D&D 5E My powergamer players wants to be a bard.

[Weave]

I think if any of my friends ever went this hardcore in min/maxing in my campaigns, they would find themselves rolling every aspect of their character until spell selection, then I would assign spells based off the background rolled. I really like to encourage organic growth of character traits based off character background and responses to the current campaign rather than meta/powergaming nonsense. Is this mentality a legitimate part of gaming? Certainly. Does it break a DMs heart and undermine the spirit of the game? Certainly.

 

[Mistwell]

1st I heard of it was 3.5, but I'll read what you have...



ok, but 2e wish was completely up to the DM... it was 3e that gave it 'safe uses'
[HI]

so in 1994 (20 years ago) who agreed on this loophole?


S

not in my phb it doesn't...u


I never saw anything about wishing for levels or ability scores in 2e, and in 3e not levels... you are making stuff up now...

You're calling me a liar without asking what I meant? That's pretty rude. The term "AD&D" can mean either 1e or 2e.

When I said AD&D, I meant AD&D 1e, which has guidelines in the DMG. I thought that was obvious, but perhaps not. Of course, you asking me would have been the way an adult would have dealt with that issue, rather than accusing me of lying.

The 1e DMG says things like, "It is quite usual for players to use wishes to increase their ability scores in desired areas, whatever the areas might be. It is strongly suggested that you place no restrictions upon such use of wishes. " And then gives rules for slowing the increase by 1/10th after X ability score. That DMG has all sorts of rules for wishes, how they can be used to craft magic items, etc.. Raising ability scores is assumed to be one of the basic accepted uses for wishes in that game.

As for loophole, what I mean is "A way of escaping a difficulty, especially an omission or ambiguity in the wording of a contract or law that provides a means of evading compliance."

In this case the "difficulty" is playing an ordinary character that must overcome challenges with powers and abilities at roughly the intended balance level the game designers obviously intended. The law is the game rules. The escape used is obvious abuses using omissions and ambiguities in the rules to evade having to conform to such relatively standard levels of powers and abilities. I gave several examples, and I don't know why you wouldn't want to include Pun Pun in those examples but he's a perfectly valid example of a loophole type abuse.

Hence the bag of rats is typically banned. So is Pun Pun. So is the infinite wishes. I understand you used different ways to deal with those things, but the fact you understood they needed to be dealt with is what I am referring to - you closed loopholes, even though you were not calling them loopholes.

Right now, I am not seeing this debate going anywhere good. You've already sunk to calling me names without any justification, and typically that just gets worse over time. So unless you have something that is more than a long way of saying "I don't do it that way in my games", I think it's probably best to end this portion of the debate. If you are comfortable thinking there are no loopholes in the D&D game, fair enough. Others disagree with your view in that.

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

You're calling me a liar without asking what I meant? That's pretty rude. The term "AD&D" can mean either 1e or 2e.

please link to when I did that ?!?!?

When I said AD&D, I meant AD&D 1e, which has guidelines in the DMG. I thought that was obvious, but perhaps not. Of course, you asking me would have been the way an adult would have dealt w ith that issue, rather than accusing me of lying.

1e is not really in my wheel house, the only 1e I ever played was heavy house rule and I never ran it... of cource you know I did ask quastions and was confused... but never called you a liar.. I even went so far as to say MY players hand book knowing it might be in a different printing...

The 1e DMG says things like, "It is quite usual for players to use wishes to increase their ability scores in desired areas, whatever the areas might be. It is strongly suggested that you place no restrictions upon such use of wishes. " And then gives rules for slowing the increase by 1/10th after X ability score. That DMG has all sorts of rules for wishes, how they can be used to craft magic items, etc.. Raising ability scores is assumed to be one of the basic accepted uses for wishes in that game.

since I have never seen a 1e dmg I never knew that was were 3e got it from... I started in 2e...

As for loophole, what I mean is "A way of escaping a difficulty, especially an omission or ambiguity in the wording of a contract or law that provides a means of evading compliance."

even that doesn't fit. You aren't using the candle for something it isn't meant for... it is meant to be used ot summon a creature... how is it a loop hole to summon a creature?

In this case the "difficulty" is playing an ordinary character that must overcome challenges with powers and abilities at roughly the intended balance level the game designers obviously intended.

wait... so I have to try to determain what the designers meant to write instead of what they did write??

The law is the game rules. The escape used is obvious abuses using omissions and ambiguities in the rules to evade having to conform to such relatively standard levels of powers and abilities.

the candle can summon, I use it to summon, the creature I summon can cast x spell so I have it cast x spell... that is the intended use of the candle....

I gave several examples, and I don't know why you wouldn't want to include Pun Pun in those examples but he's a perfectly valid example of a loophole type abuse.

there are loop holes in pun pun but I don't want to waste the time parsing it all out... it could be months of work

Hence the bag of rats is typically banned. So is Pun Pun.

hey something we agree on.

is the infinite wishes. I understand you used different ways to deal with those things, but the fact you understood they needed to be dealt with is what I am referring to - you closed loopholes, even though you were not calling them loopholes.

we used raw to counter raw and never saw a loop hole anywhere in it...

Right now, I am not seeing this debate going anywhere good. You've already sunk to calling me names without any justification, and typically that just gets worse over time.

WHEN?!?!?!? by trying to disprove your side of the argument... then aren't you calling me a lier by disagreeing?

So unless you have something that is more than a long way of saying "I don't do it that way in my games", I think it's probably best to end this portion of the debate. If you are comfortable thinking there are no loopholes in the D&D game, fair enough. Others disagree with your view in that.

loopholes, cheating, fudging, interpreting,min maxing and power gaming are all different ways of doing things grouping all of them as cheating is unfair and insulting...

 

[Mistwell]

please link to when I did that ?!?!?

No, enough of you're BS. You know, I know, and everyone knows the term "you are making stuff up now..." means "you are lying". We're all English speakers here. We all know what these common words and phrases mean. There is no rationale way to read, "you are making stuff up now..." without it meaning "you're lying". So cut the crap. I get you're a powergamer, I get that you enjoy linguistic games and parsing, and I have no problem with that. But in a conversation, if you tell someone that what they just said is them making stuff up to their face, you are calling them a liar. And there are consequences for adults when they do that to each other.

Mod Note: Ladies and gents, if you have an issue with what another poster is saying, aggressive posturing and getting into people's faces over it isn't acceptable. We expect you to report problematic posts, and allow the moderators to handle it. ~Umbran

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

dead horse alert. we are beating a dead horse here folks lol. move along , move along, these aren't the droids your looking for.

I wish I had taken your advise when you gave it... somepeople just like to call others cheaters even when they play by the rules

 

[Sacrosanct]

No, enough of you're BS. You know, I know, and everyone knows the term "you are making stuff up now..." means "you are lying". We're all English speakers here. .

Are we?


sorry, couldn't resist

 

[Sacrosanct]

I wish I had taken your advise when you gave it... somepeople just like to call others cheaters even when they play by the rules

If people didn't consider exploiting loopholes cheating, designers wouldn't rush to close them, would they?

I also have little patience for "I'm not touching you" type players, which essentially is what loophole exploitation is. Might just be me though.

 

[Mistwell]

Are we?


sorry, couldn't resist

LOL fair enough. I might not excel at English grammar, but I think I communicate my point well enough to be understood.

 

[Mistwell]

I wish I had taken your advise when you gave it... somepeople just like to call others cheaters even when they play by the rules

I didn't call anyone in particular a cheater here. I said using loopholes is a form of cheating. You've said you don't use any loopholes (at least you've said you don't use any of the ones I mentioned). So, thus far, I have not called you a cheater. Indeed, I told you I understand you're a powergamer and I don't mind that one bit.

Now, if you feel like you do utilize loopholes, then yes, I am calling you a cheater. Do you feel like you use loopholes?

And to answer one of your earlier questions when you asked, "so I have to try to determine what the designers meant to write instead of what they did write?" What I mean is if it is obvious to any rationale reader than the intent of something is not to get the result you're getting, and the result you are getting is abusive and throws off the balance of the game in very meaningful ways, then yes of course you are meant to determine their intent in those circumstances. Stop acting so surprised by this - you already said no DM would allow the bag of rats, even though the bag of rats is perfectly legal in terms of the rules as written. You understood the intent of the rules was not to get that sort of abusive result, and therefore DMs don't allow it. So stop acting like this is some new concept to you.

 

[Piratecat]

If he's a power player and he wants to play a bard, I bet he wants to grapple. Bards make the best grapplers! It's a cool, effective tactic so I'm not sure I'd shut it down, but be aware that's a likely plan.