How would you respond to someone like this?

[Psychic Skeksis]

I mean, other than ignoring them or whatnot. The thing is, I'm currently in a group of AD&D 1e players, and enjoying it, but I'm trying to get them to try 3.0 (which I love). They respond very similar to the poster below (who posted this rant recently on RPGnet).

What's an intelligent response? To say, "It ain't the game, it's the player" or something like that? Because the truth is, I also hate the "Blah blah Optimum Build" crap, because it *does* remind me more of M:tG or a video game. But I still love 3.0.

Here's the post from RPGnet:

Why do I hate D&D 3.0/3.5? It's because of this kind of crap (quoted from another thread):

"The Spiked Chain Fighter Build"

The core of the build is having Improved Trip. The spiked chain is a reach weapon, so you have to leave a threatened square to get next to the wielder to attack in melee. The provokes an attack of opportunity, which is used to trip. When the person gets up that provokes another attack of opportunity - by the rules you can't trip with this attack, but some people do it anyway. With any luck the enemy will never get a full attack on you and you'll be giving out a bunch of extra hits outside your turn though the AoOs. This is a battlefield control build, not a direct damage one.

You'll obviously want spiked chain proficiency to do this. Then Combat Expertise and Improved Trip. A human fighter can take all three of these at first level. Since you rely heavily on attacks of opportunity the feat Combat Reflexes is also very useful. Then you get into extras like Improved Disarm, Weapon Focus and Specialization. I'm sure there are a ton of people around who can recite the exact feats required and the order to take them in. It helps to have a wizard to cast Enlarge Person on you because that both increases your reach and makes tripping people easier. Carry a few spare weapons so when you fail a trip attempt you can just drop the weapon and draw a new one.
****

Good Lord. It's not an RPG. It's friggin' Magic: the Gathering. It's a friggin' video-game. It's Halo. It's Street Fighter II (some of you old-timers remember *that* craze in the arcades ).

I hate it.

 

[JimAde]

Patient: Doctor, doctor! It hurts when I do this!
Doctor: Then don't do that.



You can be a powergaming twinkie in any system. Remember, the word "munchkin" predates 3rd edition by quite a number of years.

3rd edition is complex and modular enough that doing an "optimum build" is now possible (whereas in earlier editions all fighters were basically the same). If your group doesn't care to optimize, they don't have to (I don't).

 

[Jim Hague]

I mean, other than ignoring them or whatnot. The thing is, I'm currently in a group of AD&D 1e players, and enjoying it, but I'm trying to get them to try 3.0 (which I love). They respond very similar to the poster below (who posted this rant recently on RPGnet).

What's an intelligent response? To say, "It ain't the game, it's the player" or something like that? Because the truth is, I also hate the "Blah blah Optimum Build" crap, because it *does* remind me more of M:tG or a video game. But I still love 3.0.

Here's the post from RPGnet:

Why do I hate D&D 3.0/3.5? It's because of this kind of crap (quoted from another thread):

"The Spiked Chain Fighter Build"

The core of the build is having Improved Trip. The spiked chain is a reach weapon, so you have to leave a threatened square to get next to the wielder to attack in melee. The provokes an attack of opportunity, which is used to trip. When the person gets up that provokes another attack of opportunity - by the rules you can't trip with this attack, but some people do it anyway. With any luck the enemy will never get a full attack on you and you'll be giving out a bunch of extra hits outside your turn though the AoOs. This is a battlefield control build, not a direct damage one.

You'll obviously want spiked chain proficiency to do this. Then Combat Expertise and Improved Trip. A human fighter can take all three of these at first level. Since you rely heavily on attacks of opportunity the feat Combat Reflexes is also very useful. Then you get into extras like Improved Disarm, Weapon Focus and Specialization. I'm sure there are a ton of people around who can recite the exact feats required and the order to take them in. It helps to have a wizard to cast Enlarge Person on you because that both increases your reach and makes tripping people easier. Carry a few spare weapons so when you fail a trip attempt you can just drop the weapon and draw a new one.
****

Good Lord. It's not an RPG. It's friggin' Magic: the Gathering. It's a friggin' video-game. It's Halo. It's Street Fighter II (some of you old-timers remember *that* craze in the arcades ).

I hate it.

For one, it's RPG.Net, a bastion of d20-hating. Having gotten myself banned there by pals of some of the posters during one of the innumerable 'let's bash d20' threads, I'd say that the best thing is to not respond at all. But if you must post a response, politely point out that's a very specific build, it doesn't work in all campaigns, then point out the vast number of settings in d20 where roleplaying is emphasized over the 133t FYtor Bild. They're also getting their rules wrong - you can't attack the same target twice with an AoOP.

 

[Crothian]

That is a play style. If you don't like that sort of thing then don't do it. And don't play with people that do. All he's doing is looking at the mechancis and saying that's not an RPG. You can do this with any game, but its inaccurate and wrong.

 

[Crothian]

For one, it's RPG.Net, a bastion of d20-hating.

Actually, there are a lot of really good d20 threads over there

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

How would I respond to someone like that?

I'd tell him he's an idiot. Here's a character who has focused a large percentage of his character's resources into a largely suboptimal weapon, who's only real schtick is keeping enemies away from him.

There's minimal difference between how the DM would need to handle this character and an archer who focuses on staying out at long range, but for some reason very few people can figure this out.

"It's not an RPG"???

That's right, I guess. In order to be a "real" RPG everyone needs to have a longsword and spend their time saying, "Uh, I guess, once again, I hit the orc. Oh, no, wait, we're 6th-level now. I guess I hit the minotaur."

 

[LostSoul]

The quoted text is a big part of D&D. Some people like to play that way, and D&D handles it very well.

It is the game that promotes this kind of attitude. Otherwise a spiked chain fighter build should be as effective as any other kind of build. But that's not the case. So if you want to shine in D&D, you have to plan things out, focus on your class abilities, and know your strengths and weaknesses.

This is a feature of the game, not a flaw.

If you want to play a different way, play something else or get ready to start house-ruling (including some kind of social rules like "thou shalt not make a character the rest of us think is cheeze").

 

[Voadam]

3e has a higher level of tactical options for fighter combat, more good options than "I roll to hit with the biggest weapon while wearing the heaviest armor I can find."

It also has smoother mechanics for saving throws, ability stat modifiers, character flexibility, and multiclassing.

Mechanical optimization is not unique to 3e. 2e had the player's option book where classes could be constructed to mechanical combat optimization as well and there are kits like the bladesinger that could be brought up.

 

[MirrorMask]

This is what I would say:

The game is easier to play in the 3.x editions because you have better class skills, better weapon proficiencies, the abilities are better, there are feats, and is more of a D20 system to it. Ad&D is more bare boned than 3.x editions. The classes will all advance at the same rate. Bards and Sorcerers and Barbarians are all core classes now. And besides all of that there is also the ability to bring the same flavor to it as you do with 1st edition, it just takes the DM to bring it out. If you like how I run things now, just think how much more fun it could be with the 3.x editions.

Or something along those lines

-MirrorMask

 

[painandgreed]

Thing is, I bet if it was a RL situation, you'd hear similar conversation being said by the fighters. Many of the guys on Ultimate Fighting Championship or such are specialized in one type of fighting or even one move. The plain fact is that people min-max in real life. I've met too many big dumb bruisers and too many scrawny and smart geeks to think otherwise. In a game or real life, when you have a strength or advantage, people play to that and try to improve it as much as possible rather than opt for well rounded skill set.

Other than that, notice that it is advocating breaking the rules to begin with. I have my issues with spiked chain to begin with but such a build has its faults just like everything else. If a spike chain fighter attempts to control the battlefeild without doing direct damage, he sets himself up as a target for missle fire where dragging out a combat will be dangerous to him.