>powergamers arguing over which class is the "best"

Modern D&D places an emphasis on stats and character builds. Play a pre-WotC edition if you want people to actually roleplay.

>>50677237
Don't shit in how other people have fun anon, it ain't nice. The way they have fun won't affect how you have fun on your table.

>>50677237
Alternatively, the game could be competently designed and we could have both parity of gameplay options AND a fun roleplaying experience.

You know, some sort of Role-Playing Game.

>>50677289
And how does that matter when the actual storytelling/rp aspect is a choice that has nothing to do with the numbers on your character sheet?

File: 1240611931852.jpg (21KB, 252x250px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 252x250px

>>50677237

>It's another "roleplaying and mechanical effectiveness are mutually exclusive" storyfag memer

>>50677339
Because you need the stats to back up the shit you can claim to do, you fucking idiot. If you want to roleplay being a powerful warrior, but mechanically you're utter garbage, then something's fucking wrong.

The two need to compliment one another.

>>50677237
Fighters and monks are useless though. They aren't good at the things they're supposed to be doing well. Sure, you can roleplay a big dick hotshot veteran war guy, but when it comes time for combat that could very well fall apart when you have to spend half a dozen rounds trying to hit a goblin. Roleplay doesn't mean a whole lot if it's not supported by mechanics. It's why we hate freeform around here.

>>50677237
as a DM, I quietly gimp powergamers to keep everyone around the same effectiveness.

>I reward interesting roleplay

>>50677237
Have you tried not playing D&D?
An unbablanced system (especially one that is very documented like D&D) always encourages powergaming traits. Unless your players are absolutely pure souls, but I wouldn't count on that.
Because it makes their characters mecanically more effective, with noo drawback apart from reducing your progression options.

>How could these people miss the entire point of D&D
Are you saying those people are having badwrongfun?
If they like minmaxing, let them. Just find another group that is more to your tastes.

>>50677368
NO! That's SHIT roleplaying.

Either your char knows he's hot shit, or he doesn't.
The actual stats have NOTHING to do with how your char should act.
>Obvi the stat distro matters, your guy knows he's good with his mouth/hands/face, but Never how good except in comparison to KNOWN statblocks
>Has the lvl1 Wizard fought an Orc? than he might realize he's not hot shit Str-wise, otherwise he might roll lucky and keep thinking he's got it all!

>>50677339
Because in modern D&D most of your rewards like experience and treasure comes from killing shit and most of the abilities and powers you get are specifically for killing shit or getting around shit that can't be killed. If you want to de-emphasize this, you have to reduce the reward for combat effectiveness.

>>50677237
> This isn't League of Legends for fucksake

Then why is it so much like LoL?

Why is such a huge mechanical emphasis based on stats, spells and equipment? Why are the primary applications of your Race and Class what kind of stats, spells and equipment you can use? This is a very heavily incentive and signal for players to care about those things more than the anemic systems it has for roleplaying?

Oh wait.

It's because D&D is a wargame that I quite like with some RP strapped on.

>>50677409
God, work on your trolling, this is shit-tier garbage.

>>50677393

I think he means that there are other better mediums to work on your powergaming needs.

MMORPGs, Fantasy football, Several types of robotics and miniature engineering, like aeromodelism, etc.

If you want to make something more efficient, D&D isn't the most optimal medium for it.

>>50677237
It's like this, holmes.

The better a character is, ability wise, the more power they have to change the story.

>>50677419
I bet you reroll stats you don't like

>>50677448
Wouldn't that support your logic about the numbers not mattering?

>>50677410
does the DMG specifically note social encounters, and how not all experience and treasure should come from killing shit?

>If the party is a Bard, a warrior, and a thief, >There should be a little stealing and sneaking,
>a little singing and convincing
>and a little Foightin'!

>>50677442

Not really, since the DM decides how the power levels in a game goes and he can nerf you in several ways through the narrative.

>>50677409

What's the Dunning-Kruger effect?

>replying to bait this bad quality

>>50677448
No, fuckboy, I use point-buy. I came to make the character I want to play, not risk being the party's gofer because I couldn't roll a stat over 10.

>>50677437
But none of them allows you to spend an afternoon with friends. Or won't put you in opposition with other people.

>>50677480
And that's a shitty fucking DM, shocking.

Rather then being a passive aggressive little bitch, you could just all talk about the sort of game you want to play.

I know that's past most on /tg/, though.

>>50677456
Rerolling? no it's the mindset,
You are trying to get your numbers the very best,
as though it's a video-game.

Uncreative Dms go by the numbers, and suck b/c of it.

It doesn't matter, because no matter what the stats are, I'm going to make encounters fit the party, and they'll be challenging to suit the rewards.

It makes no difference what the stats are, it just changes the encounters I'll use to fight those stats.

>>50677419
>>50677481
You guys both say it's shitty bait but you and me both know this thread is easily getting to 200+ posts just because he mentioned an opinion on D&D in the OP.

>>50677503

I think you are missing the point of the argument. Powerplaying is pointless if there's no solid measure of power or enemy leveling to go with. The concept of a DM and chance makes hard powerplaying pointless.

Powerplaying works better in more rigid systems, like videogames and tabletop games with set, solid rules.

>>50677512
Then why are you even using a fucking system if you're just going to fucking ignore it?

Oh, I know, because you're just a trolling retard, but I want to see you try and contort mentally to shit out some sort of answer.

Why can't you do a little bit of both?

>get invited to first ever TTRPG session ever 2 weeks ago
>decide to be a druid because that sounds cool
>want to an effective party member(friend who invited me specifically said they needed a little bit of healing)
>but also want to play my druid not as a treehugging hippy, but a pragmatic ecologist
>learn more about the class, seems like I can also do some cool shit

>>50677481
The Dunning-Kruger effect is below average people believing they're average or above, just like everyone does.

It has nothing to do with the DM adjusting encounters to fit a grossly unbalanced party

>>50677486
If your DM wasn't shit, your 9 average gofer would still be important to the party,
just like your all 9s Wizard can probably still beat an average Monk later.

>>50677527
Not even slightly.

3.PF. Party of a Druid, Cleric, Wizard, and Monk.

3 of those have massive amounts of power to effect the story, and you have to bend over backwards to try and make the monk even slightly viable without it being the most transparent bullshit ever.

>>50677512
If you ignore the numbers, then what's the point of having numbers in the first place? As a player, should I just ignore the numbers too? Or will that come to bite me in the ass later?

>>50677476
It does, as well as alternative ways of advancement that don't involve acquiring experience points from murdering things. However, the default style of play in 5e still expects several combat encounters a day. As much as I like 5e, it's still very heavily combat-focused with character abilities focused more on killing things with a little bit of utility.

>>50677548
Yes, a wizard literally unable to cast any spells at all, sure is a worthwhile character, you dribbling 'tard.

>>50677527
Thank you

>>50677531
The system is a basis for the gameplay,
the Rules that the Dm can bend.
Literally ANY system can be a good game, but you do need ground rules, and DnD is the most well known.

>Have you considered the thought that not everyone is out to "troll" or deceive you?
This isn't /b, friend

>>50677237
Have you tried not playing 4e?

4e is designed for the LoL crowd and plays and feels like a video game all the while providing an inferior experience to actually playing a video game.

>>50677575
>Literally ANY system can be a good game

Oh, you're one of THOSE. Yeah, we're done here.

>>50677551

Setting: The magic in the world is weakining and all the spells and sorcery are weaker with each day

Setting: Inquisition is gathering all mages because all of them are considered heretics and only holy powers are the true power

Setting: Industrial revolution starts earlier and gunpowder is readily available and widespread.

Setting: The gods left the world and magic can only be done through dangerous pacts with demons.

See, simple settings premises can easily make the monk the most practical team member or at least equally useful.

>>50677575
Ok, yes, full retard and not even bother to hide the trolling. Last (you) for you, and I highly advise the same from others.

But to point out the problem here: You are flat out saying ignore the fucking rules, so no, you apparently don't need ground rules as you just change them randomly, fucktard.

>>50677375
You're a retard if you can't make a 1st level fighter at 15 PB capable of reliably hitting a goblin.

The one thing fighters excel at is doing huge damage whenever you want. Their failure is the lack of versatility, generally diversity in playstyle, and near-retard mental faculties so you gave acceptable physical stats.

>>50677589
I said not transparently trying to fuck the magic users, jackass.

So, the only way to make the monk even slightly worth it(And even then, a fucking fighter would still be better) is to fuck over the actually good classes without lube to the point where you'd have to be full retard to choose one.

Great fucking examples.

>>50677589
Every single one of these settings requires you to rewrite the system so the spellcasters just actually don't work as written, which, as homebrew, does not defend the system in the slightest, or is an untenable setting as the idea of martials or martials with secondary casting ability threatening a mature population of spellcasters is laughable, assuming default 3.5 ruleset.

Not to say those aren't all fun ideas for campaigns! It's just for the most part all of them would be better in either an earlier edition of dnd than 3.x, or an alternate system better suited for their tone and power scale.

>>50677589
>1
That's mechanical, not setting
>2
So they need to be sneaky until they're able to fuck off into a demiplane. If only there were spells that could help with that

Also
>Cleric, Druid
>not holy
>3
You can't just solve all your problems with damage, and that does nothing to help the monk
>4
So WH40k-style perils? Adding in a random chance for a TPK does not a balanced party make.

Or, just play a system where you can't accidentally create 3 gods and a shit-eating peasant in the same party.

>>50677631

Narrative aspects. It's inside the rules of the game, so it shows how pointless it is to powergame in a RP game like D&D.

Show me a rule that says those setting can't be used. If you can't, I just proved that the narrative is the ultimate powergaming in the game.

>>50677589
>Has to rework entire setting to make monk even slightly relevant.

You aren't helping your case any. Besides, all of those ideas only make the casters more fucking interesting plotwise. WHo would you rather be in a world where magic is dying? A formerly mighty wizard desperately hanging on to the last shreds of his power as he delves into the mystery surrounding the phenomena? Or some tool that goes around and punches people?

>>50677322
Are you sure? Are you 100% certain?

Because you are wrong. So, so - so - wrong.

>>50677656
I said. I wanted.

You to fucking show me.

How to make it viable.

Without transparently trying to fuck the magic users.

Level with me, your family tree is a fucking square, isn't it? Because that's a very simple request you've utterly failed to do. Can you even understand the words I'm typing right now?

>>50677551
Not necessarily,
why is the Monk there?
He may be more important to the story,

and if we ALL know the monk is less effective numerically, it's totally appropriate to make him more balanced, especially if you told players ahead of time that the game would be FUN, regardless of what class they chose.

>>50677554
Ask your DM, in my case yes, Roleplay your Guy, does HE know that item is shit? use it anyways!

>>50677559
Yeah, it's pretty biased :( Still wish crafting didn't suck
>>50677563
good character development for someone who's not very good at their chosen profession.
>The best stores are all about equally matched heroes after all

>>50677680

I didn't. I don't have to. The game rules allow me to make a setting that undermines magic users, then magic users can't be objectively better.

Maybe your family tree is more like a line, since you can't grasp simple human concepts as rules.

File: Future Former President.jpg (65KB, 887x620px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 887x620px

>>50677694
>:(
Wherever you came from, you have to go back.

>>50677666

He was arguing powegaming as ina character that is objectively better in combat/fights than a physically oriented class.

I agree with you, playing a magic user in a setting that is straight up detrimental to magic users would be pretty interesting.

>>50677702
>If I twist and break the system to transparently fuck the classes, MAYBE some others will have a chance!

Neck yourself, you worthless faggot. You claimed to be able to do it, and then you gave me this shit. Fuck off the edge of my dick.

>>50677588
>I wanna play pretend MY WAY or I'm not playing!
>>50677599
Never ignore the rules,
but the entire point is that the DM is above the rules, if you 3rd party broken splatbook your way through something I worked hard on, you can bet it's going to crop up later on in a way you don't recognize it and can't dodge it.
>the PLAYERS need ground rules, and the DM has to understand/recognize those.

>>50677731
Holy fucking shit. No, not a physically oriented class.

There's a very, very specific fucking reason I said fucking monk, you goddamn retard. And the fact you think even with the T-1's down someone would pick a monk, well. This is just flagrantly stupid.

>>50677748
And DMs need players, and if some faggot like you is DMing, me and the rest of the guys are packing our shit and leaving you high and dry.

>>50677694
So, I'm just going to throw this hypothetical out there. Say we're fighting some measly goblins on the road to some bigger evil, and I'm playing this big battle scarred veteran dude. Real hardass. Say a goblin, I dunno, gets a good roll and does a ton of damage to my fighter dude. Now, it doesn't really make narrative sense, to me at least, that this type of guy would die to some piddly nobody goblin. Should I just ignore that damage then?

>>50677756

I'm glad you decided to not point out the reason you chose monk specifically and in fact chose to only throw a few more insults there.

That will really make me understand your point.

>>50677702
And I can make a setting where the monk has a +40 BAB, 100 hp per level, and 9th level spells as at will natural abilities. Your ability to fuck with mechanics doesn't make the game intrinsically better.

>>50677790
The fact that you don't understand why the monk was chosen for that, or can't extrapolate from the post, says literally everything I need to know about you.

>>50677777
That's a waste.

>>50677237
>the entire point of D&D
9/10, fooled everyone under the age of 25. Jump in your time machine and travel back to 1992, pop onto USENET and try that shit, and watch how fast you get owned by people who hadn't had their intelligence pummeled out of them by trash media

>>50677725>>50677773
Response successfully generated!
>>50677777
if you've seen the roll, you're taking the damage yes. Normally that's MY (DM) roll,
you will get the damage that helps the story/fun the most.
If it's honestly a fight we're "encountering" you fighter isn't intended to breeze past them, and they're pretty close to your level.
You'll either die if it's nbd to reroll or I want to emphasize the lethality of the campaign,
Or you'll go down, just Baaarely make it out unconscious, and now someone else gets to use their abilities to help you (no heals? the thief can steal something to help you? etc)

>If you're actually level 11 fighting a few CR 1/3 goblins, that a boring AF encounter

>>50677814

I never argued it was better. I argued that it was allowed in the rules of the roleplaying game format of narrative-driven game.

Of course you can make any class good if you mess with the mechanics, it's the whole point of having a system. Some will favor some types of characters, some won't, but the narrative aspect will always keep "powergaming" a subjective topic, since the narrative can, at any point, favor other classes.

>>50677818

Good for you, buddy. As long as you know you won this internet argument.

>>50677777
also, Damn!

and I wasn't clear, players shouldn't See the DM's damage roll, unless it's a Crazy dramatic event, like the BBEG fight...

If you're close to death and it's you last possible hit, I'm rolling a special die, right in the middle of the damn table.

>>50677777
My child, it is really simple once you think about it: clearly the goblin stabbed your fighter in the dick or its blow managed to slice open a major artery or sever a ligament. Even being a big though fighter guy won't make you immune shit like that.

>>50677868
Here, let me educated you slightly.

Tier 5: Capable of doing only one thing, and not necessarily all that well, or so unfocused that they have trouble mastering anything, and in many types of encounters the character cannot contribute. In some cases, can do one thing very well, but that one thing is very often not needed. Has trouble shining in any encounter unless the encounter matches their strengths. DMs may have to work to avoid the player feeling that their character is worthless unless the entire party is Tier 4 and below. Characters in this tier will often feel like one trick ponies if they do well, or just feel like they have no tricks at all if they build the class poorly.

Examples: Fighter, Monk, CA Ninja, Healer, Swashbuckler, Rokugan Ninja, Soulknife, Expert, OA Samurai, Paladin, Knight, CW Samurai (with Imperious Command available)


This is why I chose the monk, you unbelievably dense faggot. Because its a worthless class you have to contort yourself transparently to try and increase 'narratively' to the point its nakedly clear you are doing it for one reason and on reason only.

Because you can't do it without twisting and breaking everything around it, and even then its going to be pretty goddamn worthless.

>>50677855
But you said the numbers don't matter and I should ignore them. Damage is a number, as is my HP. There's no way, narratively, my guy would go down to a goblin. Not even go unconscious.I mean, it's just some goblin, and I'm a hardened veteran of a hundred battles.

You're sending some very mixed messages.

Is it just me, or have even the obvious bait threads been going down in quality recently? Normally you get some mechanical debate in these threads, which is at least something, while this thread's basically
>well not if I have a forcefield
>>but my magic goes through forcefields
>it was a hologram :^)
>>so was the magic :^))))

>>50677902
>uses outdated 3.5 tier list
Nah.

>>50677922
Retards on Christmas break, I think.

But yeah, /tg/ in general's taken a fucking nosedive.

>>50677933
Here, have the updated position of the monk, then.

Tier 6: Not even capable of shining in their own area of expertise. DMs will need to work hard to make encounters that this sort of character can contribute in with their mechanical abilities. Will often feel worthless unless the character is seriously powergamed beyond belief, and even then won't be terribly impressive. Needs to fight enemies of lower than normal CR. Class is often completely unsynergized or with almost no abilities of merit. Avoid allowing PCs to play these characters.

Vanilla Monk, Unchained Monk, Aristocrat, Expert, Warrior, Commoner, Vow of Poverty Monk

>>50677907
oh you wanted the reason, that's a lot less interesting.
Yeah you got stabbed in the dick, that last big fight ruined your armor and you were a pretentious ass and didn't notice.
Or those measly goblins you thought they were?
yeah noone passed the checks to notice their weapons had some crazy BS poison on them
Why the fuck did you think I put CR 1/3 goblins in a legit encounter?
>(The cure was sold in town)
>(The rogue could have taken the poison off some flowers earlier)
>(And the Bard could have asked what those were and I would have just told him)

>>50677936
>/tg/ in general's taken a fucking nosedive.

Haven't really noticed but then again /tg/ has been borderline unreadable shit ever since moot first implemented captcha.

>>50677964
>Why the fuck did you think I put CR 1/3 goblins in a legit encounter?
Because you're an idiot.

>>50677936
Don't get me wrong, I can still find at least 2 discussions I can enjoy, which is more than I can say for any of the other 'chans or forums. It's just that it seems like we're rapidly approaching the Retard Singularity where there's nothing salvageable.

Then again, it could just be Christmas Break Retardation combined with /pol/ and tumblr angrily making out about how much they enjoy authoritarianism.

>>50677902

>Tier 5

HAHAHA, so you were using this outdated shitty tier system. Wow, sorry if I didn't understand you using a measuring system that is completely subjective and not at all used by the official books.

WOW. Now I know you are a tryhard that doesn't get that D&D and roleplaying games aren't Fighting games with solid strats and flowcharts.

HAhaha, great argument buddy. and since you just said you can make them useful by "twisting" the narrative, you just said yourself that they can be useful in D&D, a NARRATIVE DRIVEN game.

Just because a part of the fanbase/players enjoy to theorycraft tier around combat prowess doesn't mean they are worth jack shit if the NARRATIVE doesn't allow for it.

>>50677970
It was alright for the most part. I noticed the real drop when /qst/ was made. Really encouraged the shitposters. "Hey, if we whine and kick up enough of a storm, we can get anything we want banned!"

>>50677922
>>50677936
>PS, it's You.

Never have I ever.... given a shit about "Bait" on /tg
Neckbeards were always easy to "bait" and that's not a thing anyone gives a shit about on here.

>mfw "bait" is from like, <5 years ago
>Noone ever said "Flamebait" on the chan, so it's not that.

>>50677978
Here's the updated, faggot.

>>50677955
Monk's even MORE worthless, you illiterate shit. But sure, cry more about how the mechanics don't have anything to do with anything.

>>50677973
got you dead thou innit?

>and if I killed you that way, for no reason, it's because noone else in the group likes you either and we want you to ragequit...
>And it's not my house that'll get fucked up :P

>And that's why this kind of thing keeps happening to you
>Damn these morons in all aspects of my life!
>Everyone else just sucks!

>>50677964
Ah, so if I roleplay in a manner you don't like, you take control of my character away from me and get to determine his character traits for me. I think I've figured out why you ignore the system. Because, without mechanics, the players have no leverage against your tyranny, and you're free to railroad them however you please.

>>50677994

Man, you are missing the whole point.

The tier isn't made by the actual game designers, it doesn't matter in an actual day to day game because of the narrative aspect and it doesn't matter as long as the DM and the PCs agree on the terms.

You can show me threads and threads of theorycrafting and research and my main point still stands: If the narrative can changer the usefulness of a class, than the tier list is pointless in a non-combat driven campaign, aka pretty much any campaign played in a NARRATIVE DRIVEN game, like D&D.

>>50678016
>got you dead thou innit?
lolno, goblins had too much trouble hitting me with their shit attack bonuses and my high fortitude save protected me from the poison the one time they actually managed to hit me.

>>50678021
I'm 99% sure he's being a deliberate strawman, hence namefagging as "sage," the thing you should be putting into the options field.

>>50678023
You know the 'actual desginers' couldn't playtest for shit, right?

You know how they tested this shit, and why its so broken? All they played were healbot clerics and blaster wizards.

And the 'narative' doesn't change the actual raw USE of the class, faggot. All it changes is the number of hoops they gotta jump through, and they have the raw power to.

And why the flipping flying fuck are you trying to run a non-combat game in D&D anyway?

>>50678043

Shhh, let the stupid newfags think they are being massive trolls. They love that shit and I enjoy seeing how stupid they are.

>>50678065
>guy systematically destroying every argument you put up
>Lol he's a troll

Uhuh. Sure thing, 'sage'.

>>50678021
no I mean you failed the check to notice, as did your teammates in that instance.
Your stats, standard check rating.
>>50678035
Magic weapon noone noticed then, rather than poison. (Or the goblin was using the crazy artifact dagger you missed earlier and I was trying to give it back to you guys)

>>50678043
No strawman? no sockpuppets
>>50678065
no trolls. I clearly have played quite a bit of RPGs and read quite a lot of theory (Whether or not it's useful, you can't pretend I don't sound like I've actually done these things)

>You sound like a player that's never given any thought into worldbuilding or mechanics beyond what the rules are
>L4D's Director system is SUCH a great Idea in theory

>>50678055

It's allowed, it's in the rules and clearly you have a different idea of what a roleplaying game purpose is.

Playing DnD just as a combat game is stupid, there are several other systems with better combat mechanics and if you are that hungry for powergaming, you should focus in medium with stricter rules so your powergaming actually has a point, like in a MMORPG, in which the rules will stick for a few months-years, you get some loot and some online prestige.

Powergaming in D&D just leads you to finish the story faster, kill enemies that aren't really a challenge to kill and maybe finishing your gaming session earlier so you can go back to your homes faster.

File: 10D7243F-FB24-E292-5B84F1C300F28FE2Overlord_-_Der_Overlord.jpg (196KB, 703x1200px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 703x1200px

>>50678091
It's legits not me :(
here, I'll start dumping my armor folder, the extra effort will surely prove my case!

>>50678093
>Check
>Stats

Those are numbers, which you've repeatedly told me to ignore in favor of roleplaying. You said they don't matter. Why do they suddenly matter?

>>50678094
Holy fucking shit, you actually think D&D isn't a fucking game that revolves mainly around combat.

This explains so much of your retardation.

File: smug.jpg (25KB, 450x325px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 450x325px

>>50678093
>Magic weapon noone noticed then, rather than poison.
Oh, so you're just going to make up shit until your little mary sue goblins stab all your players with their mary sue knifes covered in their mary sue poison?

File: 127060976666.jpg (753KB, 900x1200px) Image search: [Google]

753KB, 900x1200px

>>50678108
They're a way of representing how good you are at something, which the DM is free to fiat away.
>did your fighter also minmax every skill?
>>50678125
You want to just make up reasons why your Mary sue character would NEVER die?
>(And that's the correct use of that term btw)

>>50678158
>You want to just make up reasons why your Mary sue character would NEVER die?
Because they're statistically too powerful to die to chump change like goblins.

>>50678110

>Your way of playing is worse than my way of playing, despite being fully supported by the game system and encouraged more and more with each new edition

More insults, you really are giving it to me. I'm about to start agreeing with you, just a few more and I'm about to break.

>>50678125
>>50678108
So, we're agreed, that guy's a worthless troll and we're all going to stop feeding him (you)s, right?

File: 5d15810a514b8fe7cea91d3784c4b8501465611749_full.jpg (103KB, 600x426px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 600x426px

>>50678171

Never underestimate goblins. Better adventurers fell because they underestimated the little bastards.

>>50678172
Yeah, I couldn't imagine why someone's insulting someone too stupid to understand basic facts.

If you want to think you won, feel free, but I'm done wasting my time on someone as ignorant as you.

Go ahead, proclaim your victory. I just don't care anymore, if god came down and beat some sense into you, you'd still claim D&D wasn't mainly about combat, despite a raw 60% of the book being about nothing but.

File: 1308058039047.jpg (396KB, 620x877px) Image search: [Google]

396KB, 620x877px

>>50678125
I know what can kill your character, if I want him dead, it's fair to do so as the DM.

But it'd better be fun and memorable, and not happen very often.
>>50678171
If you're fighting goblins when you think you're too powerful, it's a trick and they're a challenge.
>Ever heard of Tucker's Kobolds?

>>50678180
25 posters, you're talking to you and like, maybe one other guy, everyone else is those 2(3?) arguing or people watching this trainwreck

>I hope someone wants to be a more storydriven GM after this :3

>>50678172
>encouraged
>the majority of all abilities are focused on being more chop-killy
Sure my man.

>>50677368
Oh, by roleplaying aspect I meant actual story and not power level fantasies. I never had that problem despite not powergaming, my character's as strong as they are in the game, but their character is something completely different. Or... do you just write a character by how good they are at things?

>>50678201
>crybaby bleeding heart woman from that shitty manga
>better adventurer
Pick one.

>>50678204

Yup, the other 40% of the book is completely blank and since 60 > 40 it means the combat is the best.

File: 1476392897810.gif (167KB, 650x813px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 650x813px

>>50678158
Oh, so the numbers ARE important, but just so long as they further your own power and which you promptly cast aside when they inconvenience your narrative. That is, quite simply, the classic case of the powertripping DM.

>>50678158
>>50678211
>responding to the same post twice
You really are a dumb piece of shit, you know that?

>>50678212

More means better? Just because there are more combat abilities doesn't mean the narrative purpose is being overshadowed.

Wasn't /tg/ whining for a good time when 4e rebalanced the classes so they were more equally powerful and cried "videogamification" and BS like that?

File: 1308723605688.jpg (382KB, 900x1245px) Image search: [Google]

382KB, 900x1245px

▲
▲ ▲
>>50678229
Yes yes and yes?
The DM can do whatever they want, so long as everyone has fun and wants to come back.
>Bitch I wear mask, do accents, and Have props!
>>50678237
Words hurt you know, I had new information to disseminate

File: 12567520786767.jpg (55KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 1280x720px

>>50677393
>Have you tried not playing D&D?

My group won't even look anything else.

File: smug rohan.png (734KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

734KB, 1280x720px

>>50678271
>Words hurt you know
Kill yourself, faggot.

>>50678271
>Invoking rule zero
And if the DM abuses his power, the players will not have fun and leave, making his ability to do whatever he wants useless.

Rule negative one.

>>50678256
>just because there's a group of retards yelling A means that the retards yelling B are perfectly justified!
Also, how are you going to prevent combat from being the dominant force when word count, ability count, the number of combat-focused enemies provided, and others are all working against you?

>>50677237
the fuck is a jabroni?

>>50678321

>Btw, you have the support of the king's guard in this encounter.

>BTw, your magical sword get a bonus againist this enemy type due to being in its ancestral land and you have the blessings of the ancestros.

>Btw, due to heavy fog, the enemies have lower visibility, so you can try and sneak away

There, the narrative aspects trumped it all.

File: 1334637894147.jpg (55KB, 526x390px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 526x390px

>>50678303
>>50678310
Your... not very good at arguing are you?
>I think you might be the "troll" here

>>50678408
>Btw, due to heavy fog, the enemies have lower visibility, so you can try and sneak away
Nigger that's not narrative, that's written right into the rules.

>>50678408
That's still combat. You can hide behind your fiat as much as you like, but D&D is about combat. It has been since gold for encounter replaced gold for exp as the standard.

>>50678424
I don't try to match wits with people who clearly don't have any, faggot.

>>50678447

Thanks for also claryfing that, but the fact that the fog is around is due to narrative, I think.

Please correct me if I'm wrong. Seriously, this whole argument is meant to make things clearer.

>>50678457
Fuck me I'm retarded.

XP for encounter and xp for gold, respectively.

File: l-11803.jpg (147KB, 700x421px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 700x421px

>>50678424
>I'm out of arguments! Quick, accuse the other side of not having an argument!

The argument is that you can't be an inconsistent DM, ignore or enforce rules on a whim, straight up lie to your players about certain things mattering, or do whatever you want and still have a good game that people will want to come back to. It just does not work.

>inb4: but I do all that and have such a loyal playerbase!

Sure you do champ. We all believe you.

>>50678477
>but the fact that the fog is around is due to narrative, I think.
Terrain and weather conditions are as much about the narrative as the enemies you go up against and the loot you get from then when you've killed them.

>>50678457

Cool, but it isn't MAINLY combat. Combat is just a tool to drive the story.

D&D would be a miserable experience without any combat, but the WHOLE ARGUMENT was about how pointless it is to go for a powergame min/maxed build when the narrative will the one thing dictating the game pacing and challenges anyways.

My point is, don't dismiss the monk just because he's sub-optimal in battle. The game isn't only about combat and there are other ways for him to be useful DEPENDING ON THE STORY/NARRATIVE.

In this context, I mean.

>>50678524

Thank you, yes.

>>50678533
>Cool, but it isn't MAINLY combat.
Have you even played D&D before?

>>50678551

Yes, anon. For years, had several characters, with several classes, mainly in 3.5 and pathfinder.

Sorry, do you actually have a counterpoint or dismissing me by trying to make me not a "player" is pointless at this point of the discussion.

>>50678548
Anon, you misunderstand me. The DM doesn't pick your opponents based on the narrative, he designs the narrative so that the opponents that fit the narrative won't roflstomp you mechanically. Form follows function, not the other way around.

>>50678533
OK, but the monk also doesn't have as many skill points, and we're left with nothing but how good you are at being an interesting player.

But I'm sure you'd never use the Stormwind Fallacy, right?

The point explicit, for retards: there are options that it is almost never a bad idea to take over others. This is bad design.

>>50678583

It depends on the DM and how he builds his game.

>>50678627
Yes, whether he builds it properly or whether he builds it like shit.

File: 1337291891250.jpg (271KB, 700x525px) Image search: [Google]

271KB, 700x525px

>>50678464
>I have no response except name calling
smug anime faces is what you should be doing friend.
>>50678507
But.... I was literally responding to NO argument, just retarded drivel?
>I've never been inconsistent, it's not on a whim, it's to further a narrative that I've made sure we all agree on. You HAVE to lie to your players a little, or you cannot surprise them.

and if your goal is fun, you will always have people to play with.
>I'm certain you're a VERY fun person to play with, you sound much more fun, witty, and interesting than me.

Holy shit I haven't talked this much in ages, F U C K new captcha

>>50678587

It's also a fallacy to think people will just go through the way of least resistance.

Maybe, and follow me here, just maybe the guy has a character in mind and he wants to roleplay it despite non-optimal combat options.

Roleplaying, right? The whole point of a role playing game?

>>50678640
>he can't even use greentext properly
Just fellate a shotgun already.

>>50678635

>My way of doing things is objectively better than others

Oh boy, someone is losing an argument and needs to offend people to make himself look right.

>>50678640
Out of all the wrong things you have said in that post
>You HAVE to lie to your players a little
triggers me the most. Lying to your players about whether mechanics will or will not matter is straight up bullshit and cannot be justified. And you have lied about that, scroll up and read if you don't believe me.

>>50678665
I'm sorry that you're a little bitch who gets offended by everything, but that's what you have to do to make anything that's good; you have to start with function and develop form from there.

>>50678533
>don't dismiss the monk just because he's sub-optimal in battle.
No I think I'll continue doing exactly that because they're sub-optimal in combat and out of it.

>>50678706

Completely agree. You can lie about the story, maybe about some characters motivations, but lying about mechanics is pure BS.

>>50678654
It doesn't matter what they're trying to do. Maybe the guy picked monk because he wanted to be the wise sage guru, and the other guy picked druid because he liked bears. Either way, the person who picked monk is less able to affect the narrative, which is bullshit.

Also, roleplaying is half the point. You'd figure with the other part in the name, people would figure that out at some point.

>>50678720
>there is no such thing as a GM who tailors games to his players desires and characters ever
You know, people like you have ruined everything /tg/ used to stand for.

>>50678712

Oooh, sure got me there.

What if I want to worldbuild first and the use the D&D book to fit the enemies in my setting? What if I want to think on cool events that I want my PCs to experience and I think how I can fit it in the game mechanics?

Why can't I do it? I'm aware plans like those rarely stay on track during actual gameplay but making story driven games is just as fun, anon.

>>50678720

Cool, doesn't mean everybody has to do the same or that your opinion is inherently right or better.

>>50678738
>everything /tg/ used to stand for
Elf Slave What Do and taking the bait?

>>50678738
I don't think you understand what happens when there are party members who are wildly out of line with the rest in terms of effectiveness.

>>50678738
How the fuck do you tailor for a class that can literally not do what the book says it can? What can you do when the book flat out lies to you.

>>50678725

Why? Maybe the setting takes place in a world where monks are highly respected and can talk people on helping them?

Maybe it's a setting filled with magic-resistant enemies and he can more easily deal with them?

Wait, we are going in circles here. It's all back to my point that efficiency is subjective and powergaming is pointless in a game that relies in subjective aspects to develop.

>>50678794

House rules? Discuss a work around with your players?

Communicate in any way?

>>50678816
That's an admission that the game is fucked you goddamn idiot.

>>50678801
>monks are highly respected and can talk people on helping them?
>all you can do is whore yourself out to get actually competent people to help you
Sounds like shit.

>filled with magic-resistant enemies
Then they would be better off with literally any MARTIAL class rather than literally any class. It's an improvement, I guess.

>>50678801
No, the Monk can't deal with magic-resistant enemies better than someone who can turn themselves into a giant bear/tiger/dinosaur while having an animal companion that is also one of those two.

>>50678824

And? Can't you make mistakes?

Maybe you guys have been playing it with the wrong crowd, if you think a GM is in constant fights with the PCs.

>>50678832
That's not true, you'd still be better off playing CoDzilla or spamming Conjurations.

>>50678832
>>50678841

Oh dear, you guys are really literal, huh.

You still don't get the non-combat aspects can be just as important as the combat

>Sounds like shit.

Sound like your opinion.

File: 1458665995310.jpg (537KB, 731x1024px) Image search: [Google]

537KB, 731x1024px

>>50678660
say that phrase out loud, you sound dumber than that through the intertubes
>>50678706
I tell players I know all the mechanics, and use them as in the book, but I will reward creative roleplay
>You say you're jumping off the thing, to grab the chandelier, jump off and hit the guy across the room?
Make the checks, and Fuck yeah you get bonuses

and yes, if you take a crit that will end the game, at a point where it's clearly the wrong move and I'd have to make the story TERRIBLE to keep you alive... instead you'll just BARELY (Heroically) pull through

>itt, powergamers mad because the rules say their stats don't matter as much as they'd like

Players should only die;
1: Heroically
2: Because of a stupid mistake
3: To further the plot (Rez them? or if they wanted a new char?)
4: at the Hands of the BBEG
5: By another player's hand (GM should not interfere,
if a player's an asshole, let them be, you cannot control people)

and on that note, I have to go get my xmas pickups from stores,
g'night everybody!

Stay FUN above all else!

>>50678765
>What if I want to worldbuild first and the use the D&D book to fit the enemies in my setting?
You will ultimately end up constraining yourself to make the world line up with the statblocks of monsters. Form follows function.
>What if I want to think on cool events that I want my PCs to experience and I think how I can fit it in the game mechanics?
You already have a vague idea of what mechanics you want from this cool event, you're just nailing down specifics. Form follows function.

File: I can't cast a fireball IRL so we've removed magic.png (45KB, 489x301px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 489x301px

>>50678842
There's a difference between making a mistake and being a complete retard.

Take a guess which one pic related is.

>>50678864

Well said.

>>50678871

Not really, if you put the effort. Plus homebrews, similar systems, etc.

The good thing about roleplaying games, really flexible as long as you understand the system.

>>50678871
>You will ultimately end up constraining yourself to make the world line up with the statblocks of monsters.
Speak for yourself.

>>50678863
Guess who has a bigger toolkit when it comes to noncombat?

At any rate all you're doing is making shit up to cover for a class' deficiencies while wildly flailing that "NO IT DOESN'T MATTER" when it shouldn't even HAVE those deficiencies in the first place. You might as fucking well play a Swordsage and have identical flavor but not actually suck instead of doing stupid bullshit.

>>50678863
>Sound like your opinion.
I'm sorry for having such shit taste that I don't want to whore myself to get anything done.

Also,
>skill points
>the druid not being unable to roleplay
>the druid probably being better at non-combat tasks
I could go on, if you'd like.

>>50678911
>Not really, if you put the effort. Plus homebrews, similar systems, etc.
Unless you're going to put in enough effort to homebrew every single creature, your argument is moot.

>>50678917

Good thing roleplaying isn't something you optimise and you still doesn't get the point that some classes can be better in different non-combat situations.

>>50678916

Sure, why not. If I have a good idea for a Swordsage character and it would be interesting in the setting, why not?


Roleplaying isn't something you optimize, it's something you enjoy and play.

>>50678919
Sometimes I forget how intelligent I really am, and then people post things like this.

>>50678916
>play a Swordsage
Or just a system that isn't D&D. There are plenty of systems that don't lie to you about what you're capable of.

>>50678939
>Roleplaying isn't something you optimize, it's something you enjoy and play.
Good luck with that when you're roleplaying a character who can't do shit.

>>50678939
>you still doesn't get the point that some classes can be better in different non-combat situations.
No I'm pretty sure he understands that perfectly well, it's that you don't understand WHY some classes are better at handling different noncombat situations.

>>50678919

Sure, why not? I don't get it, you are straight up denying the possibility that someone might want to make a setting using the D&D rules as something to build upon, not to fit onto it. I'm certain there are several other setting/game systems that were derived from D&D and started as someone trying to tell a story rather than just crunching stats.

>>50678960

I understand, but it doesn't matter. If you want to make a character, just pick the class that fits the character and setting you want to make/play better.

It doesn't matter if another class is better if I enjoy how I roleplay the character

>>50678950

That would depend on the DM and story, also subjective aspects.

>>50678939
So we're going the
>skill points
route then? Where we talk about how pretty much anything the monk wants to do takes skill points while a caster can just resolve the issue with a spell slot they can reassign each rest?

Because that's the case in Druid vs Monk. The druid can cast a spell to resolve pretty much any situation, while you have to go out of your way to make the monk useful. This is an example of the system being broken, and something that could be fixed without making "muh roleplay" worse. You're just making excuses for the designers to be lazy.

>>50678982
>That would depend on the DM and story, also subjective aspects.
>the DM should have to bend over backwards because I built a shit character

>>50678982
Except it does matter you dense fucker.

>>50678982
>That would depend on the DM
I hate this excuse, because I've GMed before. Having to fix the system's flaws just so someone doesn't end up useless because of random chance and the book lying to them sounds like the opposite of a good time, when I could just pick a different system.

>>50678992
i would like to point out that PF is slowly makign Tier 3 the playable class group, and slowly phasing out Tier 1, 2, 4, and 5 classes in favor of makign more Tier 3 classes.

That's because they took the slow, hard route instead OF the "CHANGE EVERYTHING INTO THIS NEW SYSTEM CALLED 4E WHY IS NO ONE PLAYING OUR GAME" bullshit.

>>50678998
This. Every bit of effort you spend on correcting issues caused by the system is effort you are not spending on making your campaign better.

>>50679041
And if he didn't have Charisma he wouldn't have been able to accomplish anything, which already defeats the OP's point.

>>50677694
>good character development for someone who's not very good at their chosen profession.
A 9 int wizard is less effective than a commoner.

>>50678998

>Making a story that fits your party is bending over backwards

>>50679004

Why?

>>50678992

Limitations makes for more interesting characters. If I had to make an example, games like skyrim and Fallout 4 are shitty RPGs because your character can do anything and since there are no limitations, you can always blast your way through anything, with no challenge.

And I'm not defending anyonre. ONCE AGAIN, my argument is that powergaming is pointless in D&D because, even with the rules set in the books, the progression and challenge of a story is decided by the DM and, to some extent, the PCs and are all, in the end, driven to make a narrative story.

I'm focusing on Monk because the guy pointed it as the most useless class, and I jusy said it doesn't matter if your story fits the class and character.

I wouldn't be againist a rebalance for the Monk in anyway.

>Muh roleplay

Yes, the main objective of a roleplaying game. I'm sure you are familiar with that.

>>50679029
>>50679043

I don't disagree, but it also doesn't completely nullify the possibility. You do have to put the effort.

>>50677694
>good character development for someone who's not very good at their chosen profession.
There is a difference between being equally matching and actually not being able to use any of your class features.

The total sum of a wizard's class features with 9 int is Has a Familiar and can use a school power twice a day.

>>50679090
>Why?
You're roleplaying a stealthy thief.

You have low dex and no ranks in stealth.

You are always caught.

>>50678961
>I don't get it, you are straight up denying the possibility that someone might want to make a setting using the D&D rules as something to build upon, not to fit onto it.
Because that's idiotically inefficient, and I try to assume the best of others. Having constraints already in place is, well, constraining, but it answers a lot of questions that need to be answered in order to develop something and frees up time and effort you can put towards other things. If you just take all your monsters from the monster manual, you've saved yourself a lot of trouble that you can now put towards working on cultures, economics, geography, politics, etc.

>>50679090
Unchained Monk is a rebalance of the monk and makes an excellent Tier 3 class now.

>>50679139
UMonk is not T3 by any stretch of the imagination.

>>50679090
>Making a story that fits your party is bending over backwards
Nigger, this isn't some "throw in some political plotlines because one player is interested in them and built for them" shit, this is some "make everything have an underwater component because one of your party members is literally a fish" shit.

>>50679105
>You do have to put the effort
Why bother, when better systems exist and I could just use those instead, and spend that effort making the campaign good instead of just making it work?

File: have you tried playing dandd.png (19KB, 1567x337px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 1567x337px

>>50679043
>implying there is a difference
Ther eis n o such thing as a perfect system. This meme is always brought up, and you know, nine times out of ten it's a false flag because the issues with running X campaign in the new system is just as problematic as using a system you know well.

>>50679169
Oh fucking christ, are you really going to Nirvana Fallacy with that bit of shit by Richard Petty?

>>50679169
>implying there isn't a difference
>implying that image isn't completely fucking retarded
FATE, Shadowrun, and D&D all give completely different play experiences because of their rules and pretending that they're all the same just gives away that you've never actually played anything but one system.

>>50679169
>remedied in far less time than it takes to learn a new system
Maybe if you're a lobotomized dyscalculic, but most of us know that the d10 is the one with the kite-shaped faces and how to add 2 and 3.

Also, that person seems like a raging faggot, especially if he's saying that all games are the same (which he says explicitly).

>>50679158
They have Divination spells, can use Restoration, can Travel long distances in short time and avoid encounters through Shadow Walk, and can gain Dimension door earlier than most spellcasters. They can also kill creatures of CR+1 in a single round if they have minimal optimization, and CR+2 if they have actual optimization. They also have a good skill selection.

How does this not add up to a Tier 3 character?

How does

>>50679203
>They can also kill creatures of CR+1 in a single round if they have minimal optimization
No they cannot. Unarmed combat does not give you that level of damage, ever, and that's even counting in attacks from Medusa's Wrath by assuming you'll always trigger the effect.

>>50679180
>Richard Petty
I forgot to ask last time, where did this spicy meme come from? Is he one of those
>look at my beautiful theory of game design
>which encourages being a faggot
people?

>>50679166

Why bother with anything? It would be lots of effort when there are better options, but if people want to do it, why stop them?

>>50679234
Backing that up, a guy ran the math.

>http://archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/50371785/#50378647
>http://archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/50371785/#50378710

>>50679245
Putting in more effort for the same enjoyment sounds awful. But sure, if the idiots want to walk into doorknobs, I wont stop them.

>>50679129

Cool play an orc rthief, make a joke character, the party can make plans in which relies on him faliling, being a disctraction and calling attention to himself.

ROLEPLAYING!

>>50677414
>more than the anemic systems it has for roleplaying
>I need a system for roleplaying

Seriously anon, are you just skipping all the fluff of all the races? Because there's also a shitton of lore for each race.

>>50679267
That is an entirely different character, an incompetent one. Why would the party keep around someone incompetent at their job? Why not have someone around effective as a distraction rather than someone trying to stealth and being seen first thing? Why does being an Orc matter in this case?

In character is makes no sense for a band of mercenaries to keep around someone grossly incompetent unless they are forced to. Even if they are a friend you tell the friend to stay at home and not get themselves killed.

>>50679296
>an incompetent one
Yeah, just like literally any monk.

>>50679130

Because lots of people don't do thinks efficiently, because fans/homebrewers don't care about efficiency, but about telling their stories in a system they enjoy playing with.

Not everybody cares about that. But I do agree that if you rch that point, there are better systems, but fans can be short-sighted many times. For example, several mod communities for nintendo games.

>>50679165

Yup, if one of the party members is a fish, why not make the setting in a sea/coast setting?

Why are you so averse to different settings?

>>50679263

You got the point. A bit harsh on the end there, but yes. That's the bottom line.

>>50679267
>>50679296
As well, now you're entirely incompetent. Let's say you're incompetent at anything. Do you have fun as a player not being able to accomplish anything you attempt to do? Let us say you have 7-9 in every stat. Nothing you do is better than a -1. You are likely going to fail anything you attempt, die if someone so much as sneezes on you, and get fail any save thrown in your direction.

Are you going to enjoy not having an effect on the world? This is important in D&D because your roleplay must fit your character. You can't be a clever strategist, you have 7 int. You can't barter and convince, you have a negative to diplomacy and appraise. Roleplay shouldn't overrule actual mechanics. At best it should give circumstantial bonuses.

You can't accomplish anything. I can see myself enjoying it if I am with friends, and having a good time hanging out. I would have a better time if my character was capable of contributing in a meaningful manner.

>>50679296

Because it's fun. Because sometimes it's interesting to not make a serious characters. Sometimes it's cool to be the masked luchador in a western setting, the alchemist that always blows up his experiments, the wizard that fumbles the spells.

In a NARRATIVE game, it can fit.

File: index.jpg (13KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 225x225px

>>50679243
Basically, he's this faggot that loves D&D, and shitposts wildly when anyone dares to say anything negative. He loves to claim its popular, thus it has no meaningful flaws, and that the issues people have like some classes being objectively shit compared to others is purely subjective.

You can see most of his argumentation style in that little snip-it he himself copied to spam everywhere.

He also has this weird tendency to fixate on words and spam them. That's where Richard Petty comes from...he kept calling every complaint against the system petty. Then he moved on to Eternally Triggered Bitch Anon, and when that got him banned for trying to force a meme, he moved to bitch-moaner, and then butthurt for a while. Eventually I think he just ate a perma-ban, because I haven't seen his sperging around here for a while.

If you want more, just run Richard Petty throug 4pleibs.

File: heyguys what's this thread.png (176KB, 448x438px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 448x438px

>>50677237
Part of roleplaying is conflict and being useless in a conflict makes one question why one is there.
especially given the fighting classes often don't have many actual skills for things out side of combat in DND.
It can pull someone out of their game.
also
>the point is what i say it is
I am not a roll-player, i don't like number crunching and i like acting far more anything else in the game itself but even i can appreciate someone who meritoriously plans their classes to break the system or achieve the most efficient roll-playing build.
It's always good fun and it's not my place to judge what they like doing.
it can drag in a game if you get nothing but those players but i can fucking leave
>>50678271
>Words hurt you know
did your mother never teach you that what you just said is bullshit.
You know, sticks and stones can break your bones but if words do you are an emotionally vulnerable and immature human being who requires constant validation to maintain their sanity?

>>50679332

It's nice you went straight to the extreme scenario. No such things as re-rolls, feats, anything.

Yes, anon. If you play as someone that can barely function, you won't get anything done. Took lots of effort to get to that hyperbole, huh.

>>50679315
>Because lots of people don't do thinks efficiently
And that makes them stupid.

>Yup, if one of the party members is a fish, why not make the setting in a sea/coast setting?
Because there's a billion reasons that might be inconvenient to the other players and/or the DM. Why should they all suffer for one character?

>>50679332

>Roleplay shouldn't overrule actual mechanics.

That's up to the DM and the PCs. The whole basis of house rules are around the concept that the players can change the rules. Hell, that tier list mentioned up above is a massive list of house rules, basivally.

>>50679336
>the wizard that fumbles the spells.
No, as a 9int wizard you can't fumble spells, you can't even learn spells.

>the alchemist that always blows up his experiments,
Again you can't even make extracts or bombs as a 9int alchemist at level 1 to blow yourself up with.

>Sometimes it's cool to be the masked luchador in a western setting
This has nothing to do with being grossly incompetent.

> Because sometimes it's interesting to not make a serious characters.
Non-serious != grossly incompetent. Why the fuck would you associate the two?

>Because it's fun.
It's fun not having any effect on the world because anything you attempt fails?

>>50679372

Why would it be an inconvenience? Are they alergic to seawater? are they elementally attached to the earth, so they can't live in islands?

Man, you must be fun at parties

>Makes them stupid

Stupid people playing inside the limitations the game set and inside the rules. You don't have to play with them.

>>50679377
>Hell, that tier list mentioned up above is a massive list of house rules, basivally.
The fuck did you mean by this?

>That's up to the DM and the PCs. The whole basis of house rules are around the concept that the players can change the rules.
They are still mechanics, if you are just saying "mechanics don't matter we don't do roleplay" then why play a system with such mechanics rather than a narrativist system?

>>50679358
Yes, and in this case some characters suggested can barely function. A 9int wizard can barely function, same with any class with less than 10 in their casting stat.

The argument was stats shouldn't matter because of roleplay, obviously they do in these extreme cases. It is merely a matter of degree that the people shouting "stats don't matter" are willing to deal with.

>>50679381

see

>>50679358


When did the argument went from "Sub-optimal combat classes can be used" to "9 int characters are just as good as 20 int character"

MOVING GOALPOSTS IN ACTION, folks.

>>50679422

>The argument was stats shouldn't matter because of roleplay

No the argument was:

>>50679090

ONE MORE TIME, with gusto now.

>my argument is that powergaming is pointless in D&D because, even with the rules set in the books, the progression and challenge of a story is decided by the DM and, to some extent, the PCs and are all, in the end, driven to make a narrative story.

Non-optimal =/= useless.

THESE GOALPOST JUST KEEP MOVING.

>>50679455
OK, and the monk's in the useless category, which is where this argument came from. Or are you gonna keep moving those goalposts, Rich?

>>50679399
>Why would it be an inconvenience?
Because they can't breath underwater.
Because they're prone to seasickness.
Because they can't swim.
Because they hate large bodies of water for reasons all their own.
Because their family, friends, lovers and everyone else important in their lives are inland landlubbers.
Because there's plenty of interesting shit happening inland they'd rather check out.
Because they don't think such a big part of the campaign should be altered to fit one particular character.

If it was a coastal or underwater campaign from the very beginning and you showed with a fish character, that would be one thing, but it certainly wouldn't be comparable to the monk situation.

>>50679455
>>50679424
In this case it is not so much a need for a certain level of competency, but similar competency. It's the reason a Monk and a Wizard in the same party will have the Monk essentially be useless due to the wizard being FAR more competent than them. The Monk has nothing to contribute that the wizard can not do.

Another example is Alchemist vs Rogue. The alchemist is essentially better in every manner than the rogue, being able to have higher stats, better offense, casting, more skill ranks, better at his skills, and more.

Total eclipsement is not only possible, but relatively common. Often it is not even purposefully but a function of the class.

>>50679475

He isn't, because he can still do what he's suppsoed to do, even if what he does os less efficient than another character.

A screwdriver can be useful, even if a power screwdriver can do the job faster and better.

if YOU judge the Monk useless, that's your opinion, in a game where you don't need to be the best to be usable or useful, even more so when thing like setting and story can change its efficiency.

>>50679540
It is not the usefulness of the monk in a vacuum, it is the usefulness of the monk when compared to his other party members that matter. Monk can be invalidated, not by minmaxing, but by simply playing a class more effective than the monk.

>>50679540
>he can still do what he's suppsoed to do
He literally can't, and we've been over this.

Also, even if we accept that monks are actually capable of doing what the book says they are, if they're eclipsed by other options accidentally, that's still a failure of game design and further evidence that the writers are talentless hacks.

>>50679499

Cool, NARRATIVE REASONS. All that can also be changed so all those being in favor of it. Also coastal =/= underwater. I'm sure you are familiar with beaches, ports, even really extensive rivers would do.

Well, at least you are getting my point with the monk situation.

>>50679503

No doubt, it's always a possibility. Not all parties will have that, though. And even if it had, the setting could make the classes that are more competent have problems to actively use that competency to its full extent.

>>50679581
>All that can also be changed so all those being in favor of it.
And what if people don't want to change?

>>50679567

See

>>50679581


>>50679572

Man, where did I defend the game design, in fact here:

>>50679090


I DON'T MIND REBALANCES OR REWORKS, in fact they'd be welcomed, but IN A NARRATIVE FOCUSED GAME, it doesn't matter if he doesn't do things optimally.

And the Monk does what the monk has to do, and if he doesn't HOUSE RULES/HOMEBREWS/ NEW EDITIONS

Dear god, how about you actually read the discussion in the thread before blowing a casket, anon?

>>50679581
>And even if it had, the setting could make the classes that are more competent have problems to actively use that competency to its full extent.
If your GM is acting in this way it is an active punishment of certain classes. I have has GMs do this before out of the blue without warning where I come to a game and find out that magic in any form is illegal to practice. So I end up unable to use any of my class features.

While this does make the monk more effective it does not actually solve any problems.

>D&D
>narrative game
Pick one.

>>50679600

Then they don't. There you go. Nice thing about this argument, I defending the possibility of a monk or a merman, not the NECESSITY of having one.

>>50679646
>Then they don't.
And where does this leave the guy playing the fish?

>>50679620

>Out of the blue

Then the problems isn't the limitations, the problem is the GM not talking and discussing the limitations.

I'll take the merman example the other anon is using here. Nobody would go for a merman if the GM sets the story in a desert. It's a mutual agreement between GM and PCs.

>>50679624

Why, I'd be picking the same option regardless.

I sure love just fighting orcs and ogres in a dungeon to get gold and loot, to get more XP to get to level 20 and finish the game.

Oh wait, that's a videogame, not a RPG.

File: Hikage.jpg (31KB, 192x452px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 192x452px

The best thing to do is to not play D&D (At least any WotC version). Dealing with people who would do nothing but talk about "Builds" irked me to no end, and as a result I switched over to other systems when 5E came out.

>>50679616
There's a difference between suboptimal and useless, you said so yourself. A suboptimal character won't get accidentally eclipsed by another character who happened to like bears better than fists. The monk does. Do you want to move your goalposts a little more?

>>50677516
Just checked back and holy fuck did I call that shit

>>50679657

He doesn't. Do you not understand talking and discussion with your group?

If the setting doesn't support a merman, like a desert, why use it if the other PCs aren't ok with it?

And even then it could be interesting, like the anon way up in the thread argued that would be cool to roleplay a magic character in a setting that hates/ breaks magic.

Maybe it would be interesting to see how a merman adapts to a desert, and if he doesn't he dies and the player rolls a new character.

>>50679616
Tha issue is pretending D&D lends itself at all to narrative focus rather than a strategic combat game.

>>50679684
Of course he will. I don't understand why you're still bothering with this faggot, really.

Serious question, are you having fun playing bait the retard? Nothing against you if you do, I just gave up trying to reason with this stupid fuck, as clearly he lacks the ability to do anything but vomit out the same thing over and over.

File: I'll go post in that thread to tell OP how not baited I am, that'll show him.png (6KB, 1326x102px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 1326x102px

>>50679703
Anon is proved right again. Kingdom of the blind, one-eyed man, et c.

>>50679684

All parties have druids, I forgot that. No such thing as party variation,s etting changes, etc.

No, my goalposts are pretty solidly in place anon, but seems like you are playing a different game. Read the discussion and get your arguments straight.

>>50679713
I have nothing to do for the next hour, and there's nothing I can really add to the other threads I'm watching, so I'm getting this thread to bump limit and listening to some youtube videos of mediocre television.

>>50679711

It's meant to be both. Focusing on only one aspect is stupid. A D&D game without combat is abstract boring shit, but a D&D game without a story is just pointless grind.

D&D, at it's best, should be both. If Iw ant just story, I read a book, if I just want combat I get a videogame.

>>50679713

Except I didn't. Anon there just didn't bother to read all the thread.

Don't worry, having a opinion does not make me a troll, anon. Just makes you shortsighted.

>>50679735
OK, what about clerics, wizards, sorcerers, basically anyone with spell slots? Or people who are better at fighting? Or people able to use more skills? The druid was the primary example, because it lends itself to evocative imagery, but there are plenty of other options for shitting on the monk.

I mean, you could totally have an all-monk party to keep it balanced, but I'd say that's a flaw, not a feature.

>>50679785

Nah, here's a set-up

>Monk, Wizard, Rogue

There you go, decent party. Maybe it's your rage boner againist monks that is too hard and can't fathom punching being a decent way to deal with enemies, since you were the one the brought up monks in the first place.

AND AGAIN, I'm not arguing COMBAT only, you dimwit. I'm arguing it being a viable class for roleplaying.

>>50679825
>decent party
Anything with a full-caster is
>since you were the one the brought up monks in the first place
Says the man who claims I haven't read the thread
>I'm arguing it being a viable class for roleplaying.
So you're arguing nothing?

>>50679749
Totally fair. I mean, nigga claimed the tier list was houserules.

Can't get more stupid then that, I can see why you're enjoying it.

>>50677856
>I argued that it was allowed in the rules of the roleplaying game format of narrative-driven game.

Its allowed in every RP narrative game. Literally no one argued against that point. You have wasted everyone's time on this bored. Fuck off.

>>50679825
Hey, fuckface.

I'm the one that brought up monks first. I stopped arguing with your fucking dumbass back when I said I was stopping. You've only proven how wise a choice that was ever since. You got several people thinking you're a shiteating retard.

>>50679785
>>50679825

FOURTH TIME IS A CHARM

>my argument is that powergaming is pointless in D&D because, even with the rules set in the books, the progression and challenge of a story is decided by the DM and, to some extent, the PCs and are all, in the end, driven to make a narrative story.

That's my argument the whole point. It doesn't matter if he's sub-optimal, it doesn't matter if other party members can be more powerful than him.

IN A NARRATIVE STORY, it doesn't matter if the combat can be tanked by one character, since there will be several other possible scenarios where combat won't be the problem solver and it can fit the setting.

I'm not DEFENDING Monk party all the way, I'm defending the possibility that someone might want to roll a Monk because if fits the story/setting better and it doesn't matter if someone else is better in combat than him.

>>50679851

Read the thread, that's precisely what the other guy is complaining about. He can't imagine someone picking a class that isn't optimal in combat.

I'd argue a waiter class would be viable as long as there's a setting in which he would fit, even if he was useless in combat.

>>50679867

Oh, my bad then. Clearly you didn't learn anything, keep those insults rolling, someday someone will agree with you.

>>50679881
Let me put out the point, and I want you to tell me if I'm right about this being your point before I continue:

Your point is that, even though the monk can't do things mechanically, it doesn't matter because the setting and roleplay can make them useful. Am I correct?

>>50679942

Yes. Pretty concise, actually.

>>50677437
>there are other better mediums to work on your powergaming needs.
This meme again.

No playing wow is nothing like playing hack and slash focused dnd and cannot replace it. How did this even become a common thing people say is beyond me.

>>50679942
>>50679956

To be more precise, can't do thing OPTIMALLY mechanically. Even an average monk can throw a punch or too.

>>50679964
Because of the "have you tried not playing D&D" meme that is a line of utter shit.

>>50679956
Then this discussion is perfectly worthless. Any class can roleplay, despite what the stormwind fallacy may tell you, which leaves us with the setting. Now, in your setting, the power disparity may be fixed because people will follow monks instinctively (it's another argument why people do this when monks are capable of very little, but we'll roll with it), but this is not the case in any official setting.

It's possible to have fun with your mates over a bad system. but it's easier to have fun with your mates over a good system.

>>50679973
How do you solve the problem of the party becoming like the angel summoner and the bmx bandit?

>>50679995

There you go. Pretty perfectly put. The problem was people not grasping the concpet of picking a character that isn't PERFECTLY FIT for every situation, hence the powerplay angle of the discussion

Thanks for making it clear.

>>50679995
>>50680017

I think the main issue I had during this discussion was the completely denial that you can have a decent game without have the optimal set-up and that people can be non-efficient when setting-up games.

>>50680017
>The problem was people not grasping the concpet of picking a character that isn't PERFECTLY FIT for every situation, hence the powerplay angle of the discussion
No, the "problem" is the rest of us have good systems in reach and thus rightfully see the idea of sticking with a bad system as idiotic.

>>50680054

No doubt, but it shouldn't stop people from using bad systems, if they so enjoy it. The other guy up there understood it:

>>50679263

>>50680017
I'll clarify my problem with your position, since you clarified yours:

I don't find needing to adjust the setting to make up for shortcomings in the system enjoyable. I prefer playing systems where players are all able to contribute roughly equally in mechanics, since they already can in their roleplay.

>>50680105

Sure, but the issue is that D&D popularity makes so the casual players don't even grasp the idea that other systems may exist and when you limit the "acceptable" classes to play with you limit the possible ways they may come to enjoy this flawed system.

I completely agree, I'd rather play several other systems, but most people don't get a choice in their groups, so you should allow for more freedom in the system you'll get "stuck" with.

>>50680150
No, no you shouldn't, this is how you making DMing even more annoying than it is by default.

>>50677237
>How could these people miss the entire point of D&D by such a wide margin?

autism

>>50677322
>>50677375
>>50677393
t. autists

>>50677409
No human being IRL is that deluded, not even SJW feminazis.

Weak bait, friendo.

>>50680150
>the system you'll get "stuck" with
Thank you for reminding me to be thankful for having a group of people who enjoy trying new systems. Its always a shock to remember how rare that is.

>>50680217

You are missing the point. Let's say the DM says 'Guys, let's try a new game, Shadowrun" If the group you have says no. What will you do? Force them?

Not everybody gets to choose. Not everybody lives somewhere with enough people to rotate groups. Tight schedules, etc.

Being pointlessly stiff about modifications in subpar systems, most times, ends groups and you don't get to play.

>>50680251

One of the reasons why I can't stand medieval/high fantasy systems.

I'll take CoD, Shadowrun, etc before I take something similar to D&D, if all possible.

>>50680310
I'm not missing the point at all. You're advocating for something extremely stupid that severely harms the ability for a DM to have an idea of how to work with the game.

>>50680389

If the DM and the PCs don't mind, what's the problem?

>>50680389

Also "advocating" is a strong word. I'm saying adapting a game is a better option than not playing the game at all.

>>50680310
>You are missing the point. Let's say the DM says 'Guys, let's try a new game, Shadowrun" If the group you have says no. What will you do? Force them?
Yes. I'm running Shadowrun and if they don't like it, they can go find someone else to run a game for them.

>>50680434
>I'm saying adapting a game is a better option than not playing the game at all.
Not when there's better shit out there than even your adaptation of the game.

>>50680420
Unforeseen consequences that fuck up the game for some players and even sometimes the DM.

>>50680470

Well, that's your choice. Some people might want to give it a try anyways.

>>50680489

Again, CASUAL. The type of people that thinks Shadowrun is underground shit.

>>50680544

Well, anything can have unforeseen consequences.

>>50680580
>Well, anything can have unforeseen consequences.
Gee, I guess you'd better not do anything ever again for fear of unforeseen consequences. It's not like some things are inherently riskier than others, no!

>>50680611

Why stop changing a game due to unforessen consequences? What dire consequences it could lead to?

>>50677379
how exactly do you gimp them?
have they ever noticed you doing this?
teach me your ways anon.