Stats scaling past 18/19

[Alzrius]

Forgive me, but my nemesis is the other guy, and I haven't been paying too much attention to your posts. I do occasionally see gems and respond to them, though, which may have given you the impression that I read everything you have written.

My bad.

For example:

I find it funny that you assume the fighter spends money on magical gear for weapons/armor/flight/wish/etc, but the wizard doesn't obtain pearls of power/scrolls/wands/etc.

It's not that I don't make the assumption, it's that the fact that this kind of diversity going into a situation shows why theorizing about how encounters will go is inherently flawed - just the magic item assumptions alone throw those theories out of whack.

The fighter might have the right tools for the job while the wizard doesn't; or the other way around, or something else altogether. Some items might be sundered, or stolen, or just forgotten about. Saying "but this combination is a killer" misses the point entirely.

 

[Sekhmet]

Communism works great

Spoiler

in small groups of like-minded persons. See most indigenous tribesman.

 

[Alzrius]

Communism works great

Spoiler

in small groups of like-minded persons. See most indigenous tribesman.

Another example of a theory that doesn't work in reality.

 

[Jacob Marley]

[MENTION=98256]kitcik[/MENTION] Re: the experience comment - I think I wasn't clear in what I meant. What I meant was to create two identical parties (i.e. a cleric, a fighter, a rogue, and a wizard, or whatever the parties may be), then swap out the fighter with the class you are trying to compare it with and play both parties through a similar campaign. The purpose is to test the difference on a practical level (i.e. close to how people actually play D&D).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Today, 08:20 PM #114 (permalink)
Trevor387
has no status.

Registered User

Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8
Novice (Lvl 1)

reported

 

[xigbar]

The undeniable fact is that you are the one who is clearly and demonstrably wrong.

Off to a great start.

Any sort of showcased build or encounter is always going to fail the "three strikes" rule of theory-crafting:

1) The build always assumes that the character is at full power. This tends to only be true for the first encounter of the day (which, even if you stick to the whole "four encounters per day" paradigm, is only 25% of the time). So the vast majority of the time your character will already be down on hit points, consumable materials, spells, etc.

You aren't aware of what "powerfully built" means, but if the caster is as such, they will not, at the least, down on hit points. Wizards don't need a lot of consumable materials, since most "consumables" are replicating spell effects that they can just cast with low level slots. Additionally, there are a lot of ways to make things like scrolls that make these effects so cheap, that they might as well be, or in some cases, actually are, free.

2) The build assumes meta-game knowledge of the encounter before meeting it. Simply put, this presumes that the characters already know what they'll be facing, and have arranged their spells, feats, magic items, etc. so as to be perfectly optimized to defeat it. This is another area that's divorced from how things are in the game world.

No, it doesn't. Wizards don't need to be optimized for dealing with melee classes. So many of their spells are so profoundly multi-purposed, there are some that single handedly take down any non-caster outright.

3) The build assumes that everything revolves around this encounter. This is really an extension of the second one, but shows how such builds are the product of tunnel-vision. Yes it's useless to have a helm of underwater action if you're showcasing how your character can one-shot a balor, but there's a reason why a character that's used in a game will have one, whether from what they were doing before, or (think they) will be doing later.

See above. Also, melee classes could one shot a Balor with little to no effort when it's a level appropriate encounter. But they to spend on a way to chase the Baalor when it's flying, and then deal with it's spell like abilities which also allow it to outmaneuver and outclass the melee build.

So you see, requests for "show me the build/encounter" are not only a waste of time, but are asking the wrong questions from the very beginning.

Errrr, no. Asking for a build is a logical to display how a given character can deal with a day with game situations to run the gamut from combat, social problems, or stealth.

You admitting that you've never done these things completely undercuts the legitimacy of asking them to begin with. I've had full casters in my games who were "competent" in that they helped win the fights they were in - apparently, taking damage-dealing spells makes them "incompetent" despite the fact that they were contributors to the encounter.

I would like to see what you mean by competent. Also, if the monsters are played to their full potential, then blasting can work, since defensive abilities working against them might not have been though of.

See above. This idea that wizards can handle anything fails the three strikes rule.



First, saying that "all they lose is BAB, HP, and feats" showcases the tunnel-vision I've been talking about this entire time. Secondly, I've already explained why it's not a cop-out, please re-read the above post. Third, having magic spells in addition to items is only useful if those are the right spells, and they can successfully cast them - in this regard, they might have slightly greater potential, but that's meaningless if they can't actualize it.

Most full casters have divinations that allow them to be made aware of upcoming events, thereby eliminating the whole "they might not be prepared" arguement. And as I've said, the problem is the multi-purpose spells that can be used, often with little creativity and insight, to deal with the problems.

See? You're already falling into the trap of assuming the build is the most important part.

You're right that it isn't. It could just be straight Wizard 20, straight Cleric 20, straight Druid, Erudite, Artificer, or Archivist 20. They can adjust their "build" on the spot with very little effort. Of course, they could also be prestige classed out the wazoo.

With any luck, I've helped to dispel some of the naivete you had regarding this. Spellcasters can theoretically be powerful in a given challenge, but that's the thing about theories, they don't always mesh with reality.

Thanks for the condescending lecture, pops.

 

[xigbar]

I've already answered this - first of all, yes of course you'd make a build designed specifically against it; that's the substance of your entire argument. Second, the offer to "do it blind" still wouldn't prove your point - something I already pointed out - which by definition proves mine.

Then, why not try multiple and varied encounter against the same build? They don't all have to be combat encounters, that would truly show versatility.

 

[kingius]

Would I be being snarky by suggesting that some of the wizards are still roleplaying their snooty, 'only I have the knowlege' types while on here? Probably, but I hope it gives some pause for thought, so I'll take the risk. Wizards that never run out of spells, ever, have never found their way into any of my games... so I doubt that they exist... especially as the very mechanic of only being able to cast x spells per day tells us that this is not so. Try getting that point across though and it will be ignored.

 

[kitsune9]

The only problem with 3.x in breaking the 18 barrier was that you could end up with some math that got so high at high levels that it made rolling a d20 irrelevant.

That said, I still found it cool though.

 

[kitcik]

Wizards that never run out of spells, ever, have never found their way into any of my games... so I doubt that they exist... especially as the very mechanic of only being able to cast x spells per day tells us that this is not so. Try getting that point across though and it will be ignored.

OK, so you finally admit you never played with anyone who knows how to play even a reasonably competent full caster. This is certainly part of the issue. Thanks for the clarification.