>I know I'm taking weak options and there are way better/cheaper

>>51329642
Stop playing 3.PF.

>>51329671
You should see the Stormwindfags of other systems. They're even worse.

>>51329642
Stop playing shit games.

Stop being shit at running them.

"Stronger" only exists with bad DMs.

At the end of the day, party balance and strength is really all up the the DM, and you've really been living too long on one side of the curtain if you believe otherwise.

Effectively, the idea that you would ever choose options that are "better/cheaper" instead of those that fit your idea of your character puts you as the kind of person who either plays with bad DMs, or is silly enough to actually believe that good DMs can't dictate the relative strength of anything in their universe as easily as they can lie about a hidden dice roll.

Also, your entire argument is silly straw-manning, and you are actually serving to help prove that the Stormwind Fallacy isn't a fallacy, because you sound like you couldn't roleplay to save your life, because I can hear the cunt coming from you and we're likely hundred of miles apart.

>>51329688
Exalted was miserable for this, holy shit.

>>51329743
Horse shit.
It's totally possible to have one character who's way weaker at a certain job than another character, who has the same level/XP/whatever.

THAT's what you have to worry about. Intra-party balance.

>>51329743
Someone who has never GMed a day in his life detected.

>>51329642
>Why is it a badge of pride to suck at making competent characters?

Why is there a point of pride in making overpowered characters? With internet guides it's easier than pissing your pants. Don't get me wrong, "ROLEPLAY not ROLLPLAY" people are usually fucking retarded, but seeking a middle ground is usually the best.

What System are you playing?

In Fantasy Craft, I was able to make a Soul Calibur character who dealt a crazy amount of damage in combat and was still able to get a good deal on the medical treatment afterwards.

>>51329938
Lots of systems.

>>51329642
>They can't rollplay AND roleplay at the same time
It doesn't matter which one you're doing if you're only doing one. So long as you refuse to acknowledge both sides of the coin, you're doomed to be a shit player.

>>51329642
Because people who do it play primary roleplay characters in systems that encourage optimization and mastery. Basically it's the case of player not being autistic enough for his game of choice.

>>51329774
>>51329805
another anon, and forever dm by choice:
No, you have a party thats not interested in having fun together, and value rolls more than roleplay. You can have a character with insanely minmaxed fighting abilities and he'll maybe shine in combat, but a good dm will give every single party member their own ways of expressing themselves and challenge. I dont have powergamers in my group, but when one plays a combat heavy guy, I let him shine in battles, and just play out the story strengths of the others.

>Early into tabletops, get into a Gurps/Heroes game, forgot which exactly
>Make a fun character for it
>Couple other players minmax the fuck out of their characters, have zero fluff skills or anything despite it being said to have some
>Of course they're DEX skill monkeys that are invincible and 9/10 times crit everything
>DM just makes everything also DEX skill monkeys that do the same exact things in order for anything to be a challenge
Well that sucked. Dex is way too powerful of an attribute in those systems. Either you're a mage, or a dickass rogue. If you try going strength or generally be a bigger, tankier character it's fucking pointless since everything will dodge every blow you make and slice your neck off with their many crits

>>51329642
Play a system that isn't shit with players who care about things other than combat.

>>51329774
I agree that he's a fag, but
>It's totally possible to have one character who's way weaker at a certain job than another character, who has the same level/XP/whatever.

>THAT's what you have to worry about.
That's symmetric balance, which is possibly even worse than imbalance because it means there's no mechanical distinction between party members. What you should worry about is whether every character has an area they're good at that isn't completely outshone by another party member.

>>51329743

Bullshit. Yes, a GM can put in extra effort to make an unbalanced party work, but the very fact they have to work harder for it for little actual benefit shows why systemic imbalance sucks.

OP is still full of shit in general because in most well designed systems you can pick things that look cool and seem fluffy and end up with a perfectly functional character, but your counterpoint is just as wrong.

File: 2016-07-24-848557.png (858KB, 893x1336px) Image search: [Google]

858KB, 893x1336px

How does "lel play a different system" help when basically everyone wants to jack off to Pathfinder or whatever?

Even if you go for the most popular, 5e, you've still got people whining about how their "super cool" not-Avatar elemental monks are getting outshone by the guys who took Great Weapon Master/Sharpshooter.

It can't be helped.

If this is a serious problem, drop the system. Play one that isn't about MUH BUILDS and MUH OPTIONS.

>>51330425

Find out if its the player or the system. If it's the system, change it.

If it's the player, get a new one.

File: 1409888250461.jpg (11KB, 208x210px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 208x210px

>>51329642
Why are you so mad?

>>51329805
>>51330341
>work harder

Are you guys morons? The only time system imbalance even matters is if you keep trying to be rigid with it. It's only "extra effort" if you're not already loose and adapting the game like you should already be doing.

If this is too hard for you, you're a special kind of stupid, because even a moron can figure out how to make a game balanced when they literally control every single number.

>>51330700

There is a difference between adapting a game to the parties particular skills and competence and dealing with wildly imbalanced party members.

The former is standard practice, the latter is extra bullshit you don't want to deal with. The post at >>51330250 is a perfect example of a bullshit situation which a GM can probably deal with, but shouldn't fucking have to.

It is an utter ballache designing encounters for that kind of group, because either they're so ridiculously dangerous the weaker members of the group can't contribute at all to give a challenge to the stronger player, or they're so weak the strong character can just massacre them, making the weaker characters feel no less useless.

A GM has better things to be doing with their time, creating interesting and enjoyable scenarios, adding flavour and fun to the game. Any time wasted trying to deal with intra-party balance is a complete waste, and good systems let you avoid that.

>>51330753
If you're having headaches over game balance, you're doing it wrong. If you're even worrying about numbers you're doing it wrong.

One player's numbers are too low? Bump them up. Justify it if you need to, but you don't really need to justify it. At no point are you beholden to the rules, nor are you somehow doing the players who stuck to the rules a disservice, because the point of character creation shouldn't be to make the strongest character possible, but to create a balanced party of interesting characters.

>didn't communicate at all with your players during character creation

Then don't complain about any game issues that stem from character creation.

Overall, I don't really care too much about how "balanced" a game is as long as I like its mechanics, because balancing is easily done and far less of an issue than most rule-slaves believe it to be.

This is coming from someone who started his roleplaying career with narrative games, so I can understand if you have a "BUT THE RULE ARE GOD" mentality, but that's you just being stupid.

>>51330950

If you have to actively tweak the rules of a system to make them function the way they're intended, the rules of the system are bad.

Yes, the GM can fix it and tweak it, but once again- That's extra effort the GM shouldn't have to be making if the system was better designed.

I'm all for tweaking rules, but I'd rather focus my efforts on creating things which are interesting, exciting and engaging rather than having to fuck with the system just to make it function as intended.

>>51330950
>If you're even worrying about numbers you're doing it wrong.
Fuck off. This is how you get paranoia combat and caster supremacy.

>>51330950
>play an unbalanced game
>spend 15 minutes getting everyone to the necessary level of competence

>play a balanced game
>spend 15 minutes making maps, statlines, interesting abilities for the dudes, and generally improving quality of life
I know which one I'd rather run.

>>51330950

>didn't communicate at all with your players during character creation

Nobody said this

>"BUT THE RULE ARE GOD"

Or this

Please reply to actual points next time, not strawmen.

>>51331015
If you're not tweaking the rules, you're not doing your job. Tweaking the numbers for a better experience is something you should be doing anyway, not as a final resort.

>>51331078
>play a game you think is balanced
>slavishly stick to the rules, when you could be providing a superior experience with no real additional effort since adjusting numbers should be second nature and what you should be doing anyway

>play a game you don't particularly think is balanced
>not worry about sticking with the numbers provided, roll with what comes your way, be super cool and everyone loves you

A really easy choice right there.

>>51331132
If you've got crazy imbalances before you start the game, you didn't communicate with your players properly, or worse, are slavishly following the rules while ignoring that even the designers weren't stupid enough to believe their ruleset should be played as is.

You guys need to learn how to actually play roleplaying games, instead of playing rollplaying games.

>>51331253

Ahh, right, you're a troll. Good work up until now, I honestly thought you were sincere, but the complete lack of actual argument/repeating buzzwords and assertions really showed your hand.

>>51331368
You're probably the rollplaying OP who doesn't understand just how meaningless trying to build "strong" characters in a cooperative roleplaying game is.

Tell us more about how the Stormwind Fallacy is real, and how you're actually a really good roleplayer even though you're really just a powergaming fag who doesn't care about having a balanced party.

Most min-maxing/powergaming builds are just highly specific bullshit that gives a big pile of dice for powergamerfags to jack off over but relies on perfect conditions and equipment and a scenario that's suited to the abilities. A single roadblock and the whole thing can fall apart like that super-mounted charger build that falls apart if you make them tired or don't hand them a clear straight line red carpet to charge in.
Of course if you don't let powergamerfags have all the specific equipment and minmaxing for their perfect build and don't only throw out encounters that are easily defeated by their highly specific capabilities then they'll just screech and whine that you're cheating to pander to the evil dummy sjws who didn't specialise themselves into a corner. Just look at this very thread.

>>51329743
>I have never run a game before: the post
If the game has one guy who hits things with sticks and another guy who can end encounters in one move, there's going to be some guys who are stronger than others.

>>51329915
>Why is there a point of pride in making overpowered characters?
Because then you're useful, the fuck kinda question is that?

Who the fuck would go into a cooperative tabletop game and decide "y'know what, I want to suck dick and be a huge liability to my party in every way, shape, and form."

Sounds pretty selfish desu.

>>51331433
Well, what if I want to roleplay a very capable and competent character, anon?
Gee, you're totally ruining my experience.

>>51331433
>If I repeat what he said, I'll look legit and make him look silly, aren't I teh smartest ever?

For the record, people would rather play characters who are useful than characters who are dead weight. This is true for any game where the focus is on the player's cooperating together to achieve a goal.

File: 1480204192706.jpg (237KB, 1279x1179px) Image search: [Google]

237KB, 1279x1179px

>>51331989
That's only if your idea of playing a "powergaming build" is some dumbass fighter and not an ultra-flexible god-wizard.

File: 1.jpg (749KB, 813x1185px) Image search: [Google]

749KB, 813x1185px

>>51329642
I just got done bitching at Yugioh players about how idiotic they are. (Pot of Greed is too powerful but apparently Maxx C isn't.) Meanwhile I see the same exact shit when it comes to rpgs. Guess it's just a virgin thing in general.

>Tome of Battle? Get that weeb shit outta here! How dare you be able to hit things really well?
>Oh... save or dies every round? T...that's okay. Wizards are meant to be powerful cause they study magic!

>>51332273
Why do you think the choices you make while building a character have any influence on that?

Oh, you wanted to be able to put all your enemies to sleep every single encounter? Too bad undead don't sleep. Should have talked with the GM before you decided to make a single-minded zero-fun character that is also now going to be useless in 4/5 battles.

File: 1312405229.pbjam_kutku.jpg (184KB, 711x717px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 711x717px

I don't roleplay, I swoleplay.

>>51332346
Why do you think they don't?

>>51332346
Okay, I guess I'll use one of the OTHER SoL/SoD spells I have in my arsenal.

>>51332346
Color Spray

>>51332435
i guess we're just going to have to tire you out. Thank god there's plenty of cheap healing potions lying around to keep the rest of the party fresh and active and a time limit to keep you from resting too often.

Gotta conserve those spells a little now, don't ya?

I still find it hard to understand the logic of people trying to say systems don't matter.

Where's the benefit to that? What do you gain from excusing lazy design work and making more work for GMs and players in having to bodge bad systems into functioning?

It doesn't make the fun you have with them bad, or the effort you put in meaningless, it's just acknowledging facts and that there are better and worse ways of doing things from a system design perspective.

>>51332554
Rope Trick
Mage's Magnificent Mansion
Secure Shelter
Tiny Hut

Not to mention staffs, wands, scrolls, and other magic items that would allow me to cast spells without using anything from my spell list.

But, y'know, thanks for the potions, I guess.

File: multiclassing.gif (408KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

408KB, 500x281px

The absolute worst are the rollplayers that copy a CharOp build that requires multiclassing four times with three prestige classes and doesn't actually function until a certain level.

Every time I've seen this tried in game the character looks like an ADD faggot that can't decide what he wants to do with his life and is completely worthless until he gets that one ability that ties the build together.

>>51329642
Is that Caster? Can I touch the fluffy tail?

>>51332637
System BALANCE doesn't really matter all that much. That's something ultimately up to the group and the GM.

If you like a game's main style or theme or its core mechanic or even just the art, that's far more important than the question of whether or not you can fiddle with the numbers, because the answer to that question is "Are you retarded? Of course you can."

Remember, most popular games are hilariously unbalanced, even the ones people here act like a power gamer would never be able to unravel. Back in the day, while balance was an interesting idea, it was hardly the most important one, and the general understanding was that regardless of how well-balanced the game is out of the box, the end users are ultimately responsible for how it ends up in actual play. In fact, there's plenty of examples of games that don't even pretend to care about balance between characters, like Gamma World or any other system with random character creation.

>>51332775
>System BALANCE doesn't really matter all that much.
t. retard

Try playing a game like BESM with a GM who doesn't know the system inside and out. Completely innocuous abilities can break the game in half.

>>51332775

You didn't even answer my question. What is the benefit to defending and excusing imbalance? It doesn't actually do anything positive for you. Even if imbalance isn't that bad, balance is implicitly better.

>>51332653
What about that time limit? I don't see you addressing that.

Also, what magic items? Who said you could buy them, or had the time or resources to craft them?

Please. You're trying to argue with the Omnipotent creator of the universe. If you actually want to start having fun, you'd best learn how to work with the group.

>>51332810
I remember playing besm for the first time. My guy had an accurate melee attack, an accurate ranged attack and fuck all else. He was so useless.

Spending points on skills was a mistake

>>51332775
That would honestly hold more water if we weren't talking about D&D 3.PF, where a mage could theoretically do everything at no cost while a martial has to do everything right in character building just to end up at the bottom of the barrel, doing one thing well until after level 5 where that strategy no longer works.

Imbalanced gameplay is a mark against the system's quality because the time the GM is spending looking over his player's shoulder is time that the GM is not spending on the campaign.

>>51332830
Ever wonder why all games are not just perfectly balanced?
Because there's often costs to things being balanced, sacrifices made in one way or another.

The most basic one is variety. If you have everything be the same, everything is balanced, but everything is dull and boring.

Games with more variety tend to be more unbalanced, but they also are more interesting.

>>51329743
contrary to other people's responses to this post, as a seasoned DM, he's completely correct about balance being up to the DM.

the only reason a DM couldn't balance out characters if he wanted to is because he's not creative enough to figure out encounters/challenges/events that draw out strengths of weaker players or punish stronger players while being subtle enough to make it look like that's not what's happening.

>>51332810
A GM doesn't need to know the system so much as they just need to know how to play the game, something that is often at odds with the system itself.

>>51332943
Ok fuckface.

Let's see how you balance out a monk, druid, cleric, and wizard party without being hilariously contrived.

>>51332943

You're completely missing the point. 'Can' does not mean 'Should have to'.

>>51332921 gets it in one

>Imbalanced gameplay is a mark against the system's quality because the time the GM is spending looking over his player's shoulder is time that the GM is not spending on the campaign.

>>51332974
not enough information at all. there are a million ways to build each of those characters, any of them could end up being the strongest/weakest build. sounds like a fun party, though.

>>51332995
Combat maneuver Monk, 2 CoDzillas, and a Batman Wizard. Good fucking luck.

>>51332976
>You're completely missing the point. 'Can' does not mean 'Should have to'.
the way I see it, if encounters are usually solved in the same way by the same characters, you aren't making interesting enough encounters. I do believe you 'should' shake up your encounters and present problems to different PCs at different times as the DM.

>>51332974
OK, faggot.

*Snap*
They're balanced now. Just like that.
Just had to talk to the players a little, give the monk a boost in a few areas, adjust/remove a few spells from the spell lists, and bam, everyone has fun.

Wow. So hard. And I don't even need to know what edition or even game you're asking about.

>>51332995
Yeah, because you can't. The monk won't ever be anything but worse then the druid's CLASS FEATURE.

File: 1473216548328.png (70KB, 421x248px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 421x248px

>>51333026
>rewriting huge swaths of the system
>not spending the same time on the campaign

Okay.

>>51333018

I agree, but that seems completely unrelated to my point.

Building interesting encounters that force people to engage with them in different ways is an entirely separate thing to wrangling core system balance into cooperating.

>>51333038
Yeah, I have no idea why people get their heads so far up their asses about this sort of thing.

That's not even close to enough. "A few areas" for one of the worst classes in the game. Fuck's sake.

>>51333038

This is especially hilarious given that most GMs aren't, you know, game designers, and that half arsed thrown together houserules are just as likely to break things worse instead of fix t hem.

>>51333007
easy, magic nullifying/reversing beast of some sort would do it, having them encounter a group of things with similar/superior intelligence that ambush casters in the middle of an encounter, presenting them with a sudden quickly moving horde, this is just off the top of my head if I had to figure out for a session and put time into it I could come up with dozens more.

git gud at DMing.

>>51333074

None of that makes the Monk any less useless

>>51333074
Any of that shit fucks the monk way worse then anyone else.

>>51333031
I've seen monks that basically operate like a proto-goku at higher levels, with movement speeds and focus unrivaled by other characters in a party. if you can't think of a situation where such skills are useful, you are uncreative as a DM.

>>51332838
Again, I have magic items that would allow me to cast spells without depleting my spell list.

Also, creating magic items in D&D take a day for every 1000gp of the base price and I would have however much money would be required for my WBL.

I mean, unless you're going for 24/7 never-ending combat, we're going to have downtime and if we're constantly fighting monsters day-in and day-out then I'm going to get the money to produce my own magic items sooner or later.

Unless you're going to GM fiat that I'm not able to use my class's abilities just because you're butthurt that I chose a mage.

>You're trying to argue with the Omnipotent creator of the universe.
Wew lad

>>51333074
>magic nullifying/reversing beast of some sort would do it
Instant conjurations ignore this entirely, among other things.
>having them encounter a group of things with similar/superior intelligence that ambush casters in the middle of an encounter
You mean the characters with way higher durability and defense than the Monk, plus features that make it exceptionally difficult to ambush them?

If you want to talk about gitting gud you should actually know what you're talking about in the first place.

>>51332976
Adjusting a game isn't as hard as you are pretending it is. "Should have to" isn't some huge chore, adjusting the game anyway is just a small part of the GM's job anyway.

He's coming up with custom abilities and custom enemies, adjusting weaker traps to fair better against stronger characters, making little changes throughout the game because at the end of the day he ultimately controls just how well the party fairs against everything anyway.

I hate to be bursting your bubble like this, but your character's mechanics are ultimately meaningless, and that's a good thing. You should be focusing on coming up with cool characters, interesting plans, and exciting maneuvers, instead of worrying about eking out a few points of power in order to try to one-up the other players or a guy who literally controls the entire universe.

>>51333091
>>51333098
not at all, the monk could be able to go for the magic nullifying/reversing beast's weak spots, be the last man unrestrained during an ambush, or be the one able to pull the party out of an oncoming horde.

you guys are uncreative, sorry. git gud.

>>51333074
So...take away the monk's magic items too, which fucks him even worse and doesn't stop the magics that ignore nullfying/reistance, ignore the monk to target the actual threats anyway, a moving horde which is perfect bait for an AoE or two.

Fan fucking tastic.

>>51333058
In my terrible experience with a group I never want to share a table with again, overcompensating was rarely an issue; I saw instead half-assed bandaids to the system's balance issue that Paizo would be proud of.

Oh cool I can swap weapons without wasting two actions (only one this time!) and my fighter gets 3+INT skill points rather than 2+INT? Wow I'm definitely on par with the Druid and Conjuration Wizard now, lemme suck that dick of yours as thanks!

>>51333110
>Instant conjurations
not nullifying. git gud. if there was a problem, modify the beast to counter it.

>You mean the characters with way higher durability and defense than the Monk
not DEX sav or movement. if you can't think of anything that draws out these strengths, git gud.

>>51333115
>be the last man unrestrained during an ambush
Wizards very rarely lose inish, because they have a high dex, free feats because they need very little, *and* fucking nerveskitter.

You only continue to prove you have jack and shit idea of how this actually works. And that's just the most obvious.

>>51333038
>>rewriting huge swaths of the system

A few boosts to a character and a few spell adjustments are hardly a big deal, especially since those are going to come up anyway when discussing your characters through creation.

The best part is, it can all be done later, even in the middle of a battle, without it being a big deal or any real effort.

You're really overestimating the difficulty of the task you put forward. Just because you personally are stupid does not mean everyone else has to be.

>>51333114
>but your character's mechanics are ultimately meaningless,
Fucking trash tier cancer GM detected. Get the fuck out with this shit.

>>51333018
Building interesting encounters is divorced from the relative strength of the party.

A party of martials encountering a Troll, when the party has no means of dealing fire damage, is something that's potentially a TPK unless you throw them a bone or something.

A party of mages encountering a Troll, when every mage class has a means of dealing fire damage, is going to turn it into a curb-stomp battle, especially when you have a Cleric and a Druid on hand to play front-line fighters.

File: 138ada9768a86c2a6f17a15bd841ec28.jpg (710KB, 826x826px) Image search: [Google]

710KB, 826x826px

>>51333146
>in the middle of a battle

Oh fuck you.

>>51333138
>Be blown out, has nothing other then screaming Get Gud

Well, thanks for proving you have literally nothing. And use proper capitalization, you little shit.

>>51332930
>I have never played a proper game before, ergo, all games are shitty when they're balanced.

>>51333119
if you make a beast that the monk can't kill that's meant to bring out his strengths, when that's your plan, you're uncreative as a DM. git gud. it is perfectly concievable a monk would be able to go for a certain kind of creature's weakpoint if they could figure it out that causes caster's to take damage when casting by AoE.

increase the hordes speed/amount.

git fucking gud, I'm starting to feel embarrassed for /tg/.

>>51333138
>not DEX sav
Useless if you don't actually have anything to use with it.
>or movement.
Druid has by FAR the highest movement speed of any base class in the game between Wild Shape and Longstrider.

>>51333160
He's trolling, there's no possible he's literally this fucking stupid.

>>51333114

Okay then. If it's so easy, fix 3.5. Tell me, in a few easy, simple steps, how you solve caster supermacy, fix the CR system, allow Martials to be competitive... All of it. Now.

Also, in response to >your character's mechanics are ultimately meaningless

No, fuck you. This is a Roleplaying Game, and that last part still matters. If I want to play a game where mechanics are irrelevant, I'll play an ultra-light indie title.

And before you call me a rollplayer, no, fuck you. I enjoy playing characters as fully fleshed out people, which is why the character sheet is important. A character sheet isn't separate to your character, it's part of them- A representation of their capabilities and competences, a frame of reference for how they interact with the world.

My characters sheet is what lets them interact with the world differently to other characters beyond pure RP, and having unique or interesting capabilities that are mechanically meaningful is part of the fun.

There's room for systems which go the other way, as I said, but if you're playing a crunchy system then your entire attitude completely ignores one of the strengths of that type of system, meaningful character distinction beyond pure RP.

>>51333180
ANYTHING THE MONK CAN DO THE DRUID OR CLERIC CAN DO BETTER YOU INGORNAT LITTLE SHIT

>>51333140
I rarely see wizard builds with higher dex saves than monks. if you designed an ambush to let the monk stand out and you FAILED, git gud. obviously you didn't present a proper kind of challenge for the wizard.

>>51333154
then why are you throwing trolls at mages all the time? git gud.

>>51333166
not at all. it is completely true that if you can't design an interesting encounter that can draw out a weaker character, you are uncreative and you need to 'git gud'. quit being bitter about it and git gud instead.

>>51333181
>Useless if you don't actually have anything to use with it.
then make something they can do with it. dururururrrrrrrp.

assuming they aren't fighting something that causes them damage when they try to cast.

>>51333201
except move/dodge/focus.

>>51333180
>it is perfectly concievable a monk would be able to go for a certain kind of creature's weakpoint
Actually, no they couldn't, there are not only no rules for this, but the skills that would determine this if it existed vastly favor CoDzillas over Monks due to their much higher Spot checks and the possibility of having much higher Knowledge checks, to say nothing of how much higher a Cleric's attack bonus is going to be.

>>51333109
Wow, you're a special kind of fag.

Those magic items? I'm glad you're using up XP and gold on those, but those are hardly limitless, and monsters are. You'd be surprised how quickly wands run out, especially when hard pressed.

And still, we're talking in the hypothetical, you retard. Yes, I could even flat out say "You don't have the time to make the items, you're in the middle of a warzone, and where are you even going to buy the materials you need to craft those items? You're not building them out of gold coins, you idiot."

>Unless you're going to GM fiat that I'm not able to use my class's abilities just because you're butthurt that I chose a mage.

You mean using GM fiat to balance things, or more importantly to teach you a lesson about how you trying to have an advantage is absolutely meaningless.

Seriously, omipotent creator of the universe. If you want to play a interesting mage, great. If you want to be a dumb cunt, expect complications.

>>51333114
>your character's mechanics are ultimately meaningless, and that's a good thing
it's a good thing insofar as it enables us to ignore the rotting carcass of a system that hangs over all interplayer interactions, digging its stench in deeper and deeper
but the fact that the carcass is there in the first place is a fucking problem. Maybe not for the people who've gone noseblind to it, but to people with sensitive senses of smell or who only moonlight in RPGs, it's fucking repulsive. Can't we for ONCE have a system that isn't broken out the box and an encouragement to the worst tendencies of humans/gamers, that we don't have to handwave as often as possible in order for people to go about the business of character development and cinematics?

>>51333180
Nothing the Monk can do is impossible for a Cleric or Druid to do.

Hell, they'd probably have an easier time of doing unarmed attacks since they can buff themselves, and the Druid is also going to have an animal companion that can potentially do shit like make a free trip attack on a successful bite or make a free grapple whenever they hit with their claws.

>>51333209
You've failed to actually show how to 'get gud' other then throwing a tantrum as I've pulled apart your plans with standard wizard toolbox.

This is not specialized stuff, this is things a wizard would carry around on the regular.

Look up nerveskitter, you ignorant motherfucker. Actually learn how overwhelmingly good casters are, and how dogshit monks are.

Get gud you little shit.

>>51333230
>3.PF
this is your specific problem.

regardless, this is why I said I needed to know more about the builds. find the monk's strength, he will have one, and utilize it to create an interesting encounter. it's that simple. git gud.

>>51333243
present them with a creature that causes casting damage by AoE to shut them down, I've already said this many times and I've done this before in campaigns.

>>51333245
not at all, refer to my many posts with explanations and examples. live in a fairytale land where I haven't presented arguments all you want, idc.

>>51333254
>find the monk's strength, he will have one
And there's your mistake. The Monk isn't going to have one.

File: Here is your (You).jpg (5KB, 250x140px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 250x140px

>>51333254
>find the monk's strength, he will have one,
No. He really, really doesn't.

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

>>51333267
>present them with a creature that causes casting damage by AoE to shut them down
Wow it's almost like you're completely forgetting that Clerics and Druids don't have to cast at all to be a massive threat.

>>51333267
I've ripped apart every single one of your posts examples, fuckface. That you didn't want to read yourself getting so anally annihilated isn't my fault.

Cry more, and get gud.

>>51333193
Easy. You play the game, and if the numbers seem odd, adjust them.

Battle taking too long? Lower the HP of the monster, maybe have the fighter's last attack destroy its shield. Rogue not doing enough damage? Wow, a magic dagger of sneak attacking +2! What fine loot! Wizard making battle's too easy? Oh, most of the guys made their saves, maybe they have a special charm of protection.

You're really a special kind of idiot if you honestly think a system like 3.5 is hard to balance. It fucking uses a d20 and HP. It's practically one of the easiest systems to understand and adjust.

>>51333322
It's funny that you think that works when half of the problem with 3.PF isn't even numbers-related.

>>51333268
that's false. even if features and leveling didn't give him an edge somehow, he may be the character with the lightest weight, or might have knowledge of something other characters don't have, etc. etc. git gud. you are obviously uncreative if you think there are strict better/worse characters, this is your problem.

>>51333280
read ^

>>51333284
think: do they have to use magic? modify your threat to shut them down.

think: what is giving the casters the edge that the monk doesn't have? modify your threat to shut it down.

this is how creativity works.

is it really this hard for you? git gud.

>>51333343
Ok, you've moved on from ignorance to willful trolling.

Thanks for showing your true colors to all of us, we can ignore your stupid ass now.

>>51329743
So I was in a game a few years back. We had two characters. Ignoring the specifics, they were both what I'll call "punchy" characters. The idea behind both of them is that they hit things and hit them hard.

Punchy A hit harder, and more often, than Punchy B. There was no way to design an encounter where in Punchy A did not outperform Punchy B. Added onto this, Punchy A had some situational things that would make him that much better than Punchy B.

So. What do you do when two characters fill the same role, but one of them is just outright better at filing that role?

>>51333242
Wow, you talk like a faggot.

Basically, you think the mechanics matter a lot more than they actually do, and that's the sign of an idiot who's missed the point of roleplaying games.

You are personally the worst tendencies of humans and gamers.

>>51333343
>modify your threat to shut it down.
Can't shut down Wild Shape without shutting down magic items, which leaves the Monk in an infinitely worse position than any other class in the game.

Also can't shut down Knowledge Devotion at all. At best you can lower the bonus you get from it.

>>51333360
not at all, have fun in your make-believe realm where I didn't just present a perfectly good argument.

I step-by-step explained how to be creative in the post you're claiming contains no relevant information. use it if you want to git gud.

>>51333371
the monk will be the most dangerous man standing without magic regardless of his magic items.

>can't shut down knowledge devotion
this is how I know you aren't creative.

>>51333362
Talk with the players, and give Punchy B a boost. Maybe give Punchy A some flavor abilities as well if you're terrified of upsetting him.

Why is it that you guys are so afraid of communication?

>>51333389
HAHAHAHAHA no. Monks are worthless without magic items.

>>51333235
>You'd be surprised how quickly wands run out, especially when hard pressed.
What kinda game are you playing where someone would actually use up fifty charges of the same spell and not invest in multiple wands?
>"You don't have the time to make the items, you're in the middle of a warzone, and where are you even going to buy the materials you need to craft those items? You're not building them out of gold coins, you idiot."
I have a spell component pouch (multiples if need be) most standard level 1-4 spells don't require that much material components to pull off so I should have everything I need.
>You mean using GM fiat to balance things,
Not really, the martial is still useless.
>more importantly to teach you a lesson about how you trying to have an advantage is absolutely meaningless.
I hope you realize that you focusing all your attention on me, rather than the group, kinda proves that my advantages have meaning.

>>51333389
Tier fucking 6, you fucking moron.

>>51333369

If mechanics don't matter, why play games with them? Go play PBTA and stuff. Those games work fine with minimal mechanics.

>>51333371
>Can't shut down Wild Shape without shutting down magic items,

Says who?

Holy fuck, you are retarded in ways I can't even pretend to understand. It's like you actually want the DM to look into a book and find a specific, official counter.

>>51333400
go read a list of monk features.

>>51333411
>thinking in 'objective' tiers
this is how I know you're uncreative.

>>51333268
the monk's "strengths" relative to a caster who hasn't explicitly prepared for this eventuality are
1) movement speed
2) touch AC
3) not relying on line of effect (i.e. a monk can plausibly punch someone through a hole in a wall of area less than 1 square foot; by RAW such a wall would break line of effect for the purposes of spellcasting)
So what comes to mind immediately as a situation that can bring out the strengths of a monk relative to a caster is a labyrinth fighting situation. Or a situation that can be mapped as fighting in a labyrinth, such as urban combat. Using move actions to explore branches of the labyrinth in order to get a bead on the enemy is important, which means the monk will be more likely than the casters to be able to do anything-at-all. If taking a hostile action causes the labyrinth to shift (or for instance in the urban fighting scenario triggers hostile bystanders to use their actions to shove curtains/tables/doors in the way of spell LoE), it would become relatively important to be in close quarters with enemies - which again advantages the ability to close to close quarters unless you want to be cucked out of accomplishing anything. Attacks targeting touch AC can trivially be incorporated into an encounter.
Like, one of the shticks of the monk is that it has more mobility than other classes. In the abstract, this is untrue, casters have the most mobility because they can fly. And in most encounters careless DMs think up, being able to fly will be a great mobility advantage, because the world is 3d. But it doesn't require much thought to create a situation where raw land movement speed is the most important aspect of mobility and therefore the most important aspect of tactics. It just requires understanding exactly what the problem is.

>>51333389
No, I mean you quite literally can't shut down Knowledge Devotion. If you've got as little as a single skill point in the relevant knowledge skill, it's going to give you a boost, however small it may be. If you're optimizing for it with a Cleric, you can push it into giving you the full +5 at all times.

>>51333414
Because some games with deep mechanics have great flavor, structure, and other niceties. Doesn't mean I have to obey all their rules like some some retarded grognard.

>>51333416
Says the game, fucktard. You can't dispel it, so the only way to make it go away is to put it in an AMF.

>>51333435
after striking the beast with an AoE, it shells up and releases some kind of invisible gas into the air

failing the high DC saving throw, the caster is suddenly thrown into an insane stupor

you're uncreative

>>51333209
>Misses the entire point of what makes mages so much better than martials
>git gud lol xD
I swear, 3.PF really does cause brain damage.

>>51333448
So the only way to 'shut it down' is to utterly remove them from the game, and focusing more on targeting them then anything else.

You're retarded.

>>51333443

But if you're completely ignoring the mechanics why not just port the fluff? It just seems like you're pointlessly wasting time on all kind of things that 'don't matter'.

Also, I don't think it's been pointed out yet, but GM's being completely inconsistent and changing literally everything on the fly robs the players of their frame of reference. A system is useful because it gives each player reasonable expectations as to the results of their actions, within a certain range of options.

A GM tweaking and fudging a bit is fine, but if you're literally rewriting the system at the drop of the hat the players have to 'Mother May I?' with you over literally anything to get any sense of reliability, which isn't fun.

>>51333267
Then they'd just move in and deal melee damage.

>>51333449
It does. There's two fuckers arguing in here for the game, and at least 3 shutting down anything they say at every turn, and all they can do is scream and cry about 'creativity' and 'get gud'.

Its fucking sad, I swear it's just trolling at this point, and will be treated as such.

>>51333449
I don't play 3.PF anymore, it has inherent balance issues.

>>51333461
if you can't find a way to remove a caster from combat, which should happen to all characters at some point or another, you are uncreative and create uninteresting encounters.

>>51333448
>after striking the beast with an AoE
Says who? CoDzillas are melee beasts.

>>51333470
Yeah, because the druid and cleric aren't like, total melee beasts or anything...

>>51333470
not as well as a monk.

either way, you're entirely missing the point. modify the thread/encounter to bring out the strengths of the weakest character. if you can't do this, you are uncreative, and you need to git gud.

>>51333435
>No, I mean you quite literally can't shut down Knowledge Devotion.

"Your god is displeased with you. You lose that ability."

Or simply "Hey, [player name], that ability is a bit too strong. I think it needs to be adjusted."

What's the big deal? If the ability is really strong and would make the game unbalanced, just fix it. Hell, keep it, but give the other player a boost if they need it.

What part of "There's nothing you can't do" that somehow makes you think there's anything you can't do?

>>51333496
No, not as good as a monk.

STARKLY BETTER THEN A MONK YOU DRIBBLING RETARD.

>>51333483
not if their magical transformation suddenly causes them to start vomiting and shitting on the floor due to a creature's power.

get creative. git gud.

>>51333446
The game? The game says "Don't follow the rules blindly, make adjustments as you need to."

Every fucking roleplaying game says this.

Holy fuck, you're both retarded AND autistic.

>>51333500
Because it's not 'really strong', it's just better then the dogshit monk can manage.

You fucking retard.

>>51333508

So your solution is completely fucking over a player and giving them no way to be involved? Man, that sounds really boring for them. You're a shitty GM.

>>51333496
You mean straight up way better than a Monk could ever dream about. Massive, possibly always on buffs + Knowledge Devotion OR access to massive stats that they paid nothing for and ridiculous natural attacks to go with them trumps Flurry of Misses with unarmed, which gives you shit returns even at level 20, or the worst weapon types in the game every single time.

File: 1376692411287.jpg (101KB, 763x914px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 763x914px

>>51333500
>Using GM fiat to make a character worthless just for doing their job.

>>51333500
DM fiat is not the rules. Go away.

>>51333506
then why did you present them with a melee situation, in the rare situation the monk wasn't the best at it?

this is how it works:

find what is making the stronger characters better, modify the situation to counter that.

even better: find the weakest characters strength, modify the situation to bring it out.

if you can't find a way to bring this about, git gud.

>>51333478
You shouldn't be arbitrarily removing people from combat just to make the game balanced.

Especially if their only sin was playing a class that isn't dogshit and actually doing their job.

>>51333490
I was referring to the Druid and Cleric.

>>51333389
Ha. No. Monks have a problem of Multi-ability dependency.

In order to keep up their AC, they need wisdom and dexterity, and in order to keep up accuracy and damage they need to invest in strength. In order to be good at something, some other part of you has to suffer.

Let's compare this to the single ability dependent fighter. While it's true that a fighter shouldn't totally ignore dexterity, he is nowhere near as dependent on the monk for it. After all, 12 dex and a suit for full plate and his AC is topped off, no need to pump in more dex. Likewise, there is no need to spur off into wisdom to pick up bonus AC. This allows the fighter to focus on one thing. Strength.

Strength makes the fighter hit more often. This also makes the fighter hit harder. Add into this that the fighter has a higher base attack bonus. The fighter will be hitting more often, and for more damage, than a monk. Especially in a non-magical scenario.

>>51333513

We've gone over this. Yes, you can do all these things.

But it is explicitly better if you don't have to.

>>51333536
Because.

You

Dribbling retard.

The monk is not the best at *anything*. We keep trying to hammer this through your stupid, thick skull, but you refuse to fucking listen, you just shreak and cry about getting gud, when we point out the constant issues and you move the goalposts faster then light.

Go fuck yourself.

>>51333508
Monk has a bunch of supernatural abilities too, I fail to see how this wouldn't apply to them.

https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Oberoni_Fallacy Learn, retards.

>>51333519
my players love my games, they are pissed all the time I don't run two a week instead of one. any character gets knocked out of combat in one way or another at some point, my players enjoy the realism of such a thing instead of always being 100% capable all of the time.

if your playgroup is a bunch of babies who can't stand being knocked out cold/tangled in a net/vomiting on the floor for a few turns, I feel sorry for you.

>>51333520
it's this simple:


find what is making the stronger characters better, modify the situation to counter that.

even better: find the weakest characters strength, modify the situation to bring it out.

I'm giving loose examples based off of no information about specific characters. knowledge/buffs can be countered. anything you bring up can be countered, you just have to find a way. this is creativity, git gud.

>>51333508
>John, you're doing too well, so your character arbitrarily shits himself and passes out from dehydration because FUCK YOU!
So...what's the point of playing if I'm either going to suck by RAW or suck by GM fiat?

I might as well just play an NPC at that point but knowing you I'd probably die of the black plague if I actually kill a goblin or something.

>>51333541
I know. I was agreeing with you somewhat sardonically, because the willful trolling idiocy of the get gud fucker and "DM FIAT SHOULD TOTALLY BE USED TO REMOVE PEOPLE FROM PLAY!!!" fucker's got me annoyed.

The Druid and Cleric ARE fucking beasts. And there's no way to get around that in a way that doesn't fuck the monk *worse* unless you turn to total asspull fiat, and fuck that.

>>51333537
all PCs should at some point be removed from combat. it's a good way to see how the party functions without them. it's very fun for a mature playgroup, and presents some realism.

>>51333544
it's this simple:

find what is making the stronger characters better, modify the situation to counter that.

even better: find the weakest characters strength, modify the situation to bring it out. if there is no stat related strength, find a different kind of strength.

>>51333553
it's this simple:


find what is making the stronger characters better, modify the situation to counter that.

even better: find the weakest characters strength, modify the situation to bring it out. if there is no stat related strength, find a different kind of strength.

>>51333464
>completely ignoring

You're not. They're there, but you're adjusting them when you feel like it. It's not like doing that is particularly hard or demanding.

>but GM's being completely inconsistent and changing literally everything on the fly

No one said to do that. These are just strawman arguments of "if you GM badly, you're gonna be a bad GM!"

>literally rewriting the system

This is great, because every time you say something like COMPLETELY or LITERALLY, I know you're just setting up a strawman that can be popped with a simple "You don't need to rewrite the entire system, quite exaggerating, you big baby."

Fuck, it's like you guys have never GM'd in your life, or the one time you did you slavishly followed all the rules like you think that's what makes a good GM. Being consistent is good, but that's not really at odds with adjusting the game as necessary.

Before you try to argue otherwise, do yourself and save me the trouble, because I'm sure you can think of a hundred ways you can adjust numbers between battles or even during battles that keeps things consistent to the players, and you're not even all that smart.

>>51333554

Pasting for people too stupid to click the link-

'This my my take on the issue.

Let's say Bob the board member makes the assertion: "There is an inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X."

Several correct replies can be given:

"I agree, there is an inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X."
"I agree, and it is easily solvable by changing the following part of Rule X."
"I disagree, you've merely misinterpreted part of Rule X. If you reread this part of Rule X, you will see there is no inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue."
Okay, I hope you're with me so far. There is, however, an incorrect reply:

"There is no inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X, because you can always Rule 0 the inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue."
Now, this incorrect reply does not in truth agree with or dispute the original statement in any way, shape, or form.

It actually contradicts itself--the first part of the statement says there is no problem, while the last part proposes a generic fix to the "non-problem."

It doesn't follow the rules of debate and discussion, and thus should never be used.

Simple enough.'

>>51333563
if it looks like GM fiat, you're uncreative and you failed. git gud.

>>51333322
Why would anyone play a system where the main point is combat if player's decisions over their character build are just saved away with GM fiat?

>>51333595
Because 3.PF provably at this point inflicts fucking brain damage.

>>51333575
No, being removed from combat is not fun and never will be fun. Nobody comes to the table to be told "fuck you sit out for the next 30 minutes". If that's what I wanted to do I'd play Shadowrun.

>>51333595
if it looks like GM fiat, you're uncreative and you failed. git gud.

>>51333549
It's not a big deal at all, and there are far more important things to consider. If you honestly have a hangup about game balance because you hate the idea of adjusting things, you're just being an idiot.

There are times you're going to be adjusting things to make the game LESS balanced. You're adjusting things left and right anyway, because that's the most basic utility a GM has after preparation.

>>51333603
In fact this is one of the things 4E objectively improved upon its predecessor with - because in 4E, hard crowd control debuffs rarely last for longer than a single round and combat lasts a fair bit longer than that.

>>51333603
having a realistic encounter where they get smashed down every now and then is something my playgroup of 21-28 year old adults enjoy quite a bit. maybe you're playing with children?

if you let your characters stomp all over everything, this is fun for kids but not as much adults.

>>51333435
>you quite literally can't shut down Knowledge Devotion
knowledge devotion is very, very hard to reliably hit on humanoid creatures, based on how knowledge (local) works
and it's not exactly a huge distortion of the campaign to throw the party against lots of humanoid creatures, humanoids tend to make humanoid enemies

>>51333520
>Massive, possibly always on buffs + Knowledge Devotion OR access to massive stats that they paid nothing for
what people are saying is that in a real play situation as opposed to white room theorycrafting, it's unreasonable to assume that the buffmaster playstyle will be supported simply because the existence of the cleric class is supported
regardless of the exact details of how antimagic fields are warded and apportioned in stock 3e, it would be trivial to implement extremely prevalent magic-disrupting areas that microtarget spells/(Sp)/(Su) abilities of less than permanent duration (nb 24 hours is less than permanent), thereby nerfing the ability of CoDs to farm free stat bonuses without nerfing the fighting-oriented magic items of a martial class. hell, it would probably take steps toward papering over some of the plot holes in the setting at large

>>51333563
>what's the point of playing if I'm either going to suck by RAW or suck by GM fiat?
Play a balanced character...?
Look, this is much easier as a spellcaster than as a martial because most of your power comes from spells rather than being baked into your build. Wait until the first combat encounter which will almost inevitably be a lowball, use that encounter's difficulty to estimate the expected power level of the campaign, and target a power level very slightly above that. It shouldn't be difficult if you're allistic.

Once again, we've reached the "solution" I've seen so many fucking times.

>There's a huge power discrepancy? Time to take away literally everything from the overpowered group to let the underpowered guy get some time in the spotlight.

RPGs are cooperative games. If the only way Player 1 can be useful it to make Players 2, 3, and 4 absolutely useless, you're not fixing the issue and making the system promote more cooperative play; you're just bending over backwards to reverse the dichotomy. Ignoring literally every other issue presented by HURR ANTIMAGIC ZONES and similar retardation spouted by certain faggots in this thread (of which there are a whole host of), targeting other players and making them sit the scene out for no reason than to pretend the game is balanced and that Player 1 contributes is not a good idea, never has been, and never will be.

>>51333575
>all PCs should at some point be removed from combat. it's a good way to see how the party functions without them. it's very fun for a mature playgroup, and presents some realism.
No. Just...no.

If you're arbitrarily choosing one guy to take it on the chin just because "someone HAS to be taken out" then you're a shitty GM. Nobody shows up to game, does everything right, and go home happy after the GM uses fiat to say "NO, YOU FAILED BECAUSE FUCK YOU, SIT OUT OF COMBAT."

In a good game, the players are rewarded for smart play, not punished for it.

>>51333595
Because the fun part of combat isn't necessarily the building your character part?
Like fuck, are you honestly playing roleplaying games just to see who's assembled the best set of numbers and who's got the best luck?

>>51333602
We're not even talking about 3.5 exclusively, but all games, you weird troll.

>>51333623
Bingo, but now 'people' are going to tantrum about how you should just get gud or fiat it and the system is toootally ok.

>>51333589
So you're admitting that you're a shitty GM?

Because making someone shit themselves for no good reason is pretty fucking obvious GM fiat.

>>51332336
>Maxx C
>Pot of Greed is too powerful but apparently Maxx C isn't.
Maxx C is conditional and your one Normal Summon, Pot of Greed is literally a free card.

>>51333628
my playgroup constantly asks me to do two sessions a week instead of one, they all have a great time, and all of them have experienced getting fucked during encounters.

I think you're just used to playing with kids. they don't like being challenged as much. there's nothing wrong with playing with kids, but you will have issues balancing if you are trying to make them all happy.

>>51333617
>it would be trivial to implement
Which is GM fiat as the game *explicitly does not support what you are doing* and hoses classes that aren't broken, like, oh, I don't know, duskblades and psychic warriors, in the process. It's shitty design on every level.

>>51333649

RPG Stockholm Syndrome

>>51333641
Did you miss the creature the guy mentioned?

Whatever, you're just an argumentative troll. If you're just going to lift up strawmen that get knocked down with a simple "Read what the guy wrote again", you might as well give up.

File: 1417553958018.png (10KB, 139x188px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 139x188px

>>51333575
>all PC's should at some point be removed from combat
No. What? Just no. Why would you EVERY willfully disengage your audience from the story? That violates the basic tenants of good storytelling.
>muh reelizum
>maturity virtue signaling
>bringing the strongest characters down to the weakest character
Also no.
>bring the weaker character up to the stronger characters
Better, but you act like people haven't been trying to do this since 2003 when 3.5 was released, and people realised what an imbalanced, shitty mess it was. If everybody from then until now, 14 years later, has not succeeded, your autistic insistence of 'git gud' and 'muh creativity' won't make you correct or solve the deep and base imbalance in the game.

>>51333617
Why should I pretend to be stupid just so YOU can have a good time?

In a well designed game, I should be be able to cast spells whenever I fucking want and not end up shafting someone else in the party just because I knew what I was doing and picked a decent class.

>>51333649
>and all of them have experienced getting fucked during encounters.
Hey guess what, so have I, and that's why I explicitly support removing SoL garbage from games! There is nothing 'challenging' about being told to sit out because you failed a single saving throw.

>>51333641
I have never once been accused of GM fiat. I can't even think of a time where I've forced something into reality that doesn't make sense, that's probably why. I thought about how to bring down strengths before the encounter, and often times it works. sometimes it doesn't, then I don't force the issue, that would make it look like fiat.

my playgroup constantly asks me to do two sessions a week instead of one, they all have a great time, and all of them have experienced getting fucked during encounters.

I think you're just used to playing with kids. they don't like being challenged as much. there's nothing wrong with playing with kids, but you will have issues balancing if you are trying to make them all happy.

>>51333668
The creature that just randomly fires off caster-targeting gas. Yeah, sure, that's a stawman and not exactly what he said at all.

Go eat shit.

>>51333193
My answer consists of two letters:

E6

>>51333680
You're a lying toad that's just resorting to claiming everyone else plays with kids when you're being near unanimously called out, outside of the one fucker that shares your brain damage.

Edge of the dick, fuck off.

>>51333669
my playgroup constantly asks me to do two sessions a week instead of one, they all have a great time, and all of them have experienced getting fucked during encounters.

I think you're just used to playing with kids. they don't like being challenged as much. there's nothing wrong with playing with kids, but you will have issues balancing if you are trying to make them all happy.

>>51333674
>being told to sit out
if it looks like GM fiat, you're uncreative and you failed. git gud.

>>51333694

Does literally nothing.

>>51333635
What's the point of playing roleplaying games if the GM can just make my character shit through no fault of my own?

Character building is just as much a part of the game as roleplaying is, so I don't see why we're looking at is as two mutually exclusive concepts when everything your character can do is determined solely by what you gave them during character creation, at least starting out.

>>51333623
What are you even talking about? Some of the suggestions were increasing the power of the weaker characters.

And there's no "bending over backwards." Adjusting rules is a really simple process that seems to be beyond your limited thinking abilities.

Holy shit, can you put on a trip or something? You seem to be genuinely mentally retarded, and people should be aware not to try to argue with someone who thinks that the only way to solve a powerful caster is to liberally use antimagic zones.

>>51333697
if you want to live in a fantasy world where I'm not telling the truth and presenting reasonable arguments, that's fine, I don't care. I can't force you to face reality.

>>51333635
>Like fuck, are you honestly playing roleplaying games just to see who's assembled the best set of numbers and who's got the best luck?
If I find myself playing DnD or other game that's hour long combat encounters with 15 minutes of fluff and freeform between them, then I'm definitely focusing on my character's combat process.

>>51333635
>We're not even talking about 3.5 exclusively, but all games, you weird troll.
This thread is clearly about issues that come up with specific types of games.

>>51333615
Do you honestly expect us to believe that you're a well-adjusted adult based on your behavior? And for the record, telling random people that they lose just because is kindergarten nonsense, not the mark of maturity.

>>51333707
There are at least 3 fucking people calling you out on your shit, dumbass.

>>51333694
My response consists of one word
GLITTERDUST

>>51333694
Doesn't do nearly as much as you think. Even if you're comparing raw, unbuffed numbers, CoDzillas are only barely behind their martial counterparts in the early levels and by the time you hit 6 they've got more than enough abilities to deal with lacking 2 fucking BAB and a tiny handful of HP.

That's without considering outright broken shit like Fleshrakers+Venomfire.

>>51333707

>Adjusting rules is a really simple process that seems to be beyond your limited thinking abilities.

It really isn't. Unless... Ahh, that might be the problem. You're too stupid to see how many consequences a rules change might have.

Tweaking a single rule in a single specific instance is easy, but from there you have two problems- Does the rules change apply elsewhere, or not?

If it doesn't, then you're being inconsistent and weakening your players frame of reference, harming their ability to interact with the game world.

If it does, then you damn well better know exactly how it's going to affect literally everything else in the game related to it. Which is the problem. Rules changes cascade and affect a lot more than you think they do.

Actually properly changing the rules is hard, because the former sucks and the latter requires a lot of work. But if you're going to be lazy and either be completely inconsistent or don't mind creating even more problems for yourself to solve down the line, I guess it would seem easy.

>>51333587
this is the most stupid, autistic thing I've read all day, and my facebook feed is full of libtards

If you're arguing in good faith, it's transparently obvious what the person replying to Bob is trying to say. They are parsing the descriptive claim "There is an issue with Rule X" as being the normative claim "Rule X is a problem that should be addressed through means that require community action". This is part of normal communication, wherein people consider the context of speech acts such as the fact that they're being posted on a forum for people to pore over.
And in response to the very clearly implied normative claim "Rule X should be problematized and addressed", they are putting forth the claim that there is no need to take such deliberative action because gaming culture already routinely routes around problem X using rule 0. Except, for the sake of consistency with the face value of the argument as opposed to its one-layer-deep subtextual value, they phrase their claim in the initial framework of "there is an issue" by introducing the claim with "there is not an issue".
But this initial introduction is not relevant to the substance of the claim, nobody who isn't autistic thinks it's relevant to the substance of the claim, not the speaker, not the layman, and IMO probably not even Bob who is invoking the Oberon Fallacy. It's a deliberate, pedantic derailing of the conversation because Bob is too chickenshit to come out and state their true position - "I oppose relying on Rule 0 for purposes like this". Because Bob knows that every time he comes out and blatantly says that, people have mixed reactions at best, so it seems tactically superior to retreat into childish debate club rules and try to invent a logical transgression committed by the people he disagrees with.

>>51333694
My battleship!

>>51333705
>What's the point of playing roleplaying games if the GM can just make my character shit through no fault of my own?

Do you honestly think there's anything you can do to stop a GM? Please, tell me what character you want to build that the GM couldn't make shit at his whim. He could magically graft an anus onto a robot if he wanted to.

Once you comprehend that, you can sort of understand that the point of roleplaying games is to have fun in sharing a story that's unfolding through your decisions. That means making characters that let everyone have fun as the first priority, since making characters in hopes of being strong as the first priority is ultimately meaningless.

This should be obvious.

>>51333726
when did I claim to be a well-adjusted adult? I DM fantasy games over the internet and work part time at a restaurant. I'm a damn good DM, though, I can tell that much. I don't see how my maturity is relevant, though. you must be feeling pretty bitter to stoop down to questioning irrelevant details of my personality on an anonymous anime board.

>>51333649
Saying "you lose" just because is not challenging, it's annoying. If I'm getting taken out, I want to be taken out either because I fucked up or because my opponent made a smart play.

It might fly in your playgroup (lol, as if you actually have one) but in most groups, you'd be called out for being a shitty GM.

File: 1417540007810.png (245KB, 595x842px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 595x842px

>>51333701
>anecdotal "no I'm really agreat GM guiz seeriuslee" evidence
Autistically regurgitating things into seperate posts doesn't make it a more logically sound argument.
>more maturity virtue signaling
It's OK champ, we all know what a mature adult you are. That's a nice picture you've coloured there.

>>51333754
Yes. It's called telling you to shove your shitty game up your ass, and leaving because I don't want my fucking time wasted, and making sure anyone I know knows just how much of a shitty DM you are.

>>51333680
>I have never once been accused of GM fiat.
Probably because you caught a group of newbies when they were young and now they don't know any better.

>>51333756
>don't see how my maturity is relevant, though.
Because you keep screeching about how everyone else must be playing with kids, you dumb sack of shit.

>>51333763
>Saying "you lose" just because is not challenging, it's annoying.
you're right, good thing I never do that. if it looks like GM fiat, you're uncreative and you failed. git gud.

>I want to be taken out either because I fucked up or because my opponent made a smart play.
completely reasonable when you present them with higher-intelligence threats.

>>51333745

>this is the most stupid, autistic thing I've read all day

Wow, you perfectly described your own post!

>>51333694
>6
>a letter
Man, 3.PF really DOES cause brain damage. I'm sure glad we stopped playing that shitty game a while ago.

>>51333741
Stop being so melodramatic.

The "consequences" are often that the change in the rule improves the other instances where the rule is applied through natural synergy. And, since you are free to adjust things as necessary, you can fix anything unforeseen simply by following a few guidelines and basic expectations.

You really need t be a special kind of idiot to think that adjusting the rules means creating inconsistencies, especially when you're often adjusting rules to prevent inconsistencies.

>>51333649
>I have two sexy girlfriends I have threeways with four times a week, an eight-inch penis, and an IQ of 180.
This is what you sound like. Please stop. Countering someone's questioning of your GMing abilities by making exaggerated and unverifiable boasts about how awesome a GM you are and how your group worships the dogshit you step in on an anonymous imageboard reeks of schoolyard posturing and ultimately weakens your position.

>>51333754
>Do you honestly think there's anything you can do to stop a GM?
I can always call you a faggot, leave, and take the rest of the party with me.

>>51333776
if you want to live in a fantasy world where I'm not telling the truth and presenting reasonable arguments, that's fine, I don't care. I can't force you to face reality.

>>51333785
my playgroup is aged 21-28 and all have dnd/pf experience. kids would be even more challenging because they whine.

>>51333790
it's easy to assume judging by how you guys all seem to think someone getting whipped up in a fight makes them hate the game like a child would.

>>51333827
>>I have two sexy girlfriends I have threeways with four times a week, an eight-inch penis, and an IQ of 180.
>This is what you sound like. Please stop. Countering someone's questioning of your GMing abilities by making exaggerated and unverifiable boasts about how awesome a GM you are and how your group worships the dogshit you step in on an anonymous imageboard reeks of schoolyard posturing and ultimately weakens your position.

>>51333756
>I don't see how my maturity is relevant,
Because you've spent the last hour or so claiming that everyone who disagrees with you plays exclusively with children.

Which is also an immature thing to do and the mark of someone who isn't well-adjusted.

>>51333752
10/10 made me give a hearty chuckle.

>>51333734
>Fleshrakers+Venomfire
Because that one wildshape per day is going to break the game harder than a dungeoncrasher or ubercharger.
that point of BaB doubles your damage output and, most importantly, at level 6 there are still good feats to take for martials.

>>51333792
>you're right, good thing I never do that. if it looks like GM fiat, you're uncreative and you failed. git gud.
Well then you're uncreative and should git gud, because a creature expelling a gas that exclusively targets the mage(s) in the group is pretty fucking obvious GM fiat.

>>51333658
>Which is GM fiat as the game *explicitly does not support what you are doing*
the game explicitly supports GM fiat

>hoses classes that aren't broken, like, oh, I don't know, duskblades and psychic warriors
What fucking buffs do duskblades use besides greater magic weapon? We're talking about microtargeting buff spells, not the fucking ability to hold charges on touch spells. And bluntly, I don't care about psychic warriors. Increasing damage dice through size increases is an awful gimmick, it would be turned off by default via encounter/location design unless the GM is taking pains to make everything giant-friendly, and having it explicitly turned off is no huge loss to the party.

>>51333670
>Why should I pretend to be stupid just so YOU can have a good time?
well, gee, if you feel compelled to ask that question I don't know how you function in society or ever find a gaming group
Why should I pretend to be stupid just so other people can have a good time? Because there are more of them than there are of me, which is obvious to anyone who isn't a fucking idiot. If games could be "well designed" that fucking trivially, a lot of systems would be able to see some improvement by becoming more gamified. Human nature isn't that simple. And if you claim that you "knew what [you were] doing", you should know that T1/T2 classes are anything but "decent". They're fucking horrible and abominations against design. It should be your responsibility as an informed gamer to avoid them.

>>51333853
>Because that one wildshape per day
Who said anything about Wildshape? You get those fuckers as animal companions.

>>51333823
>>51333839
sad that you think being a good DM is unrealistic for somebody to achieve. I pity your playgroup.

>>51333847
it's easy to assume judging by how you guys all seem to think someone getting whipped up in a fight makes them hate the game like a child would.

>>51333827
You keep saying that but I honestly can't believe that you play with anyone besides yourself once a week, let alone twice.

>>51333870
>You get those fuckers as animal companions
Needs GM approval though

>>51333778
Jokes on you, because I'm well regarded as a GM, and nothing your bitch ass can say would ever change people's minds.

I know you're going to pretend to not believe me because you're an argumentative troll, but keep in mind that I'm talking to you with complete and total confidence about the inner secrets of games that you're only going to realize in about ten years or so. I want you to look back on this moment, to realize "Holy shit, that guy was right! Now I actually understand, because I finally stopped being an ass!", and to feel a little ashamed of how stupid you were right now.

Here's a little last bit of advice from Gary Gygax. It's a little exaggeration, but it's adorable and it's a nice little phrase for you to recall when you finally understand what I've been saying.

"A DM only rolls the dice because of the noise they make."

>>51333862
if you can't think of a way to present the encounter that targets the mage, you are uncreative. git gud.

I'm still bitter Tempest Stormwind stole my post and now everyone calls what's just a fucking false equivalence with his goddamn name.

>>51333885
>Literally no u the post

And Gygax said a lot of stupid shit, are you going to defend race as class next?

>>51333885

My god. You are just coming across as the most smug, obnoxious cunt. You are the absolute worst at making a point anyone would want to agree with.

>>51333878
this is where I unleash my anger and hatred on the world, like many others.

>>51333899
Thank you.

>>51333874
If you're randomly choosing someone and saying "hey you, yeah you, roll a saving throw. Oh you got a 25, you still failed, you fall unconscious and piss your pants, because fuck you" that's not you whipping someone in a fight, that's you abusing GM fiat to make someone lose rather than allowing someone else to earn their victory.

>>51333889
I hate that Obani fuck for taking Rule 0 Fallacy and plastering his name over it, so I know exactly what you mean.

Both of them can go and die.

>>51333915
if it looks random and like fiat, you're uncreative. git gud.

>>51333864
>What fucking buffs do duskblades use besides greater magic weapon?
Gee I don't know maybe something like Invisibility?

>>51333886
Why should I target the mage just because he's doing his job? I should be able to focus on the campaign proper, not on the handful of people who decided not to be idiots and chose options to make themselves useful.

>>51333915
>if you do it in the wrong way, it'll be bad!

Then do it the right way, you tard.

File: 1435864705878.jpg (48KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 625x626px

>>51333827
>You think somebody would do that, just go on the internet and tell lies?
Why would I believe anything somebody on a mongolian basket weaving board says at face value?

>>51333874
>sad you think being a good DM is impossible
No, I've had good DMs. You show literally none of the qualities like 99% of D&D players look for in good DMs.

>>51333885
>qoting Gygax
Gygax was a fucking awful DM, desu fampai. He was the most PvP encouraging, combative, grognard rules lawyer DM and his repitore consisted of 'you meet in a tavern, go and fight the dungeon'. iirc he was also rabidly against allowing non-human races to do anything cool or interesting, and a misogynist.

>>51333941
you don't have to. the question was "how do I balance things when casters are so powerful?" I gave you an answer. usually, it involves targeting them. obviously.

>>51333885
I've been playing 11, and I've never once thought like you do.

Go fuck yourself all the harder, thank you. I'd rather do minimal adjustments, and there's a reason why I wouldn't touch the shitpile that is 3.PF ever again even if you paid me.

>>51333815
You perfectly described the cascading rules changes the poster was warning about. If every other scenario requires on-the-fly rules adjudication, the players will lose any frame of reference they have.

Should they charge the enemy? No clue because the rules for fighting keep changing and they have no idea if they stand a chance or not.
Would sneaking around work? Maybe, maybe not. Depends on if the GM changes how stealth/detection works, or maybe the skill system in general.
What about negotiating? Early on, the rules seemed to change to "roleplay it out, no dice involved" and no one invested in social skills, but last week that was reversed.

The party will end up playing "Mother May I" because they have no clue how anything works. It's all down to GM fiats at this point.

>>51333864
I'm playing a mage and I'm going to perform to the best of my class's abilities. If it's that much of a big fucking deal then why not just play a different fucking game at that point?

>>51333951
sad that you think being a good DM is unrealistic for somebody to achieve. I pity your playgroup.

this is where I unleash my anger and hatred on the world, like many others.

>>51333957
I've been GMing over 20 years now.
Come back in ten years. I'll drop some new truths on you then.

File: 1446607782364.jpg (65KB, 567x561px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 567x561px

>>51333965

>>51333965
Not unrealistic.

We just think you're a living pile of shit that wouldn't know good DMing if you were beaten to death by it.

>>51333932
I wasn't aware Duskblade had Invisibility on its spell list. And if you mean swift invisibility, that's 1) not exactly core to the duskblade playstyle, and 2) obviously not the kind of thing that would be targeted by a rule 0 intervention against buff stacking

>>51333969
I've been DMing for since 1975 and you're full of shit.

>>51333928
You keep saying this but nothing you've said ITT is creative or subtle GM fiat. You need to git gud.
>>51333948
You mean not using GM fiat to arbitrarily make someone in the party get taken out the fight on a whim, I already do that, as do most decent GM's I've played with.

>>51333917
If only I was as much of an egotistical piece of shit as he was and made long winded post repeating what I posted in response to someone acting like "making a mechanically competent character" and "roleplaying" are two mutually exclusive things.

Oh well, at least I can rest assured I'm not an egotistical piece of shit who just copy and pastes other people's posts for fake internet fame.

But still, I wish people would stop calling it that. It's not a "stormwind" anything, it's a fucking false equivalence. (if even that)

>>51333955
You gave me a non-answer that boil down to punishing people for being smart. The reality is that you cannot balance things when casters are so powerful, short of just playing a different game where this shit isn't as much of an issue.

>>51333958
The fuck are you on about?

If a combat rule is changed, that's explained to the players openly. There's no guess work going on. But, that's usually the last thing that should be changed, because you can always adjust hidden numbers first.

It's like you've never actually sat in the GM's chair. Try it before coming up with stupid hypotheticals that revolve around GM's only being able to make bad decisions exclusively.

You're making mountains out of molehills here, all just for the sake of argument.

>>51334026
>Try it
I have, it's why I know you're 100% full of shit and should never be trusted.

>>51333874
It's not totally unrealistic. Being in a three-party relationship with two smoking-hot women while being exceptionally endowed and sporting a genius level IQ is possible.

Like with me, for example.
Prove me wrong.
Do so in a way that can't also be used just as effectively against your outrageous claims of being a GM with players beating down your door to get a game run by you while you hold views that go against... really every standard of good GMing on top of being incapable of using proper fucking capitalization.

>>51333982
:c rude

>>51333993
well duh, literally my first response was "impossible without knowing specific character builds". I can only give generalized examples and instructions on how to be creative. however, I think magic nullifying beasts are fairly creative to design. beholders are one of my favorite dnd creatures, for example, I find them to be very creative and interesting things.

>>51333985
>i've been DMing poorly since 1975

Good to know. Are you one of those bitter Grognards that can't let go of your old edition? Tell me I'm right so I can laugh at you.

>>51333993
>arbitrarily

Why bother using that word when no one's arguing that? Strawmen mean nothing here.

>>51334025
if it looks like they're being punished for being smart, it looks like fiat, and you're uncreative. git gud.

>>51334036
didn't I already say how I don't care if you live in a fantasy world?

>>51333646
Maxx C can also deck you out if you use it unwisely.

>>51333969
>playing for 20 years
>play group is 21-28
Suddenly it all makes sense now. You're THAT GM who posts ads at the local FLGS with a shitty hairline, thick glasses, acne, and a beer belly that sticks out of his too small t-shirt.

Wew lad, you need a new hobby.

>>51334035
Try it without being only able to make bad decisions exclusively.

File: 1436019888394.jpg (16KB, 500x171px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 500x171px

>>51334039
>he says, having just quoted Gary Gygax, still playing third edition or some variant thereof.

>>51334063
not the anon you're responding to in this post, but I'm the guy who has the 21-28 playgroup, not him. I can see how you'd confuse us, though.

>>51334026
And if later on the shoe is on the other foot? If the rule change would apply in a way you didn't expect and with results you don't like? Would you fix it by changing it again?

>>51334012
If it helps, I almost always call it False Equivalence.

File: 1377038399425.gif (2MB, 390x277px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 390x277px

>>51334039
>Playing 3rd edition
>Quoting Gary Gygax
>Playing for over 20 years
>Accusing others of being bitter grognards

>>51333756
>tells everyone they're just playing with immature people
>"My maturity isn't relevant, guys! Why are you questioning my personality!?"

Seriously, fucking kill yourself

>>51334074
Because you're both retarded?

>>51334063
What a weird Ad-hominem.

I'm actually a guy who plays with a few rotating groups made up from the best roleplayers I've personally selected over the years. We play about three times a month these days, though I really wish I could play more, because there's a list of people who keep asking me to run games for them.

And, while I do have a shaven head, I don't wear glasses, have acne, or have a gut. And, yes, I do lift.

>>51334097
well, it's true. I could explain how relevance works if you like. tu quoque is part of what applies to this non-sequitor in your post, for example.

>>51334100
maybe. we're both right.

>>51334121
Oh man, you are trying way too fucking hard.

Here's a (you) for the road.

>>51334071
I mostly run homebrew and 5e games, actually.

But, go on, tell me that you're a grognard so I can laugh at you.

>>51334121
>I have two sexy girlfriends I have threeways with four times a week, an eight-inch penis, and an IQ of 180.
This is what you sound like. Please stop. Countering someone's questioning of your GMing abilities by making exaggerated and unverifiable boasts about how awesome a GM you are and how your group worships the dogshit you step in on an anonymous imageboard reeks of schoolyard posturing and ultimately weakens your position.

File: 1417539862459.png (249KB, 555x828px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 555x828px

>>51334128
>question the maturity of people and their players in an immature fashion
>confused about the relevancy of the reversal of the accusation.

>>51334128
>maybe. we're both right.
Unlikely

>>51334140
It's fun, because I can just tell you the truth, and all you can do is go "nuh uh, I don't believe you" like you think you're going to convince me of something.

File: 1418388486928.jpg (17KB, 248x400px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 248x400px

>>51334142
>I mostly play free-form and stripped down 3.5e

>>51334025
>You gave me a non-answer that boil down to punishing people for being smart.
I wrote up a long systematized explanation before realizing it just boils down to the following - so fucking what
so what if you're punished for being "smart"
playing a caster in a way designed to be tangibly powerful, as opposed to in a way designed to advance some durdly RP goal that doesn't relate to being tactically competent, is absolutely an act of hostility against the game and the social contract, and should be pushed back against accordingly
how many fucking years has it been, how many discussions have been had about caster supremacy, that a 3e player shouldn't know better than to roll in with a full caster and try to play combat maximally effectively with their spell list. Doing that cannot end in any way other than outshining other players in the party, and if someone is smart enough to ken what the best spells are, they should be smart enough to understand the consequences of their actions and why those actions have to stop
If a player signals willingness to play an unbalanced game, the DM should feel empowered to also play an unbalanced game, until such time as the player ceases to consent to imbalance.

Just dropping in to say you're all a bunch of retarded niggerfaggots and you need to stop bumping this stupid gay thread.

>>51334165
>Doing that cannot end in any way other than outshining other players in the party
THAT'S THE FUCKING POINT

A system that encourages this kind of shit is not just a bad system, but the kind of system that discourages deeper understanding because it gets *worse* the more you know about it. Why the fuck would you use a system that's a ticking time bomb? I mean shit, Mutants & Masterminds is arguably far more broken than 3.5 is due to its power system being massively abusable, but it's also far easier to prop up weaker players without going out of your way and to counter game breaking BS without resorting to outright GM fiat or ignoring every rule the game gives you.

>>51334189
Also, the book doesn't lie to you.

The book makes no claims all powers are equal, unlike 3.PF, which claims all classes are the same viability.

Hell, it takes it a step more, and makes DM rulings and all Rule 1.

>>51334208
It doesn't just not lie to you, it labels breakable powers and extras. There are a few things that slip by but it's NOTHING like 3.5, where Fighters and Druids sit side by side in the PHB, and there isn't a specific concept that totally overwhelms the game and is objectively better than all others.

>>51334148
>exaggerated

Is it really THAT unbelievable for you? I run games for roleplayers I've chosen out of a long career of Game Mastering, and there are many friends of mine who I've run games for who keep asking to me to run games for them. It's actually what's helped me develop my skills at running one-shots, because I can't run campaigns for everyone but I can devote the occasional weekend to a quick game.

If telling the truth undermines my position, I have to wonder what kind of shitty GMs you would have to be to not have lists of people who want to play with you.

>>51334222

The point isn't that it's believable or not. It's that constantly bringing it up to try and support your points just weakens your argument every time you do it and makes you seem like an egotistical jackass, a liar, or both.

>>51334025
>punishing people for being smart.

>this is what powergamers believe

You're not being punished for being smart. You're being punished for not caring about the rest of the group.

>>51334222
No one gives a fuck that you think you're such a great GM. It's an unverifiable claim that adds literally nothing to your argument.

>>51334231

This isn't about the group or the powergamers, it's about the fucking system.

If a player has to hold back and actively not make use of their capabilities in order for the group to still enjoy the game, then that is a fucking busted system and should be acknowledged as such.

File: 田井中律5134314.png (211KB, 444x560px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 444x560px

>>51334153
I'm not confused as to why people make tu quoque arguments or surprised in any way. seen it too many times for that. just disappointed.

>>51334076
I'm having a hard time imagining a scenario where I'd apply rule changes that would have long-lasting complications that would be contrary to my initial intentions, especially ones that could not be solved without any of the players realizing.

If this was a frequent concern, I'm sure it would have come up in my games at least once.

it may be that most of my changes are subtle and temporary (in the sense that if a monster has more HP than its siblings, that doesn't really matter after its dead), or it may be because I have some uncanny gift for changing rules.

I prefer to believe that it's just a lot simpler than you're hoping to try and make it out to be.

>>51334294

Could you actually give an example?

>>51334254
The difference is that the fact that you are immature is entirely relevant to your arguments.
>You guys play with immature people, and immature people are bad at roleplaying games
>I'm fucking amazing at roleplaying games
>But my maturity isn't irrelevant.

>>51333193
Spells only recharge during thematic events, like finding a well of power. All attack bonuses are cut in half round down, but you still gain that number of attacks. AC granting magic items are removed or nerfed (AC towerstacking ruins the game).
Allow martials a combat trick and an attack. (Nerf certain combat tricks if necessary).

>>51334224
I only brought it up as a reply to a silly ad-hominem. Call it me being a jackass, but if you hadn't noticed, it's been quite some time since I've been taking the people here seriously.

You guys are using some really stupid arguments to try and support some really stupid ideas, and the funny part is I think the reason you're so fervent is because if you accepted the idea that game balance isn't the sole defining feature of a game, your silly little systems wars would be reduced to being as ridiculous as they really are.

>>51334306
Example of what? I think I provided an example of what you're asking for, so I'm left confused.

>>51334349

Of one of those easy, simple rules changes you've made which have had no cascading consequences and worked entirely as intended.

>>51334328
>AC
>An actual issue in the game

Thanks for proving so quickly you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. AC doesn't scale with attack bonuses even close to enough. Even cutting attack bonuses in half won't do much.

>>51334361
>if a monster has more HP than its siblings, that doesn't really matter after its dead)

Does that work for you?

>>51334334

>the idea that game balance isn't the sole defining feature of a game

Except literally nobody in this thread has said that? 'Game balance matters' and 'Game design matters' do not in any way imply that one or both are the only things that matter or have significance.

>>51334328
I can't tell if you're serious or fucking with me. You can't actually think those rules are good.

>>51334371

That's a numbers tweak, not a rules change. Point to a class feature or a combat rule that you changed on the fly in a way that only made things better.

>>51334376
Ok, let me rephrase, Mr. Splithairs.

"Game balance doesn't matter anywhere nearly as much as you guys pretend it does, because any GM with half a brain can make adjustments without even changing his stride."

>>51334328
>Spells only recharge during thematic events,
RIP basically every class that relies on 6th level spellcasting or 4th level spellcasting to function. Bards, Rangers, and Paladins would all get massively nerfed by that by the time you'd hit 20, not to mention that caster prestige classes that don't advance full casting every level become FAR shittier than they were before when they were already a sketchy deal.

This is exactly what people are talking about when they're pointing out that houserules can have unintended knock-on effects on other parts of the system.

>>51334406
If you're just going to make up and change rules on the fly, why have rules in the first place? Why have players make characters with any stats at all?

>>51334166
Better a thread like this than usual /pol/-bait or circlejerk threads.

>>51329915
Because you can make a character which sucks without understanding the game, but making a character with good combinations of abilities takes skill and research.

I'm against power gaming, but if the dm says stuff is allowed, you should expect the other players to be out to win, unless proven otherwise.

Talk to your group before you make your character. You want to fit in, don't you?

>>51334366
It's very easy to stack AC in such a fashion that any opponent you face will either always hit your nonstacked teammates or never hit you (spare a 19-20 roll). In late game this changes a bit, but with lower attack bonuses AC stacking needs to be prevented again.

>>51334381
>>51334418
I've played with these rules for a while, and my players really enjoy it, especially the casters. Usually, casters don't really need to find anything. They just want to farm XP, essentially. Now, they have a huge icentitive to push the group forward. These events don't have to be super rare, they can happen every other day or every third day. Add puzzles and terrain to your encounters and even if they're out of magic juice, they can still save the party with a clever maneuver!

>>51334406

At which point you run straight into the Oberoni fallacy. You're not actually engaging the point, you're sidestepping it and pretending to have acknowledged it.

>>51334318
google tu quoque and ad hominem. no, it's actually not relevant.

>>51334468
All you're doing is saying is "you only get spell slots when I say so". That's asinine. However that wasn't even what I thought was the stupidest. Your AC and attack bonus rules are buttfuck retarded.

All 4th and 6th level casters and fucked royally by your rules.

>>51334387
>That's a numbers tweak, not a rules change.

A numbers tweak is a rules change.
It almost sounds like you're just waiting to craft up some cock-eyed scenario just to keep this silly argument going.

All right, how about "An elf is immune to magic sleep. However, the Kingolian mages have a unique variant of the Sleep spell inspired by the flowers that grow in the region, which conjures a mist that reproduces the soporific effects of inhaling the smoke of that plant. While elves are ordinarily immune to sleep, the Kingolian variant of the Sleep spell is treated more like taking a drug than resisting an enchantment, and even elves can be put to sleep with it. The spell variant does require a flower from the region as a material component."

Or, do custom spell variants not count as a rule change?

>>51334468
>It's very easy to stack AC in such a fashion that any opponent you face will either always hit your nonstacked teammates or never hit you
...yes?
Most opponents do tend to always hit nonstacked PCs because AC is shit, yes, DMs don't tend to do much to prevent that

>>51334482
>You're not actually engaging the point, you're sidestepping it and pretending to have acknowledged it.
sure, fine
I'm going to explicitly sidestep the point and not even pretend to acknowledge it. The point is shit. It's transparently unrealistic and decoupled from the lived reality of how gaming groups function. The vast majority of groups successfully resolve game system caster imbalance through the social contract; it's how 3.PF has been staying afloat for so long

>>51334482
The "Oberoni fallacy" is just something faggots say to try and justify their continued system war debates that have very little meaning, ignoring important matters in order to focus on the trivial ones. It's embarrassing to think that you actually take it seriously.

>>51334505

These aren't what you were talking about, though. Show me a class feature or an actual rule, not tweaked content.

>>51334492
Okay, so you made the claim the immature people are bad at roleplaying games. You then claim to be good at roleplaying games. If this is true, then you can't be immature, due to your previous claim. So either A) you aren't good at roleplaying games, or B) you aren't immature.

>>51334520

It has a very specific meaning. It's entirely rooted in argumental logic and if it's fundamentally flawed you should be able to rebut it.

>>51334520
Yeah, fuck basic applications of logic, logic is for faggots.

>>51334507

>I'm going to explicitly sidestep the point and not even pretend to acknowledge it. The point is shit. It's transparently unrealistic and decoupled from the lived reality of how gaming groups function. The vast majority of groups successfully resolve game system caster imbalance through the social contract; it's how 3.PF has been staying afloat for so long

So, with this being true, do you think you could effortlessly run a good game of, say, FATAL?

>>51334531
What is wrong with you? Tell me, what are you looking for? I just changed several rules for you, many that probably went underneath your notice, including the introduction of regional spell variants that can potentially bypass assumed immunities while adding in another layer to how spells can end up reacting to different abilities.

What do you want? Me to say something like "Monks no longer stop aging"?

>>51334497
Not really. Usually applying armour is a choice between comfort and ease of use, versus protection. You can sleep with a ring, bracer and necklage of protection. You can swim in it, too. No drawbacks, no fun.
Huge attack bonuses are silly and don't do anything for the game except break it, and make low AC targets always get hit while high AC targets never get hit.

I've had seven dedicated casters (and a couple of off-casters like rangers) all said they enjoyed this system, and played it from 1-8, at least. One of my groups reached level 20 before we wrapped up the campaign so one of the players could try GMing.

Your dedicated caster will have to save up a bit of his powers and use some other tools to help the party if he is afraid of running out of spells.

Honestly, if you tried running with these rules, I'm sure you'd enjoy them too.

>>51334561
What edition are you playing. if ring/bracer/necklace are what you are worried about then you're retarded. See all you have done is convey you have a really poor understanding of the system.

Like holy shit. Gear is not even the easiest places for AC stacking by a wide fucking margin.

>>51329743
Not everyone wants to take part in your thinly veiled amateur dramatics m8, some people actually want to play the game.

>>51334561
>I've had seven dedicated casters (and a couple of off-casters like rangers) all said they enjoyed this system, and played it from 1-8, at least.
See the thing is saying 'well I ran this and people loved it' doesn't mean anything because you're just making claims that don't fucking mean anything.

>>51334561
>Huge attack bonuses are silly and don't do anything for the game except break it,
Nnnnnnno, you're an idiot that completely missed why those attack bonuses exist in the first place. Not only do they use them to fuel Power Attack to counter 3.5's runaway HP bloat, it's to make iteratives not a losing proposition. Monsters don't have either of those problems, so it's a problem with monster design more than anything else.

>>51334541
>>51334544
What logic? It tries to pretend a trivial point has a bearing on a discussion.

If the discussion is "Game A is good because X, Y, and Z" and someone tries to say "But Game B trivially is superior in regards to X while being inferior in Y and Z, so that must mean Game B is objectively superior!", the only satisfactory conclusion that can be reached is "Holy shit, that guy needs a life."

Giving it a silly name like "Oberoni Fallacy" doesn't make it actually important.

>>51334558

I want to see you follow through on your claims, that you can make meaningful rules changes and completely evade any problems of cascading effects.

So far, you've been consistently evasive and only touched the most surface level things. Almost like if you go further than that you know the cascading changes are unavoidable.

>>51333646
>Maxx C is conditional
It can be chained to an effect that will SS a monster, making it at the very least a 0 play. From there, your opponent has to decide if they're going to continue (and thus let you generate more advantage that you can use to counter them), or relent (possibly sacrificing their play).

The power isn't in the draw directly; it's in the choice it forces on your opponent. It's a deterrent.

>>51334591

What are you even talking about?

>>51330700
>because even a moron can figure out how to make a game balanced when they literally control every single number.
So everyone who wants to play RPGS is also automatically competent at designing the rules for rpgs, to the same degree as the actual designers even? You're so full of shit.

>>51334611

Being fair, a lot of RPG designers also really fucking suck at rules.

>>51330950
>This is coming from someone who started his roleplaying career with narrative games
Oh now it all makes sense.

>>51331368
You've obviously never encountered people who like narrative games before.

>>51334593
What part of simple, subtle, temporary rule changes don't you understand? Are you some kind of extreme moron?

These rules changes are meaningful, but because of how and why they're implemented, they have few cascading effects that aren't actually positive.

You call it being evasive because you're being forced to realize that there isn't some weird technicality you can extrude in order to build up some bizarre counterargument, and that must frustrate you.

I've given you direct answers. Direct rule changes. If you're upset by that, tell me exactly what kind of change you want me to make, because I have so far fulfilled your criteria.

>>51334611
Well, most RPG designers are total fucking failures who'd get laughed out of bargain basement level video game design even if both of them weren't allowed to touch code, so that's not the huge exaggeration it looks like.

>>51334611
No, but people sitting at table playing a game have a better idea what is currently happening than a designer who is merely guessing how his game can potentially be played.

>>51334629

I like narrative games. It doesn't excuse this degree of idiocy.

There are also examples of games which are both narrative and have nicely crunchy mechanics, which is my preferred blend. Satisfying mechanics along with a focus on themes and storytelling is a rare but exquisite flavour.

>>51334630
And zoom go the goalposts.

Thank you for proving that, at least.

>>51334630

You've shown me additional content and a minor tweak to monster HP in combat.

You claimed that you could solve balance problems in combat, on the fly, in a way that had no cascading issues and didn't harm the consistency of the game. I'm still waiting for you to provide evidence of that.

>>51332775
>If you like a game's main style or theme or its core mechanic or even just the art, that's far more important than the question of whether or not you can fiddle with the numbers, because the answer to that question is "Are you retarded? Of course you can."

But are you actually going to improve the game by fiddling with those numbers? How would youk now, are you a fucknig game designer, do you really think that little of game designers that you honestly think just anyone can do what they do to the same level of competency just on the fly? Why do they fucking get paid then if what they produce has no importance whatsoever and could just as easily be written (and then endlessly re-written at a whim apparently) by any random player?