Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
13 Attacks a Round the Most You Can Get?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="James Gasik" data-source="post: 9624277" data-attributes="member: 6877472"><p>I used to see this on the old WotC Char Op forums all the time. Someone would come up with some wacky, complicated build that required access to 17 different books, some obscure lore dug out of a long-forgotten or esoteric supplement, with the assumption that a DM would nod and OK everything, from Savage Species to Unearthed Arcana to Web Supplements and half-baked variant rules.</p><p></p><p>Then they would present their findings, the kind of thing no one would ever allow in a game (and even if they did, it probably wouldn't even function until late levels), and instantly you'd have people not even involved in the Char Op community going "see! I told you 3.5 is the worst thing ever! It allows for [insert ridiculous thing here]".</p><p></p><p>Examples including: King of Smack, Jack B Quick, Cheater of Mystra, That Build We Don't Talk About, Jumplomancers, Hulking Hurlers and so on.</p><p></p><p>Never mind the vastly easier to break the game builds that already existed, like Snow Cone Wish Machine, Druids with Fleshraker Dinosaurs on acid (literally!), Persist Clerics, UberChargers, Omnificiers, Archivists, Spell-to-Power Erudites, and the ultimate in stanky cheese, Planar Shepherd Druids.</p><p></p><p>Even now, decades later, you'll hear people scoff at 3.5 because it allowed for The Build That We Don't Talk About, despite the fact that it was a theoretical exercise at best.</p><p></p><p>If we'd had more people online in the 90's, I assure you, 2e Char Op would have been just as bad, if not worse, lol.</p><p></p><p>It just seems that if someone doesn't like a thing, rather than just leave it at "yeah, it's not for me", they have to find increasingly more hyperbolic reasons to denounce it's existence. </p><p></p><p>It's the whole "Star Wars is ruined because...Ewoks, Greedo/Han Shot First, Special Editions, Prequel Trilogy, George Lucas, Disney, Kathleen Kennedy, Solo Movie, Disney Plus Series, etc., etc." all over again. </p><p></p><p>Nothing is perfect, everything has flaws. Some things, are, in fact, more flawed than other things, but no matter how good or bad something is, there's going to people who will defend and attack it to their dying breath.</p><p></p><p>And honestly, some of it is insane. "See, if I take this race, with this class, and this multiclass, and these archetypes, and these feats, with this weapon mastery, and that spell, I'll be able to one-shot Dragons!".</p><p></p><p>Ignoring all the moments along the chain where the other players or the DM could ask you to please stop trying to break his game (or force the issue), right up until the fight with said Dragon, who might be played with an ounce of common sense instead of just being a raw stat block run by an AI bot!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="James Gasik, post: 9624277, member: 6877472"] I used to see this on the old WotC Char Op forums all the time. Someone would come up with some wacky, complicated build that required access to 17 different books, some obscure lore dug out of a long-forgotten or esoteric supplement, with the assumption that a DM would nod and OK everything, from Savage Species to Unearthed Arcana to Web Supplements and half-baked variant rules. Then they would present their findings, the kind of thing no one would ever allow in a game (and even if they did, it probably wouldn't even function until late levels), and instantly you'd have people not even involved in the Char Op community going "see! I told you 3.5 is the worst thing ever! It allows for [insert ridiculous thing here]". Examples including: King of Smack, Jack B Quick, Cheater of Mystra, That Build We Don't Talk About, Jumplomancers, Hulking Hurlers and so on. Never mind the vastly easier to break the game builds that already existed, like Snow Cone Wish Machine, Druids with Fleshraker Dinosaurs on acid (literally!), Persist Clerics, UberChargers, Omnificiers, Archivists, Spell-to-Power Erudites, and the ultimate in stanky cheese, Planar Shepherd Druids. Even now, decades later, you'll hear people scoff at 3.5 because it allowed for The Build That We Don't Talk About, despite the fact that it was a theoretical exercise at best. If we'd had more people online in the 90's, I assure you, 2e Char Op would have been just as bad, if not worse, lol. It just seems that if someone doesn't like a thing, rather than just leave it at "yeah, it's not for me", they have to find increasingly more hyperbolic reasons to denounce it's existence. It's the whole "Star Wars is ruined because...Ewoks, Greedo/Han Shot First, Special Editions, Prequel Trilogy, George Lucas, Disney, Kathleen Kennedy, Solo Movie, Disney Plus Series, etc., etc." all over again. Nothing is perfect, everything has flaws. Some things, are, in fact, more flawed than other things, but no matter how good or bad something is, there's going to people who will defend and attack it to their dying breath. And honestly, some of it is insane. "See, if I take this race, with this class, and this multiclass, and these archetypes, and these feats, with this weapon mastery, and that spell, I'll be able to one-shot Dragons!". Ignoring all the moments along the chain where the other players or the DM could ask you to please stop trying to break his game (or force the issue), right up until the fight with said Dragon, who might be played with an ounce of common sense instead of just being a raw stat block run by an AI bot! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
13 Attacks a Round the Most You Can Get?
Top