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
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Stats scaling past 18/19
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="Alzrius" data-source="post: 5967809" data-attributes="member: 8461"><p>The undeniable fact is that you are the one who is clearly and demonstrably wrong.</p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p>Any sort of showcased build or encounter is always going to fail the "three strikes" rule of theory-crafting:</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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 <em>helm of underwater action</em> 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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p>See above. This idea that wizards can handle anything fails the three strikes rule.</p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p>See? You're already falling into the trap of assuming the build is the most important part.</p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p>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. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Alzrius, post: 5967809, member: 8461"] The undeniable fact is that you are the one who is clearly and demonstrably wrong. 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. 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. 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 [i]helm of underwater action[/i] 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. 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. 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. 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. See? You're already falling into the trap of assuming the build is the most important part. 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. ;) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Stats scaling past 18/19
Top