Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6183877" data-attributes="member: 4937">Neither.  I'm just saying that for a certain definition of the game, playing a character that breaks the math hard could be considered not breaking the game but playing to expectation.   And if your heart is set on playing up the whole self-righteous indignation angle, at least play it well and sympathetically.This situation is you are in a social setting on a public forum.  That's the situation you are failing to grasp.No.  But you sure have one response you think is true and sure, don't you?   It doesn't actually fit, and is totally misplaced, but go ahead.How about, "You happen to be the far outlier here right now."   Your definition of 'systems mastery' is referring to a game we aren't playing.  No one else is even bothering to attempt it.   I for one don't even care as much as 'Oh that's interesting'   You haven't mentioned anything that actually happens in my game or which is even possible in my game.  Meanwhile, Tumble continues to happen all the time.   Which is a gross exaggeration even assuming something like normal rules are definitely in play.   Essentially you are arguing here that no one ever derived benefit from Tumble in a game of 3.X D&D.  Because if they did in fact do so, then your claim that it is 'completely worthless' would seem to mean something particular and peculiar to your experience.  There are plenty of practical cases where 5' steps may well dodge an AoO but don't achieve the desired tactical goal.  Likewise, there are other uses of tumbling in reducing falling damage, passing through space occupied by a foe, etc.   True, I could probably wear a ring of feather falling and come up with a build that has access to unlimited quickened dimension doors, but... well, that brings us to the next 'point'.Really it is.  But since we seem to be in agreement on that point, perhaps you can explain to me what is 'meant' to be used at the table?  If not a 1st level spell caster that casts ninth level spells, then what?  If the case of the 1st level spell caster with Shapechange was a purely theoretical case like Pun-Pun, what relevance does it really have?  It's like saying Hulking Hurlers render hit points irrelevant.  Ok, sure, but that assumes Hulking Hurlers or any similar sort of optimized to produce damage build is meant for the table (and possible at a table actually ran by a real life DM).   I'm probably an extreme case of not embracing the power inflation, but I'm pretty sure most tables don't embrace it beyond a certain point well shy of 9th level spells in the hands of 1st level characters.An exercise which as I said, is not necessarily something that would be considered a particularly relevant goal at a lot of tables, much less the means by which a build is optimized be operative in a particular setting, much less that you wouldn't immediately run into rule 0 and everyone else would side with the DM.  It's not necessarily the case that any given table assumes 'The Magic of Faerun' is an option, or that magical items are fungible commodities, or the DM's will simply allow the free selection of PrCs, or that if it's published it's accepted by the DM, etc.   In other words, it's a process which as I said exists within its own mental space.   There has been a certain amount of, as I hear it, "You can justify anything for non-spellcasters because spellcasters are so broken, and here's proof...", in your argument.   Yes, we are all aware that at some level you can create Pun-Pun or similarly all powerful characters - unlimited quickened Blasphemes cast at an arbitrary high caster level, for example.  So at some level no one is surprised I think that the game can break.   But really, who cares?  We aren't playing that game.  I certainly am not.  Are you?</blockquote>

Verification