one.

Jan 24, 2013 -- 10:25PM, EruditeApe wrote:

 And, of course, you, in your brilliant brilliance, can magically tell precisely what an author meant, and that, for some absurd reason, actually matters?

Of course I can't, which is why I merely suggested it as a possibility.  You can check back if you like and you'll see that this is nothing more than a possible reason for the author not precisely restricting the ability.

Either we go just by the exact text written, and they must have intended it to be out of control, or we assume they were thinking that it would work and be reasonable.

Jan 24, 2013 -- 10:25PM, EruditeApe wrote:

You just aren't going to get away with making massive, unsupported claims while I'm around. It's that simple.

Unlike you, I've actually given support.  And since you were too busy trying to act like you were defining something unreasonable for idiots to describe your terms properly, you made it easy for me to meet the conditions you requested.

Even if your conditions had been properly defined to require some actual scale, you've offered precisely nothing as evidence of an opposing claim, leaving me 100% ahead in terms of supporting evidence.  It's easy to exceed zero.

Jan 24, 2013 -- 10:25PM, EruditeApe wrote:

Why don't you drop the horribly offended act, and either form a decent argument or concede?

I'm not offended by you wasting your own time on insults and ego-stroking.  As for decent arguments, you've currently got quite a backlog of failure to deliver padded by "I won't bother", "you don't understand me", and "what I mean is basic knowledge for everyone" in lieu of content. 

Asking me to concede isn't a substitute for making points of your own and proving your position.

If you want to continue this totally pointless discussion please take it somewhere else, for example in an instant messaging program such as (but not limited to) Skype. That being said, let's discuss something related to the thread.

It's not core only but I wonder - can you make a Dwarf Fighter 1/Barb 1/Ranger 3/Horizon Walker X/Occult Slayer X/Some PrC to finish things off viable. A friend of mine is relatively new to DnD and wanted to make something that swings a huge, badass sword around. Since she was focused on Frenzied Berzerker and I absolutely refuse to play in a party with that stupidity, I need a build that still charges, does decent damage with simple mechanics and decent saves. We are currently level 2.

Thank you.

What do you have available in terms of books?  You can still hit basic ubercharging pretty easily with that level in barbarian (hopefully with spiritual totem: lion) and the usual line-up with Power Attack, Improved Bull Rush, Leap Attack, and Shock Trooper, it just deals a bit less damage without the higher multipliers from Frenzied Berserker.

Five levels of bear warrior would be valuable if you can manage weapons for it (and depending on how many levels are spent elsewhere), and Tome of Battle will be useful one way or another, if the maneuver system isn't too much to handle.

Jan 25, 2013 -- 12:33AM, Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:

I've proven it on the level you requested.

No, you haven't.

It's like you're typing, but haven't got the faintest clue how to make that 2nd-level summoning spell last 12 hours despite your claims.  The burden of proof is on you for that one.

It's like you're on a D&D forum, but have no idea how the game works.

Of course I can't, which is why I merely suggested it as a possibility.  You can check back if you like and you'll see that this is nothing more than a possible reason for the author not precisely restricting the ability.

The author was on truly impressive amounts of control substances. That's much more likely.

Either we go just by the exact text written, and they must have intended it to be out of control, or we assume they were thinking that it would work and be reasonable.

It doesn't matter. It is totally unreasonable.

Unlike you, I've actually given support.  And since you were too busy trying to act like you were defining something unreasonable for idiots to describe your terms properly, you made it easy for me to meet the conditions you requested.

No, you haven't. You have given no evidence of them being used at all. So, I'm still waiting.

Even if your conditions had been properly defined to require some actual scale, you've offered precisely nothing as evidence of an opposing claim, leaving me 100% ahead in terms of supporting evidence.  It's easy to exceed zero.

Not how it works, buddy. You see, you have to prove it first. You have provided no evidence whatsoever.

I'm not offended by you wasting your own time on insults and ego-stroking.

As for decent arguments, you've currently got quite a backlog of failure to deliver padded by "I won't bother", "you don't understand me", and "what I mean is basic knowledge for everyone" in lieu of content

And here we have unrelated whining in lieu of supporting your argument. Nice  

Asking me to concede isn't a substitute for making points of your own and proving your position.

And here we have the true Complete Joke of the thread.

You maid the assertion, you prove it. That's how it works.

Jan 25, 2013 -- 2:39AM, Nistra wrote:

It's not core only but I wonder - can you make a Dwarf Fighter 1/Barb 1/Ranger 3/Horizon Walker X/Occult Slayer X/Some PrC to finish things off viable. A friend of mine is relatively new to DnD and wanted to make something that swings a huge, badass sword around.

No. Occult Slayer is terrible, and Horizon Walker is bad outside of core.

Since she was focused on Frenzied Berzerker and I absolutely refuse to play in a party with that stupidity, I need a build that still charges, does decent damage with simple mechanics and decent saves. We are currently level 2.

Water Orc Whirling Frenzy Lion Spirit Totem Barbarian 2/Fighter 4/Paladin of Freedom(Or Slaughter) 5/FullBABPrCs 9. Take Leap Attack, Shock Trooper, and Headlong Rush, and use a Valorous greatsword, and spam Rhino's Rush. There. Have fun. Bring a spatula.

Jan 25, 2013 -- 5:40AM, EruditeApe wrote:

It's like you're typing, but haven't got the faintest clue how to make that 2nd-level summoning spell last 12 hours despite your claims.  The burden of proof is on you for that one.

It's like you're on a D&D forum, but have no idea how the game works.

If you've got an answer for the summoning question, post it.

Jan 25, 2013 -- 5:40AM, EruditeApe wrote:

You have given no evidence of them being used at all. So, I'm still waiting.

The claim was that they're commonplace, which has been demonstrated to the standard you requested.

If you want a higher standard, you could ask nicely and give a quantifiable description of the level of evidence you want, and maybe someone else will decide to help you.

Jan 25, 2013 -- 5:40AM, EruditeApe wrote:

You have provided no evidence whatsoever.

If you didn't read my post with the evidence in it, that's your loss.

Wow, it's like watching a politician tell a scientist he doesn't know his own field of study, no matter how much logic he throws at the politician there will always be a spin on words that hurdle him to the next insult that has nothing to do with the topic. Slagger gave examples of the things you deny ever happening in game within the core books. Here's a little advice, if you speak in absolutes, you will absolutely be wrong. Your original Claim was that no one ever uses cure spells, xd6 damage spells, or takes exotic weapon proficiency bastard sword in 3.5. You later added sardonic amendments to these assertions such as "a wizard will never use a xd6 damaging spell when there is no chance of it killing an opponent, and due to the fact that spells that control action economy are better, unless you're a moron who doesn't understands average cr damage scales versus curitive spell scales you never use a cure spell in combat, and druids don't use bastard swords".

The problem with your initial stance is that it was given as an inherent absolute that was imposable to justify. Your only recourse is to hide behind the fact that now you're asking for empirical evidence that goes against your assertion, when people who recreationally play this game hardly ever log encounters turn by turn and action by action explicitly, making pretty much any example anecdotal. The fact is that it is for the most part imposable to give empirical evidence on the subject of curing people in combat unless you could find an npc stat block that lists a by round tactical agenda for the npc in question and that lists curing itself or others at the cost of an action. You for the most part automatically lose on the fronts that no one uses xd6 damaging spells or bastard swords as there are several npc's listed throughout the various supplements that have such spells on their lists, and such proficiency and weapons at hand in their stat block.

As a matter of fact exemplars of evil have an npc who uses two weapon fighting via two large bastard swords well utilizing monkey grip and over sized two weapon fighting. This is hardly an optimal combat method as most people on the boards would tell you, but clearly the games mechanics allow for it, and it as such has been done, once again refuting your stance that no one ever uses bastard swords.

If you wish to argue that these are sub optimal tactics, then I don't think many people would disagree with you on that, however you indead said never, and saying something never happens is a statment that holds up about as good as a souffle' on a sub-woofer.

Jan 25, 2013 -- 6:09AM, Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:

] If you've got an answer for the summoning question, post it.

Sorry, but if you are totally incapable of figuring it out for yourself, I'm not going to let you distract from the real point here.

The claim was that they're commonplace, which has been demonstrated to the standard you requested.

Not at all. You have given no evidence that it's ever been used at all. So, I'm still waiting.

If you want a higher standard, you could ask nicely and give a quantifiable description of the level of evidence you want, and maybe someone else will decide to help you.

Given that you have provided no evidence whatsoever for your absurd claim, I'm not really wanting a higher standard. I mean, you haven't even gotten up to the incredibly low standard you set, much less any reasonable standard.

If you didn't read my post with the evidence in it, that's your loss.

Nope. You see, all you've done is show that some of the things are in a book, while others aren't even there. So, no evidence at all that inability to do basic arithmatic is the norm for D&D.

Jan 25, 2013 -- 6:34AM, Lashius wrote:

Wow, it's like watching a politician tell a scientist he doesn't know his own field of study, no matter how much logic he throws at the politician there will always be a spin on words that hurdle him to the next insult that has nothing to do with the topic.

I whole-heartedly agree.

Slagger gave examples of the things you deny ever happening in game within the core books.

The same book that gave us Wish loops. He still hasn't proven it happens

Here's a little advice, if you speak in absolutes, you will absolutely be wrong. Your original Claim was that no one ever uses cure spells, xd6 damage spells, or takes exotic weapon proficiency bastard sword in 3.5. You later added sardonic amendments to these assertions such as "a wizard will never use a xd6 damaging spell when there is no chance of it killing an opponent, and due to the fact that spells that control action economy are better, unless you're a moron who doesn't understands average cr damage scales versus curitive spell scales you never use a cure spell in combat, and druids don't use bastard swords".

Meaning you weren't paying attention. Okay.

The problem with your initial stance is that it was given as an inherent absolute that was imposable to justify. Your only recourse is to hide behind the fact that now you're asking for empirical evidence that goes against your assertion, when people who recreationally play this game hardly ever log encounters turn by turn and action by action explicitly, making pretty much any example anecdotal.

The problem, however, is that it wasn't me making the assertion, but him. It's like him raging about how Global Warming is a hoax.

The fact is that it is for the most part imposable to give empirical evidence on the subject of curing people in combat unless you could find an npc stat block that lists a by round tactical agenda for the npc in question and that lists curing itself or others at the cost of an action.

Then he shouldn't make such huge, unsupported claims. It's not my fault he chose to make such a crazy argument.

You for the most part automatically lose on the fronts that no one uses xd6 damaging spells or bastard swords as there are several npc's listed throughout the various supplements that have such spells on their lists, and such proficiency and weapons at hand in their stat block.

There are also examples of NPCs not qualifying for their own PrCs. Does that mean it's the norm for games? No? Okay, then, so what makes inability to do basic math so special?

As a matter of fact exemplars of evil have an npc who uses two weapon fighting via two large bastard swords well utilizing monkey grip and over sized two weapon fighting. This is hardly an optimal combat method as most people on the boards would tell you, but clearly the games mechanics allow for it, and it as such has been done, once again refuting your stance that no one ever uses bastard swords.

So? Again, I fail to see how this supports his argument of such idiocy being the norm.

If you wish to argue that these are sub optimal tactics, then I don't think many people would disagree with you on that, however you indead said never, and saying something never happens is a statment that holds up about as good as a souffle' on a sub-woofer.

Reading is cool. I suggest you try it sometime.

Jan 22, 2013 -- 10:18AM, EruditeApe wrote:

Jan 22, 2013 -- 4:30AM, Vortsukoto wrote:

There are a few basics that are visible through core: Clerics heal in combat, Wizards use xd6 blast spells, Fighters make full attacks and take feats like Weapon Proficiency (bastard sword).

I've never, ever seen this in practice. I don't see why people trot this out like it's the holy grail of 3.5.  

Jan 22, 2013 -- 4:30AM, Vortsukoto wrote:

You can cry that these are sub-optimal but they are the tactics that every player I know of who started in 3.0 and 3.5 used. It was the tactics described by the play testers. It is the most basic and unmodified state of 3.X even if it's not a superior state.

I'd like to see some evidence for that pretty damned big claim. It's clearly obvious everyone I've met that killing is more efficient, Greatswords are superior to bastard swords, Power Attack is "yes," and winning the action economy is more important that ineffective spells that will likely be inferior to a standard Fighter full attack.

Jan 22, 2013 -- 4:30AM, Vortsukoto wrote:

Introducing into all of this a class ability that grants a 4th level spell every 1d4 rounds is a VERY big assumption to make.

It's an even bigger assumption to assume that a class ability would be made intentionally awful.

Also? Candle. Core really didn't care about spell level.

Jan 22, 2013 -- 4:30AM, Vortsukoto wrote:

While I wouldn't doubt (or care) were printed in ToB where I've had characters able to Solo monsters with a CR twice their level without batting an eye; in core where dwell Half-elves, LA +1 Hobgoblins, Toughness, and all manner of other underwhelming abilities I'll put my money on the weaker of the possible interpretations.

In core, there also dwells the Wizard, the CoDZilla, and the Candle. Also, Holy Word and Wish loops.

Assuming it's weak because it's core is not a very good idea.

This is where the train wreck started. as you can see, it wasn't slagger who made the assertion that such things where the norm, but you would know that, seeing as how reading is cool and all. Slagger chimes in here with this:

Spoiler: Show

Following this you pretty much go on to say that game developers are morons, people who cure in combat are morons, people who use bastard swords are morons, and people who use Xd6 damage spells are morons, well tagging sardonic amendments to these points of view, and asked for proof of an undefined standard, as seen here:

Spoiler: Show

And here:

Spoiler: Show

This goes on for quit a few posts with you refusing to give a standerd by which slagger could go by for delivering a supposedly proper response within your mind. Finaly, you give this statement after more sardonic remarks:

Spoiler: Show

To which slagger responds with book quotations that describe people healing in combat, the use of a bastard sword, the existence of xd6 damage spells on spell known lists ect, proving that their use is common place enough to be put into core published material, to which you basicaly respond with "but developers are stupid, so it doesn't count. Again, I point out the fact that you not only claim to have never seen any of these things in game, but that they simply "do not ever happen". Slagger gave proof that they do, ergo, you are wrong. If you want to argu at their effectiveness, go for it, and be prepared to be agrred with on pretty much all of those claims save for some fringe cases, however your original point is clearly wrong.

Jan 25, 2013 -- 7:09AM, EruditeApe wrote:

The claim was that they're commonplace, which has been demonstrated to the standard you requested.

Not at all. You have given no evidence that it's ever been used at all. So, I'm still waiting.

Today I'll be running a brief roleplaying adventure played entirely in this post.  The DM is Slagger the Chuul, and the characters in the group are Joe the Fighter (played by Slagger the Chuul), Bob the Cleric (played by Slagger the Chuul), and Mary the Wizard (played by Slagger the Chuul).

• Joe is a 1st-level human fighter using the human starting package (Str 15, Dex 13, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 12, Cha 8) with Exotic Weapon Proficiency (bastard sword) instead of Weapon Focus (greatsword).  Alignment: Neutral.  Skills: Climb, Jump, Swim.
• Bob is a 1st-level human cleric using the human starting package (Str 12, Dex 13, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 15, Cha 8).  Alignment: Neutral Good.  Skills: Concentration, Heal, Spellcraft.
• Mary is a 1st-level human wizard using the human starting package (Str 12, Dex 13, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 15, Cha8) with magic missile and shocking grasp (as an alternative choice) gained from her Intelligence score.  Alignment: Neutral.  Skills: Concentration, Decipher Script, Spellcraft.

As a fun houserule, everyone gets gets the rounded-down average on all dice rolls, instead of delaying the gripping narrative by rolling.

DM (Slagger): "After many brave adventures which we won't describe here, you have finally tracked Mary's arbitrarily evil identical twin sister, Sue (who has identical statistics, aside from her name and alignment), to this room, where she now stands about 10 feet away.  Having all drawn weapons, except for Sue, you decided not to attack for some reason known only to yourselves, and have instead delayed and are in the middle of waiting to see what Sue will do.  Seeing your hesitation, Sue casts magic missile at her hated sister, dealing 3 points of damage."
Joe (Slagger): "I undelay."  (There's a brief pause in which no-one else says they want to undelay.)
"I move in between Sue and Mary, telling the two sisters not to fight over me, and use the total defense action.  I certainly won't be needing my trusty bastard sword (for which I have that proficiency feat) today."
Bob (Slagger): "Since Joe's covering Sue, I undelay." (There's another brief pause in which no-one else says they want to undelay.)
"I spontaneously cast cure light wounds on Mary to heal her during this life-threatening combat."
DM (Slagger): "Okay, Mary, you're back on full hit points.  Everyone else has acted, so do you want to undelay?"
Mary (Slagger): "Yes I do.  I'm going to go over and give my sister some corrective electrotherapy with shocking grasp."
DM (Slagger): "You hit and deal her a karmically-appropriate 3 hit points of electricity damage.  She promptly apologizes for being nasty and you all live happily ever after.  The End."

And there we have it, observable empirical proof that the elements described have ever occurred ingame.

If that isn't enough, I found this little tid-bit well reading through the rules compendium.

Spoiler: Show

Jan 25, 2013 -- 12:41PM, EruditeApe wrote:

I am completely and utterly lacking in self-awareness of any kind.

Yup.

I have to admit I'm curious about one thing here, EA (even though I don't want to get involved in the argument). The Mirror Mephit is a problem, as pretty much unanimously agreed here. However, when Slagger mentioned that summoned (specifically summoned, not Planar Binding or anything) mirror mephits aren't going to be able to use their Simulacrum ability, you first pointed out better control effects (which will work if the mephit is Bound, certainly, but won't be needed if it's summoned since summoned creatures follow your orders as a consequence of the spell), and when you were challenged on the duration point, you merely said "#implyingdurationsaren'tlulz". (This would not be a contested point on Planar Binding, so I presume you were specifically referring to a summon effect with their typical duration of one round per level and their inability to be persisted).

How, exactly, are you managing to get a summon effect to last long enough for a mephit to cast Simulacrum?

I've tried to engage you positively whenever I do show up in these slugfests; I would wish that you do the same here. I'm honestly not seeing how you're pulling off this specific duration trick. The only solution I know of is the Twice-Betrayer's Ocular Spell / Persistent Spell / Divine Metamagic trick, and I would see this more as a problem with that interaction (as that also allows persisting of any spell) than with the specific nature of the mirror mephit (which I'm not pretending to make excuses for, don't get me wrong! Its problems still exist through Planar Binding effects at the very least).

Let's try this again after my service provided stopped the first time I tried responding.  It's unfortunate I need to quote the "on topic" question.

Jan 25, 2013 -- 2:39AM, Nistra wrote:

It's not core only but I wonder - can you make a Dwarf Fighter 1/Barb 1/Ranger 3/Horizon Walker X/Occult Slayer X/Some PrC to finish things off viable. A friend of mine is relatively new to DnD and wanted to make something that swings a huge, badass sword around. Since she was focused on Frenzied Berzerker and I absolutely refuse to play in a party with that stupidity, I need a build that still charges, does decent damage with simple mechanics and decent saves. We are currently level 2.

Viability depends on a number of things because it would seem that if you ask around here you're always going to hear "NO" for any build designed around damage that doesn't use spellcasting or ToB.  Now I'm going to say it is NOT a viable build for a purely RAW reason; you'll take an XP penalty!  Because you have Ranger3 and only Barbarian1 you'll get slapped with the -20% XP penalty for multiclassing with a wide level gap.  The Fighter level doesn't count as it is the dwarf's favored class.  Of course I point out that I'm completely full of 'it because everybody knows that nobody bothers to use XP penalties for multiclassing base classes despite it clearly being in the PHB.

Now in the "huge, badass sword" department how keen is the dwarf on wielding a greatsword?  I know the greatsword deals a touch more average damage then the greataxe's d12 which is so much more the the Dwarven Waraxe's d10 damage but as a dwarf you can wield that axe pretty easily and can use it one handed if the sitation calls for it.  Now if the "huge" sword means wanting to wield oversized weapons I'll just shake my head.

Jan 25, 2013 -- 1:18PM, Tempest_Stormwind wrote:

I have to admit I'm curious about one thing here, EA (even though I don't want to get involved in the argument).

That's sad. You're generally the most interesting person to argue with around here.

The Mirror Mephit is a problem, as pretty much unanimously agreed here. However, when Slagger mentioned that summoned (specifically summoned, not Planar Binding or anything) mirror mephits aren't going to be able to use their Simulacrum ability, you first pointed out better control effects (which will work if the mephit is Bound, certainly, but won't be needed if it's summoned since summoned creatures follow your orders as a consequence of the spell), and when you were challenged on the duration point, you merely said "#implyingdurationsaren'tlulz". (This would not be a contested point on Planar Binding, so I presume you were specifically referring to a summon effect with their typical duration of one round per level and their inability to be persisted).

How, exactly, are you managing to get a summon effect to last long enough for a mephit to cast Simulacrum?

There are several ways to go about it. A cleric, or an Illumian Mystic Theurge, for example, can easily persist it, as can any other metamagic abuse, although Planar Binding is my favorite way to go about it, as you cannot force a summon to use SLAs that would normally have XP costs. There is another way, but, for the life of me, I cannot remember it right now.

I've tried to engage you positively whenever I do show up in these slugfests; I would wish that you do the same here. I'm honestly not seeing how you're pulling off this specific duration trick. The only solution I know of is the Twice-Betrayer's Ocular Spell / Persistent Spell / Divine Metamagic trick, and I would see this more as a problem with that interaction (as that also allows persisting of any spell) than with the specific nature of the mirror mephit (which I'm not pretending to make excuses for, don't get me wrong! Its problems still exist through Planar Binding effects at the very least).

This line of reasoning is faulty. It could just as well be used to justify the Sarrukh, by blaming it on Gate, or wish or Craft Contingent Spell by blaming them on cost negators. Problematic things are inherently problematic.

Jan 25, 2013 -- 3:52PM, EruditeApe wrote:

That's sad. You're generally the most interesting person to argue with around here.

I work in academia. I get in enough arguments as a matter of my job.

There are several ways to go about it. A cleric, or an Illumian Mystic Theurge, for example, can easily persist it, as can any other metamagic abuse,

I'm not sure how just anyone can persist it: Persistent Spell only works on fixed-range or personal spells, and Summon spells have Range: Close. The ability to convert spells of any range* into a fixed range with Ocular Spell (thus making them compatible with Persistent) is kind of why the Twice-Betrayer's ultra-persistent works. Without Ocular to switch it over, its range isn't fixed, and it can't be persisted. (If Persistent worked on close-ranged spells natively, I wouldn't be asking this question.)

*(Qualifier: Well, any range except touch and personal, but personal already works with Persistent, and Reach Spell is used to switch touch spells to rays, which works with Ocular. And then there's the casting time issue, which offhand I forget how LordofProcrastination solved (but, as I recall, he did - that's probably why I also recall Ocular:Persist:Summon working, as normally they take too long to cast to be candidates for Ocular.). But these details aren't too important to the overall point: without Ocular, Persistent won't work with Summons.)

EDIT: Hmm. Looks like my memory was faulty: the Twice-Betrayer can persist nearly any spell, but can't persist those with both non-fixed/non-personal ranges and casting times longer than 1 full-round action. Summon spells fail on both fronts: they have non-fixed ranges (so they won't work with Persist unless combined with Ocular Spell) and a casting time of 1 round (so they won't work with Ocular Spell). How, exactly, are you persisting them?

although Planar Binding is my favorite way to go about it, as you cannot force a summon to use SLAs that would normally have XP costs.

I'd forgotten about that bit of control limitation. Planar Binding + some extra compelling force (diplomancy, domination, etc) would be required.

There is another way, but, for the life of me, I cannot remember it right now.

If it comes to you, please let me know.

This line of reasoning is faulty. It could just as well be used to justify the Sarrukh, by blaming it on Gate, or wish or Craft Contingent Spell by blaming them on cost negators. Problematic things are inherently problematic.

I was not attempting to justify the mirror mephit - I qualified it twice in that quote as something that's problematic, i.e. making no excuses for it. (In the Sarrukh/Gate example, I blame both of them. Gate is one of those "what the hell, designer?" spells when used as a summoning effect, and the Sarrukh looks like the product of an Ed Greenwood fever dream. Broken A + Broken B.) I was simply wondering how you could dismiss the point about summon monster effects with just a "#implyingdurationsaren'tlulz" as if these methods were self-evident, instead of mentioning why they were "lulz". As I've pointed out here, that doesn't appear to be the case, as you can't Persist its effect natively no matter how cheap you can make metamagic. It requires Ocular, which opens up its own can of worms (again, Broken A + Broken B, although without Persistent, Ocular on its own is far less of an issue).

We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.

You can review the Code here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_...

Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.

Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intellegent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others. Believe us when we say it is possible.

Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.

Jan 25, 2013 -- 3:16PM, StevenO wrote:

Let's try this again after my service provided stopped the first time I tried responding.  It's unfortunate I need to quote the "on topic" question.

Whats even more sad is that draco seems to have landed a ban for telling someone they where trolling/going off topic in his own thread.

Jan 25, 2013 -- 4:27PM, Tempest_Stormwind wrote:

Hmm. Looks like my memory was faulty: the Twice-Betrayer can persist nearly any spell, but can't persist those with both non-fixed/non-personal ranges and casting times longer than 1 full-round action. Summon spells fail on both fronts: they have non-fixed ranges (so they won't work with Persist unless combined with Ocular Spell) and a casting time of 1 round (so they won't work with Ocular Spell). How, exactly, are you persisting them?

It's been a while since I read the Twice-Betrayer, but doesn't Ocular Spell also require the spell to be either a ray or targeted (with a target other than personal)?

Incidentally, I said a summoned creature specifically since EA attributed the excessively good access to the mirror mephits to a 2nd-level summoning spell (rather than the obvious use of a calling effect like planar binding).

Jan 25, 2013 -- 4:27PM, Tempest_Stormwind wrote:

Jan 25, 2013 -- 3:52PM, EruditeApe wrote:

That's sad. You're generally the most interesting person to argue with around here.

I work in academia. I get in enough arguments as a matter of my job.

I'm not sure there's such a thing as enough.

I'm not sure how just anyone can persist it: Persistent Spell only works on fixed-range or personal spells, and Summon spells have Range: Close. The ability to convert spells of any range* into a fixed range with Ocular Spell (thus making them compatible with Persistent) is kind of why the Twice-Betrayer's ultra-persistent works. Without Ocular to switch it over, its range isn't fixed, and it can't be persisted. (If Persistent worked on close-ranged spells natively, I wouldn't be asking this question.)

I am aware of this. My bringing up Persist was meant to imply Ocular as well.

*(Qualifier: Well, any range except touch and personal, but personal already works with Persistent, and Reach Spell is used to switch touch spells to rays, which works with Ocular. And then there's the casting time issue, which offhand I forget how LordofProcrastination solved (but, as I recall, he did - that's probably why I also recall Ocular:Persist:Summon working, as normally they take too long to cast to be candidates for Ocular.). But these details aren't too important to the overall point: without Ocular, Persistent won't work with Summons.)

EDIT: Hmm. Looks like my memory was faulty: the Twice-Betrayer can persist nearly any spell, but can't persist those with both non-fixed/non-personal ranges and casting times longer than 1 full-round action. Summon spells fail on both fronts: they have non-fixed ranges (so they won't work with Persist unless combined with Ocular Spell) and a casting time of 1 round (so they won't work with Ocular Spell). How, exactly, are you persisting them?

Actually, I've done some digging on this(This simulacra farm strategy was on a fun TO doc on my old computer that died), but MM p315 says specificly that all SLAs not otherwised specified are standard actions. So, unless that was erattad somewhere I can't find, it looks like it doesn't matter in the first place.

Furthermore, Ocular says "One full round or less." Summon Mirror Mephit is a one-round spell, and so qualifies.

But, hey, if everything else fails, Incantatrix. Problem solved.

although Planar Binding is my favorite way to go about it, as you cannot force a summon to use SLAs that would normally have XP costs.

I'd forgotten about that bit of control limitation. Planar Binding + some extra compelling force (diplomancy, domination, etc) would be required.

Actually, Planar Binding works as is, as it isn't a summoning spell.

There is another way, but, for the life of me, I cannot remember it right now.

If it comes to you, please let me know.

Yeah. It's going to bug me all night, now.

Jan 25, 2013 -- 6:09PM, EruditeApe wrote:

Actually, I've done some digging on this(This simulacra farm strategy was on a fun TO doc on my old computer that died), but MM p315 says specificly that all SLAs not otherwised specified are standard actions. So, unless that was erattad somewhere I can't find, it looks like it doesn't matter in the first place.

Part of the trouble there is that it doesn't make it clear in the MM whether they're talking about the spell or the spell-like ability noting the change in casting time.

But a more complete sentence does exist (tucked into the last page of the Magic chapter in the PHB) that says: "A spell-like ability has a casting time of 1 standard action unless noted otherwise in the ability or spell description."

They don't bother to repeat this part in the MM (which is inconvenient when trying to find it, since you typically look at the MM first), but they don't contradict it since they don't address the location for the notation, so it remains valid.

Interesting. I'd missed that. However it doesn't change the fact that the Monster Manual is the primary source in this case, and would trump the PHB.

Jan 25, 2013 -- 7:07PM, EruditeApe wrote:

Interesting. I'd missed that. However it doesn't change the fact that the Monster Manual is the primary source in this case, and would trump the PHB.

Yes, the Monster Manual is the primary source, and it would trump the Player's Handbook if the two disagreed.

But the MM doesn't actually cover where it can be noted that the spell-like ability has a casting time other than 1 standard action; according to the Monster Manual description, a spell-like ability having a different casting time because of the spell's description is perfectly valid.  The PHB's description simply describes two valid locations for the notation of a non-standard action casting time to occur (in the ability or in the spell description), both of which fit within the MM's description.

They're not in disagreement, the PHB just elaborates on what the MM already says.

From the Monster Manuel, Page 315:

Spell-like abilities are magical and work just like spells (though they are not spells and so have no verbal, somatic, material, focus, or XP components). They go away in an antimagic field and are subject to spell resistance if the spell the ability resembles or duplicates would be subject to spell resistance.
A spell-like ability usually has a limit on how often it can be used. A spell-like ability that can be used at will has no use limit. Using a spell-like ability is a standard action unless noted otherwise, and doing so while threatened provokes attacks of opportunity. It is possible to make a Concentration check to use a spelllike ability defensively and avoid provoking an attack of opportunity, just as when casting a spell. A spell-like ability can be disrupted just as a spell can be. Spell-like abilities cannot be used to counterspell, nor can they be counterspelled.

Jan 25, 2013 -- 8:28PM, Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:

They're not in disagreement, the PHB just elaborates on what the MM already says.

This is incorrect. There is no mention of spells or spell descriptions in that sentence. It is totally unrelated. What you are doing is akin to claiming that every PLA has a 10 minute casting time because some power has the same duration. It's basically making up text.

Jan 25, 2013 -- 9:28PM, EruditeApe wrote:

Jan 25, 2013 -- 8:28PM, Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:

They're not in disagreement, the PHB just elaborates on what the MM already says.

This is incorrect. There is no mention of spells or spell descriptions in that sentence. It is totally unrelated. What you are doing is akin to claiming that every PLA has a 10 minute casting time because some power has the same duration. It's basically making up text.

Monster Manual (page 315): "Using a spell-like ability is a standard action unless noted otherwise, and doing so while threatened provokes attacks of opportunity."
Player's Handbook (page 180): "A spell-like ability has a casting time of 1 standard action unless noted otherwise in the ability or spell description."

All the PHB does is describe two specific locations that the casting time can be noted as something other than a standard action.  It's providing us additional information without contradicting the MM in any way.  The MM does not state that the casting time should be noted in any particular location, but it doesn't exclude any particular location either.

Similarly, the MM tells us that spell-like abilities work like the spells they duplicate.  The PHB goes a little further by stating that they work like spells with the same name.  As with the casting time, the PHB is just describing important additional details that aren't included in the MM.importance.

That is incorrect. The PHB text is totally irrelevent. The MM text is all that matters, and the MM text says that the Simulacrum SLA is a standard action. Not that it matters, given how easy this is to do anyways, but the Simulacrum SLA, just like almost every other SLA, is a standard action.

Jan 25, 2013 -- 10:50PM, EruditeApe wrote:

That is incorrect. The PHB text is totally irrelevent. The MM text is all that matters, and the MM text says that the Simulacrum SLA is a standard action.

If the PHB text on spell-like abilities is totally irrelevant, how do you know that the simulacrum spell-like ability works like the simulacrum spell?  The information relating a spell-like ability to a spell of the same name only appears in the Player's Handbook.  Without that, a spell-like ability could be duplicating any spell in existence, no matter what name you gave it.  I hope you can see the absurdity that would result from treating the PHB's description of spell-like abilities as irrelevant.

The Monster Manual says that the use of spell-like abilities is a standard action unless noted otherwise.  The simulacrum spell entry notes otherwise.

Since the PHB doesn't contradict the MM, you've got no basis for stating that its information is irrelevant.  The PHB is not the primary source, but it's a valid source and contains valid information on spell-like abilities that expands upon the MM description.

Incorrect. They are contradictory. Therefore, the PHB one doesn't matter, at least for casting times, which is where the contradiction is.

Uh... They're not contradictory. The PHB version is at least supplementary, if not complementary. It gives additional information, rather than different information.

Jan 26, 2013 -- 12:39AM, Count_Von_CoC wrote:

Uh... They're not contradictory. The PHB version is at least supplementary, if not complementary. It gives additional information, rather than different information.

Incorrect. The information is different.

But, seriously, I'm right, but this is turning into an "uh-huh" "uh-uh" situation, which will get us nowhere, so I'm calling it quits here.

I win!

Jan 26, 2013 -- 12:30AM, EruditeApe wrote:

They are contradictory. Therefore, the PHB one doesn't matter, at least for casting times, which is where the contradiction is.

The "unless noted otherwise" part is in both the PHB and MM, so it can't be incorrect.  And the MM doesn't say anything about where differences can be noted for the casting time, so it's not possible for the PHB to contradict it by giving locations.  How is it contradictory?

Jan 26, 2013 -- 12:43AM, EruditeApe wrote:

But, seriously, I'm right, but this is turning into an "uh-huh" "uh-uh" situation, which will get us nowhere, so I'm calling it quits here.

Have you ever read the section on "Time and Immortality" from page 12 of Libris Mortis?

Adaptation and learning are positive things.