|
After reading a number of these posts regarding balance and brokenness and the examples provided therein I have developed something I am (modestly) calling the Lich-Loved Argument against these sorts of examples:
Lich-Loved Argument
(1)Assume that the example provided is acceptable and doable in the mythical world
(2)Assume that players wish to maintain versimlitude and thus expect cause and effect to be a consistent operating mechanism in the world (eg you do something and it produces repeatable results each time it is tried)
(3)Apply the approach presented in (1) across the whole of the mythical world/multiverse where (2) applies, iterating over the passage of years/decades/whatever is appropriate for the mythical world
(4)Draw a broad conclusion about the state of the world after (3).
(5)If the result of (4) is one in which the world ceases to exist or no longer has the same social, political or power structures as it did when (1) was proposed/created then (1) must not be possible to do. If no game rule exists to prohibit (1) from occurring, then the rule prohibiting (1) must exist, even in an unstated fashion, within the universe assumed in (2) or otherwise the result would be (4)
Here are a few examples:
The “Halfling Hurler” rogue build (see below for more on optimized builds)
Ok, so a clever halfling has found out that maintaining a magical bag of alchemical cold, fire and acid and maximizing his stealth, initiative and throwing capabilities leads to a person that destroys everything he meets in mere moments. Think through the implications of this, applying (3) above. Fighters become rogues upon seeing the awesome power of the technique and give up their blades to start throwing things at practice targets (what good is a sword against such power when the other approach is so much better?) and/or everyone demands that alchemical fire/cold/acid production be stopped because of the great atrocities committed with its use and/or everyone fears halflings to the point where they are hunted to extinction and/or the cost of alchemical items of this sort and the formula and control of their making becomes a central point of the world's politics (we see this with nuclear weapons today) and/or the approach to warfare discovered by this clever halfling has an exploitable flaw that is so well known so as keep the use of the approach marginal or non-existent. There are other likely outcomes as well, but all of them involve a substantial change to the world as assumed before the class was built. Thus the build fails the Lich-Loved Argument; the world ends up being a different place because of the proposed build. Thus it isn't possible. Either the build violates a 3.5 rule (unlikely) or it violates a “world rule”. The DM, as caretaker of the world, decides which.
The “Wish for a Ring of Wishes”
The DMG allows the wish spell to “create a magic item” with no limitations on the type of item created. Thus it is possible to wish for a ring of three wishes. This situation also arises when a player tries to get a summoned Dao or Djinn to grant wishes. I do not need to belabor the point on this one. It has so many flaws and implications on the game world that the outcome would be a place far different that the world in which the example started. Thus it is not possible. Perhaps the rule is badly written (I think it is but must we change the wording when it fails such a basic test) or there is some other mechanism at work in the world (eg the first person to discover this wished that no one else could discover it, thus providing an "in world" answer).
The “Shadow over the Sun” Fallacy
This example discusses undead spawn capabilities like those of the shadow or wight. Since a shadow can be harmed only by magic weapons, kills quickly and creates shadow spawn, a single shadow that finds its way into a peasant's village would create a great number of shadows overnight which would go out to create even more shadows and so forth until the world was wreathed in shadow. Again, the Lich Loved Argument prevents this scenario from occurring. If it could occur, then it certainly would have occurred given the number of shadows thought to exist in a typical D&D multiverse. The fact that is hasn't occurred points to an unexplained phenomenon in the rules of the mythical universe, leaving it up to the DM to decide what that reason may be.
The “Optimized Build” Fallacy
This is just an extrapolation of the “Halfing Hurler” build I mention above and is useful when deciding what spells/PrC's, classes and whatnot to allow into your mythical worlds. In short, it is not possible for any one playable race/class/feat combination to radically eclipse the others in terms of power. If such a thing were possible, then that race/class would grow quickly to dominance as the defining class and all sub-optimal builds would be trimmed by either aggressive members of the dominant race/class or by monsters that themselves are tough enough to deal with the dominant race/class or by persons chosing the obviously superior skillset over the more mundane one. For example, if Eldritch Knights (a PrC) were heads and shoulders better than either fighters or mages, then you would not have either fighters or mages in your world to start with, except for those in training to be Eldritch Knights. Chances are, this group would be highly desirous to maintain their power base and would be certain that up and coming students of wizardy or knighthood were brought into their fold or labeled as heretics and hunted down. Even if this didn't happen, it would be seen as a failure to develop/mature properly if an aspirant was “merely” a fighter or wizard and the eventual confrontation against foes capable of dealing with Eldritch Knights would pit the “mere wizard” against superior forces and the wizard would perish. This approach can be applied to spells, core classes, PrCs or “jigsaw builds” proposed by players. Think through the logical outcome of allowing such choices and apply the Lich Loved Argument to see what would reasonably happen if everyone did as the player proposed.
As you read these boards, think about some of the things people are proposing and the examples they provide. In many cases, their examples fail this basic test of reasoning and thus should be dismissed so as not to lead the discussion about how to improve the rules astray. Not every rule needs a dozen caveats, not every class or spell or situation needs to be addressed in the rulebook for a "rule" to exist to deal with the situation.
Your argument is a logical fallacy (contains unsupportable assumptions). Which is ironic, because its supposed to be about logical fallacies.
Remember, when you "assume", you make an "ass out of u and me."
Natural Selection only applies to future generations, not to individuals. One thing being better than another doesn't make the other thing go away unless they fight to the death.
Rogues are better than Experts of the same level. Fighters are better than Warriors. Cloud Giants are better than Hill Giants. And the "inferior" things still exist. Your entire argument is a non sequitur.
-Frank
|
I think it's a crap feat. Feats that just serve as prereqs for good Feats are about as fun as a punch in the kidney.
Same with Thrall to Demons and Vile Deformity and the Sorcerous 'Heritage' Feats and Dodge. All crappy prerequisite Feats not worth taking, save for the good stuff that comes afterwards.
Oh.
Was this thread not about the Lich-Loved feat? My bad.
|
|
Your argument is a logical fallacy (contains unsupportable assumptions). Which is ironic, because its supposed to be about logical fallacies.
Remember, when you "assume", you make an "ass out of u and me."
I do assume two things. One, that the the proposal exists and two that the cause and effect exist and are repeatable. I imply another thing, but I will handle that in my response to Frank's post. If you wish to reject either assumption that is fine with me. If you don't accept the initial proposal than neither do I and it can't be used for a basis of discussion since neither of us accept it. If you don't want to assume a cause and effect relationship then that is fine too, we just have different definitions of verisimilitude. Yours apparently consists of things happening at random and mine does not. In this case, I can see why you won't accept the discussion as is but I would wager that most D&D worlds operate on causal relationships and thus the argument still holds for all those cases that do.
|
|
Natural Selection only applies to future generations, not to individuals. One thing being better than another doesn't make the other thing go away unless they fight to the death.
Rogues are better than Experts of the same level. Fighters are better than Warriors. Cloud Giants are better than Hill Giants. And the "inferior" things still exist. Your entire argument is a non sequitur.
-Frank
I handle future generations in (3) above. I state very clearly that significant time has passed between the invention of a proposition and the time the character in question attempts it. The idea has been seen and used by others over time. Certainly, you are not suggesting that your character build utilizing special trick #1437 is the first character in the history of the multiverse to attempt such a thing, are you?
As for natural selection, I of course agree. It does only apply when things fight to the death. Which explains why there are still experts with rogues about, for if they did fight, their wouldn't be any experts around. That is exactly my Argument in action. And fighters and warriors as well, yes, but I notice no warriors are adventuring successfully these days. And why is that? Because the Argument ensures that any that try are weeded out by the monsters that are a tough challenge for a fighter, the clearly superior build. And again, Hill Giants only exist because the Cloud Giants haven't made it a point to change that. If they did, they would be gone.
When we are dealing with ultra-specialized builds, wonky spells or spell-combination effects, this Argument holds as well. If someone could really do all the things some people are proposing they already would have been done and the world would be different. This also explains why there isn't an Einstein-type orc out there decimating the Cloud Giants by exploring their secret weakness he discovered. Either the weakness doesn't exist, the orc doesn't exist or all Cloud Giants susceptible to the weakness or otherwise unable to counter it are dead and only those Cloud Giants for which the weakness is no longer a true weakness are left.
Edit: This last part breaks down, of course, if *you* happen to be that Einstein orc, and I guess if the DM wants to run a world where you discover the Clould Giant's secret weakness and kill many of them before they adapt, then that is fine, but my Argument is aimed at the general game and "big picture", not a specialized case where both player and DM agree the story they are telling is one in which something fundamental changes in the game world.
Lich-Loved, I liked your post; that sort of verisimilitude is important to most of the players I game with. For example, upon noting the obvious superiority of the Abjurant Champion over all other "gish" PrC's, the GM said, "OK, your character is a member of the elite Elvenking's Guard, right? So maybe these abilities have been in development for years, but have just now been perfected to their current level. So only members of the Elvenking's Guard should have them for now... until spies get a hold of them. So watch out for kinappers and such, if you use them too obviously. And be careful who you train!" Of course, one of the trainees eventually turned coat... but that's another story.
|
|
Lich-Loved, I liked your post; that sort of verisimilitude is important to most of the players I game with. For example, upon noting the obvious superiority of the Abjurant Champion over all other "gish" PrC's, the GM said, "OK, your character is a member of the elite Elvenking's Guard, right? So maybe these abilities have been in development for years, but have just now been perfected to their current level. So only members of the Elvenking's Guard should have them for now... until spies get a hold of them. So watch out for kinappers and such, if you use them too obviously. And be careful who you train!" Of course, one of the trainees eventually turned coat... but that's another story.
Yes exactly! Thanks for the support!
So, if I understand your post correctly, all rules loopholes, exploits and bugs (or, to be absolutely accurate, anything you view as such) don't actually exist, and if discovered, correct themselves retroactively so they never existed (apparently magically, in a way that doesn't involve the game developers doing any work to prevent them in the first place) and also, you don't like Frank.
Interestingly, for the wishes in particular, the point *is* that its badly written, and needs to be fixed.
This is a rational, well-thought-out argument, congratulations.
The premises are good, the execution thoughtful. I am going to have to apply the "Lich-Loved" argument to a few of my players' decisions (Scouts with merciful bows and Improved Skirmish, for example).
I do assume two things. One, that the the proposal exists and two that the cause and effect exist and are repeatable. I imply another thing, but I will handle that in my response to Frank's post. If you wish to reject either assumption that is fine with me. If you don't accept the initial proposal than neither do I and it can't be used for a basis of discussion since neither of us accept it. If you don't want to assume a cause and effect relationship then that is fine too, we just have different definitions of verisimilitude. Yours apparently consists of things happening at random and mine does not. In this case, I can see why you won't accept the discussion as is but I would wager that most D&D worlds operate on causal relationships and thus the argument still holds for all those cases that do.Your argument is a logical fallacy (contains unsupportable assumptions). Which is ironic, because its supposed to be about logical fallacies.
Remember, when you "assume", you make an "ass out of u and me."
Your assumption is that the rules as written accurately represent the game world that people play in. Based on that assumption, you miss the actual logical conclusion: the rules are flawed and the logical result of applying those rules is an absurd result or a result that doesn't fit within user expectations. Both call for a rule change.
Your conclusion that either the offending example somehow doesn't follow the rules, or there is some other unseen rule modifying the first rule is just silly. You are creating consistency where none exists.
I could go further to your other mistakes, but it would look like flaming. As a gentleman, I will excuse myself.
A well-thought-out and rational argument, well done.
I will soon be applying the "Lich-loved" argument to many of my plaers' decisions (Scouts with Improved Skirmish and merciful bows).
I do assume two things. One, that the the proposal exists and two that the cause and effect exist and are repeatable. I imply another thing, but I will handle that in my response to Frank's post. If you wish to reject either assumption that is fine with me. If you don't accept the initial proposal than neither do I and it can't be used for a basis of discussion since neither of us accept it. If you don't want to assume a cause and effect relationship then that is fine too, we just have different definitions of verisimilitude. Yours apparently consists of things happening at random and mine does not. In this case, I can see why you won't accept the discussion as is but I would wager that most D&D worlds operate on causal relationships and thus the argument still holds for all those cases that do.Your argument is a logical fallacy (contains unsupportable assumptions). Which is ironic, because its supposed to be about logical fallacies.
Remember, when you "assume", you make an "ass out of u and me."
Your assumption is that the rules as written accurately represent the game world that people play in. Based on that assumption, you miss the actual logical conclusion: the example presented shows that the rules are flawed and the logical result of applying those rules is an absurd result or a result that doesn't fit within user expectations.
Your conclusion that either the offending example doesn't follow the rules, or there is some other unseen rule modifying the first rule is just silly. You are imagining consistency where none exists.
I could go further to your other mistakes, but it would look like flaming. As a gentleman, I will excuse myself.
On the whole I think your argument follows, and I certainly agree with the premise that you don't want artificial classes and races and stuff in a world that couldn't support them. Here's the thing though. Your argument assumes a top down RTS view of the world that seems a bit unrealistic. The Hulking Hurler for example. You seem to assume that everyone in the world has the capacity to BE a Hulking Hurler, and that it's easy enough to do that the decision to be a sword swinger or barrel thrower are more or less free choices.
Let's look at our world. Body armor exists that makes you more or less impervious to bullets. It's called Dragonskin, and it's hands down the best stuff on the market. You can fire round after round into it and it takes forever to break down. You could buy it. It exists. It would make it so you would never get mugged or carjacked again. Why don't you buy it? Does Dragonskin break the world?
Let's look at martial arts. A guy gets into a barfight with a guy who knows kung fu. He knows how to windmill throw his arms around like a big idiot. The kung fu guy is going to own him. We all know it. Martial arts are just better in every measurable way. Do you know martial arts? I don't. Most folks don't. We'd get our butts whooped. Why? Does the presence of martial arts break the world?
People exist in niches. There are things that are important to them, and there are things they think would be cool but don't do either for laziness, unwillingness to pay, lack of talent, or a dozen other reasons.
That said, I think there are some silly niche things out there that need regulated if a setting is going to be maintained--but I don't know if it's as clean and simple as A kills B, all you have is A.
There's a lot of artificial freedom of opportunity in D&D. It assumes that you could get an education in military warfare, magecraft, or weird ascetic groups of powerful nature worshippers, god-chosen holy buttkickers, and monastic spiritualist fighters. It further assumes that having embarked down this road you can freely bounce back and forth, picking up whatever you need to learn to advance as you amble along in life.
You're a rogue and want to pick up a level in barbarian? Cool. Well, not so cool actually because the "barbarians" are part of a pretty airtight and xenophobic culture that you'd have to earn the trust of and live with for a good many years before you'd be accepted enough to become a barbarian of their tribe.
Pretty bright boy? Want to go from fighter to mage in a level? Good luck getting into an academy all covered in road mud and cracked scale mail with scars all over you. Average age for applicants is like twelve. Good luck with that. Or is the hope that you'll unlock the secrets of the universe bumbling down the road on your horse, waving your hands around and saying different magicky things and tossing bat guano into the air until you "get it". Again, good luck with that.
We've put a lot of artificial freedom into the game because it's more fun. It's lame to say somebody "can't" do something. But the flavor and whole setup of the classes supposes a group of more or less impenetrable institutions that lucky folks get to pick just one of. So the problem is you're already letting PCs hop fences that normally exist for everyone else in the world, right from the start. You get strangeness right from the beginning. The game mechanics and the game world are in conflict right out of the gate.
|
|
Your assumption is that the rules as written accurately represent the game world that people play in.
Based on that assumption, you miss the actual logical conclusion: the example presented shows that the rules are flawed and the logical result of applying those rules is an absurd result or a result that doesn't fit within user expectations.
So your take is that any time anything that might be “game breaking” or world altering (and of course, we have to define what these words mean because what breaks one person's game is fine for another) needs to be written into the RAW? It has been said that “the perfect is the enemy of the good”. I believe you could learn something about addressing problems in the RAW from this adage.
I chose to allow the RAW to only be “good enough”. I do play in the game world represented by the rules and would wager a great many others do as well. But I further postulate that their are rules for the game world which are not written into the rule book. For example, the sun in my world rises in the east, but that is certainly not in any rule book and yet it has a profound effect on the game. The point being that there are rules as written (RAW) and there are thousands of "other rules", implied by the setting or world that are not written and trying to shoehorn every "world rule" into the RAW to cover what really are corner cases and attempts at munchkinism is a waste of effort and muddies the water without solving anything. There are times when the RAW could use a fix (wish comes to mind) but in a vast majority of the cases, the RAW is fine and it is DM that needs to apply a little common sense. My Argument helps DMs see things from this perspective and deal with rules corner cases, seeing them for what they are. If it doesn't work for you fine. Get out a notebook and begin scribbling away on a stack of “RAW changes/houserules”. I have a game to play and better things to do with my time. The Argument resolves issues for me, and apparently for others if not give them something to think about. Thus its purpose is already accomplished.
Your conclusion that either the offending example doesn't follow the rules, or there is some other unseen rule modifying the first rule is just silly. You are imagining consistency where none exists.
I don't think the examples break the RAW the vast majority of the time. In fact, I think they are crafted by people that know the RAW very well and have specifically probed at its weak spots and corner cases to see if they could break the system and then hold their creation high above their heads triumphantly for all to ogle or worse, to put it into play with the intent of gaining some upper hand that really should never be granted when the rest of the game world is taken into consideration. As far as their being other unseen rules at work, I have already shown you there to be one (the sun rises in the east) and the presence of one indicates there may just be more. In fact, any examination of a mythical world with a reasonable degree of causality will be filled with all kinds of these rules (where do the Sembians acquire such lovely rubies? From the dwarves of Vaasa, of course, who trade the rubies they find for merchandise available in that mercantile society).
You can call it silly but you haven't really refuted anything.
|
|
So, if I understand your post correctly, all rules loopholes, exploits and bugs (or, to be absolutely accurate, anything you view as such) don't actually exist, and if discovered, correct themselves retroactively so they never existed (apparently magically, in a way that doesn't involve the game developers doing any work to prevent them in the first place)
No you do not understand me. I merely point out that in addition to the RAW there are other forces at work in game worlds where causality is valued and DMs have every right think through these issues with this in mind. That is, the rules are the "RAW plus" with the "plus" being the natural laws of the land.
and also, you don't like Frank.
On the contrary I find Frank's analytical skills to be excellent, his playtests thorough and his examination of the RAW to be very, very interesting (and I loved SR4 so there). I followed a link out to a forum or blog (that he runs?) where he expounds at great length about a great many issues with the RAW and how things really should be. I found myself agreeing with him on a great many issues. That said, I think that attempts to make Frank's vision become the new RAW to be sorely misguided because I do not think it will be better for the game over all where common sense can otherwise be applied. I also feel that writing an airtight set of rules that handle all of these corner cases and whatnot to be a futile effort that will never achieve its stated goals. This isn't to say things like wish can't be polished, but a complete rewrite to reorder the world according to admittedly wonky corner cases won't serve its intended purpose either.
I offer up the Argument to help DMs deal with these cases and take a few moments to think them through before rendering judgment. Maybe they will allow these cases into play and maybe they won't but at least a method exists to consider the ramifications of the change. I also am offering the Argument up as a means to keep our eye on the goal of a 3.5 rewrite. Just because someone can find a way to make the system fail does not mean that the system in all cases is a failure. There are things being excluded in these playtest discussions that are impacted by and have an impact on the causality of the game world that cannot be ignored.
There's a whole fallacy in your premise, especially present in the halfling thrower example that hasn't been touched upon. What real people would do. So this halfling is running around owning things with alchemical fire and such, that's great, I somehow doubt that the entire world would be exposed to him, only those that directly confront him will actually know about him, while his story may spread amongst adventurers and monsters, but he's going to largely be the province of myth. Second, men at arms are not going to abandon the sword, they're going to train harder and think more before going up against such an opponent. Mages already do this better than the halfling ever will, it's called Meteor Swarm and the Energy Substitution feat. Then there's the fact that the halfling is very unlikely to want to take over the world or crap like that, he'll probably just adventure until he can live fat and happy.
|
Natural Selection only applies to future generations, not to individuals. One thing being better than another doesn't make the other thing go away unless they fight to the death.
Rogues are better than Experts of the same level. Fighters are better than Warriors. Cloud Giants are better than Hill Giants. And the "inferior" things still exist. Your entire argument is a non sequitur.
-Frank
I don't agree with the OP (I'd rather have a wonky rule mended than have it house-ruled away) but these are weak examples.
Rogues and Experts have different backgrounds and training. Not only is it different, but becoming a rogue is harder. It's also harder to become a Fighter than a Warrior; they're more highly trained, which requires a greater expenditure of resources.
Cloud Giants and Hill Giants occupy different ecological niches.
|
|
There's a whole fallacy in your premise, especially present in the halfling thrower example that hasn't been touched upon. What real people would do. So this halfling is running around owning things with alchemical fire and such, that's great, I somehow doubt that the entire world would be exposed to him, only those that directly confront him will actually know about him, while his story may spread amongst adventurers and monsters, but he's going to largely be the province of myth.
So thus far you are relying on the "he is the only person in the multiverse to come up with this" position. I find that to be rather difficult to believe unless the DM also agrees (I wouldn't) but let's continue....
Second, men at arms are not going to abandon the sword, they're going to train harder and think more before going up against such an opponent.
If I understand you then, others will develop a countermeasure to this to prevent going extinct in the event of a confrontation. I agree. Perhaps they have restricted access to the supply of flasks, or put those that can make it to the sword, or gained the skill as well (so everyone is doing it) or the like. This is what the Argument proposes.
Mages already do this better than the halfling ever will, it's called Meteor Swarm and the Energy Substitution feat.
Agreed. And the developed countermeasures are called Protection from Fire and laws against using magic of this type in civilized areas. In the wild, of course, it is allowed and thus the only monsters left in the wild after a mage comes through with those spells are those not susceptible to meteor swarm/energy substitution, making the wildlands thereafter a nasty place to be until all of the susceptible monsters can reform their populations. Hence for some time to come, only those with magic on par with meteor swarm will find that area habitable. This proves the Argument that superior builds dominate wherever they go and prevent the operation of subpar builds for some time in the same area, that time being dependent on the world's ability to restore populations to an area.
Then there's the fact that the halfling is very unlikely to want to take over the world or crap like that, he'll probably just adventure until he can live fat and happy.
I agree. It isn't about halflings taking over the world, it is about the halfling's superior skills and strange ability fundamentally altering the way the world works to the point of absurdity. Can you imagine a world where a halfling looted treasure and got rich doing this kind of thing? Towns would refuse entry to halflings for fear of fire they may start or spontaneous combustion from falling from a window during a drunken revelry, especially as lesser-skilled copy-cats tried the same trick and caused disasters. Prices for flasks of the stuff would rise to meet the demand, intelligent monsters would ambush suppliers of the reagents to keep the supply out of the hands of manufacturers and perhaps worst of all, a manical gnome with a surgeons hands (read 18 dex) and a gloves of dexterity may just decide he would become the world-chammmmpeeeen bottle thrower and set off to kill the halfling using his own tricks, or the local adventurer's guild would set fires in the city using alchemical flasks so that the halfling would be driven away and they could go back to looting "their" dungeon without the competition. I could go on, but if you don't see the point then I guess I am wasting my time.
So, if I understand your post correctly, all rules loopholes, exploits and bugs (or, to be absolutely accurate, anything you view as such) don't actually exist, and if discovered, correct themselves retroactively so they never existed (apparently magically, in a way that doesn't involve the game developers doing any work to prevent them in the first place)No you do not understand me. I merely point out that in addition to the RAW there are other forces at work in game worlds where causality is valued and DMs have every right think through these issues with this in mind. That is, the rules are the "RAW plus" with the "plus" being the natural laws of the land.
Except... there aren't any 'natural laws' of a game world. Nothing is going to step in and fix problems with the rule set. Yes, you can house rule the stupid things away (which is what you're talking about, however much you feel the need to justify it with in-game-world-character reasoning), but when you're talking about revising a game system, which is what Paizo is doing with Pathfinder, the only material to work with is the game rules. Joe P. Monkey, DMing on Banana Island, and his personal take on what makes sense in his game world doesn't matter.
The 'plus', as you put it is subjective and doesn't matter, because its going to vary from group to group anyway. You have to write the system rules so they can stand on their own. And 3rd doesn't do that very well, particularly at the high end. Your opinion that the hurler build violates some sort of arbitrary 'world rule' is what is commonly referred to as a 'house rule'. The world doesn't blow up just because rogues are effective, and it doesn't change any assumptions about the world beforehand- the assumption is, high level adventurers have a lot of stuff, including alchemical items and extra-dimensional storage space. It certainly doesn't lead to your odd scenario with towns fearing halflings and whatever- high level adventurers are creatures to be feared. Everyone in D&D Land knows that already, and with the various rings, weapons, amulets and assorted gear, its perfectly obvious who you shouldn't mess with. D&D heroes kill people. Its their thing, and any one of them could burn down a town, with piss-all the town could do to stop them.
Similarly, the Shadow thing isn't a logical fallacy. Its a poorly written rule for spawning. Thats all, it doesn't require weird logical contortions, just a couple extra words added to a sentence of rules text.
|
|
I don't agree with the OP (I'd rather have a wonky rule mended than have it house-ruled away) but these are weak examples.
Rogues and Experts have different backgrounds and training. Not only is it different, but becoming a rogue is harder. It's also harder to become a Fighter than a Warrior; they're more highly trained, which requires a greater expenditure of resources.
Cloud Giants and Hill Giants occupy different ecological niches.
It is odd that you say you don't agree with me because these are exactly the kinds of thoughts I am asking DMs to consider before making a ruling on things. Cloud Giants and Hill Giants do occupy different niches and thus someone saying they wanted to be a cloud giant/hill giant crossbreed dagger thrower might have some explaining to do. In the same way, the DM of a non-oriental world may disallow Ninja or Samurai or other oriental classes because the martial traditions needed to bring about these archtypes don't exist in his world. This may be especially true of the Rogue 3/Ninja 3/Barbarian 2/Frightful Servant of Ao specialized in throwing stars and blowguns (augmented for strength per the Frightful Servant of Ao PrC) character someone is proposing. We don't need RAW fixes for this stuff, we need common sense. And to use such a build for playtest to show where the RAW is broken is just...what was the word? Oh, silly.
Your assumption is that the rules as written accurately represent the game world that people play in.
Based on that assumption, you miss the actual logical conclusion: the example presented shows that the rules are flawed and the logical result of applying those rules is an absurd result or a result that doesn't fit within user expectations.So your take is that any time anything that might be “game breaking” or world altering (and of course, we have to define what these words mean because what breaks one person's game is fine for another) needs to be written into the RAW? It has been said that “the perfect is the enemy of the good”. I believe you could learn something about addressing problems in the RAW from this adage.
I chose to allow the RAW to only be “good enough”. I do play in the game world represented by the rules and would wager a great many others do as well. But I further postulate that their are rules for the game world which are not written into the rule book. For example, the sun in my world rises in the east, but that is certainly not in any rule book and yet it has a profound effect on the game. The point being that there are rules as written (RAW) and there are thousands of "other rules", implied by the setting or world that are not written and trying to shoehorn every "world rule" into the RAW to cover what really are corner cases and attempts at munchkinism is a waste of effort and muddies the water without solving anything. There are times when the RAW could use a fix (wish comes to mind) but in a vast majority of the cases, the RAW is fine and it is DM that needs to apply a little common sense. My Argument helps DMs see things from this perspective and deal with rules corner cases, seeing them for what they are. If it doesn't work for you fine. Get out a notebook and begin scribbling away on a stack of “RAW changes/houserules”. I have a game to play and better things to do with my time. The Argument resolves issues for me, and apparently for others if...
You are attempting to express your opinion as if it was a logical argument. It is not. Take a logic class.
You houserule. We get it. I even approve of houserules. Just don't dress it up as something its not.
I see two questions being asked here:
1. Is it possible to have airtight rules, or will some amount of logic, interpretation, and common sense always be needed?
2. Should a game world founded on magic have any logical cause-and-effect in its ongoing development?
Lich-loved obviously answers no and yes, respectively. Agreement is obviously not unanimous.
1. Frank looks for rules loopholes with the tenacity of a terrier after rats. That's an excellent thing to do; we've seen it catch some major bugs, the ones that are just begging to be abused. But in the history of the world there has never been a legal document that was 100% clear and without loopholes; that's why after 200+ years the U.S. still haven't been able to disband the Supreme Court. So I have to agree with Lich-Loved on this one. But that's not the real issue.
2. This is the main point of contention here. But what's easy to overlook is that this is purely a matter of personal taste. Lich-Loved and I, as futile as it may be, like to add an element of versimilitude and development. Others might just want to play the game. There's no "right" answer here because we're talking about imaginary worlds that are fundamentally impossible. Some are more internally-consistent than others, is all. It all depends on the taste of the players.
I see two questions being asked here:
1. Is it possible to have airtight rules, or will some amount of logic, interpretation, and common sense always be needed?
2. Should a game world founded on magic have any logical cause-and-effect in its ongoing development?
Lich-loved obviously answers no and yes, respectively. Agreement is obviously not unanimous.
1. Frank looks for rules loopholes with the tenacity of a terrier after rats. That's an excellent thing to do; we've seen it catch some major bugs, the ones that are just begging to be abused. But in the history of the world there has never been a legal document that was 100% clear and without loopholes; that's why after 200+ years the U.S. still haven't been able to disband the Supreme Court. So I have to agree with Lich-Loved on this one. But that's not the real issue.
2. This is the main point of contention here. But what's easy to overlook is that this is purely a matter of personal taste. Lich-Loved and I, as futile as it may be, like to add an element of versimilitude and development. Others might just want to play the game. There's no "right" answer here because we're talking about imaginary worlds that are fundamentally impossible. Some are more internally-consistent than others, is all. It all depends on the taste of the players.
I think people agree that game worlds should be internally consistent and that the rules as written aren't perfect.
I personally am up in arms over the "I have a super argument where I prove to all the idiots that the rules that are broken aren't broken either because I won't allow it or because I can come up with an additional houserule to fix it." Passing off this opinion as a logical argument in an poor attempt to give it weight is disingenuous.
Thats silly. Seriously.
And we've never accepted the "but I can house rule this away" as a viable answer to any of the problems in DnD. Even trying to argue this is a disservice to people who are candidly attempting to address these problems for us all. For the first time ever, someone in RPG publishing industry is taking feedback, so we have a chance of actually cleaning up the system for everyone. We owe them our best efforts.
I see two questions being asked here:
1. Is it possible to have airtight rules, or will some amount of logic, interpretation, and common sense always be needed?
2. Should a game world founded on magic have any logical cause-and-effect in its ongoing development?
Lich-loved obviously answers no and yes, respectively. Agreement is obviously not unanimous.
1. Frank looks for rules loopholes with the tenacity of a terrier after rats. That's an excellent thing to do; we've seen it catch some major bugs, the ones that are just begging to be abused. But in the history of the world there has never been a legal document that was 100% clear and without loopholes; that's why after 200+ years the U.S. still haven't been able to disband the Supreme Court. So I have to agree with Lich-Loved on this one. But that's not the real issue.
2. This is the main point of contention here. But what's easy to overlook is that this is purely a matter of personal taste. Lich-Loved and I, as futile as it may be, like to add an element of versimilitude and development. Others might just want to play the game. There's no "right" answer here because we're talking about imaginary worlds that are fundamentally impossible. Some are more internally-consistent than others, is all. It all depends on the taste of the players.
I think people agree that game worlds should be internally consistent and that the rules as written aren't perfect.
I personally am up in arms over the "I have a super argument where I prove to all the idiots that the rules that are broken aren't broken either because I won't allow it or because I can come up with an additional houserule to fix it." Passing off this opinion as a logical argument in an poor attempt to give it weight is disingenuous.
Thats silly. Seriously.
And we've never accepted the "but I can house rule this away" as a viable answer to any of the problems in DnD. Even trying to argue this is a disservice to people who are candidly attempting to...
Yeah, isn't that a rather old fallacy in D&D, oberoni or such?
Yes, yes it is.
Oberoni Fallacy (noun): The fallacy that the existence of a rule stating that, ‘the rules can be changed,’ can be used to excuse design flaws in the actual rules. Etymology, D&D message boards, a fallacy first formalized by member Oberoni.
Essentially yes, you can intervene as DM to announce that things which are brokenly powerful (or in your case, more powerful than some arbitrary line) retroactively don't occur, ignoring the rules. However, the instant you feel compelled to ignore the rules you aren't playing D&D anymore, you are playing magical teaparty, where you just make stuff up off the top of your head, rules be damned. However fun or balanced your personal session of magical teaparty happens to be, it really has no bearing whatsoever on how balanced the rules of D&D actually are.
Or to put it even more bluntly: if you as DM feel compelled to intervene against the printed rules, that doesn't mean that the rules don't have a problem (because you fixed it), it means that the rules do have a problem (because you needed to fix it).
--
On another note: you don't actually get to name things after yourself in D&D land. Other people name things after you. So despite all the things I've personally made up, all the arguments I've formalized, all the rules loopholes I've exposed, the thing that actually got named after me is "The Frank Cheat" which is casting all your spell slots as long duration buffs, going to sleep for 8 hours, preparing spells for an hour, and then going out adventuring with a day's worth of buffs and a day's worth of spells.
And Balor Mining, More Wishes, Chain Binding, Phoenix Duplication, etc. etc. have their own names and not mine. That's just how it works. Anything else is hubris of the first order.
-Frank
|
|
I have had some time to think over all the dissenting posts and I would like to respond to them in general.
Firstly, I do not mean to come across as a zealot for this idea. It is just an approach, an idea that DMs can use other than “I am the DM so there” type reasoning when addressing some of these issues. If any of my language either directly or indirectly meant that my way was the only way to view things than I apologize. I tried to avoid this, which is why I called my approach an Argument instead of a Fallacy, Axiom, or some other name implying ultimate truth.
Secondly, I readily concede that there are broken areas within the rules and am not advocating that all such areas be overlooked in favor of some houserule/world consistency explanation. If my comments have been interpreted that way, and if I came across too firmly in that regard, then I apologize a second time. I do believe some of these issues can and should be fixed with a rules reprint, but the manner and degree to which this occurs is something I am concerned about and the primary reason why the Argument was written.
Let me provide some more detail on this. For the sake of discussion, let us assign rule failures to a number of classes.
Class A failures are those things that really are broken as would ruin the game world if applied as written. Wish and the “Shadow over the Sun” might fall into this category.
Class B Failures are things that stretch verisimilitude to the limit, asking the players to set aside common sense or practicality to support. Niche builds like the Halfling Hurler would IMHO be in this category. YMMV.
Class C Failures are minor nits that are bothersome, like lack of clarity in spell descriptions and other ambiguities or things that are just difficult to run.
When faced with a rules rewrite, we would all like to see the Class A and Class B problems addressed and as many of the Class C as possible. The problem with this is that I do not believe that we can all agree on the classification of a particular issue. To some, world macro economics are a Class A issue, to others, they are not an issue at all or are perhaps a Class C issue. Some feel that the “Shadow over the Sun” problem points to a fundamental failure in the game (Class A), whereas others (like myself) do not see it as much of a problem at all.
Given that the rules rewrite will utilize limited resources and given that we do not all agree on what problems need fixing, the rules will almost certainly fall short in someone's opinion, perhaps in everyone's opinion albeit in different areas. One of the reasons I created the Argument was to provide DMs a tool for dealing with those things which are not fixed in the new rules and that may be reasonably related to causality. A second (and in my view more important) reason for the Argument was to prevent corner cases in the rules (read “corner cases” as either Class A or Class B failures as you see fit) used as demonstrations to break other aspects of the game, creating new Class A failures where none may exist with the application of a bit of common sense. I concede that with great diligence one may discover that there are as many problems with the rules as there are rules themselves but utilizing Class A or Class B failures in the rules to demonstrate or look for the existence of other Class A and Class B failures is a mistake. Thus the Argument can also be used to test if the proposed scenario for a playtest is even worth considering independent of its availability within the RAW because the rules, while existing on their own, are never played on their own in practice; they are almost always integrated to an overreaching environment with rules of its own that are worth considering. This extra analysis is especially helpful since real-world dollars will be spent to fix each rule and every rule changed not only represents a certain cost, but also introduces potentially other Class A, B or C failures in the rules. A little bit of prudence regarding how the game is actually played in the majority of the cases will go a long way to saving money on the rules project and introduce fewer new points of failure in the final product.
I must admit this is a good read and gets the mind tingling, if anything, we can agree with that. I agree with both sides reasoning. If a rule would destroy fluff then there is an inate property to the world that rights it (we call them DMs where I am from). There are rules that need to be fixed if only to save the DM the pain of having to constently right the problem.
Lich-Loved could if properly worded be law. Kinda like e=mc^2 but
DM=F(fluff)/(supported by)P(players). There is an ultimate truth hidden in here sort of like a catch all of things that dont make sense. There are a few flaws in arguements from both sides but the point still remains the same, if by its very existance the world wouldnt be as it is then therefor it does not exist. Actually that is is making into Jareds laws of Adventuring.
1. Never take your pants off (yes you can pull down but no further then half way.)
2. ALWAYS carry spare shoes and socks(this has saved lives.)
3. Do not tease the barbarian.
4. Do not sleep with vampires (this has happened in most imagenable ways never ending well.)
5. If you see the Paladin running do try and keep up. (For what is behind him is far worse then any feat effect.)
6. Protect the Cleric (duh).
7. If he wants to go first let him (this is sort of a natural selection law.)
8. NO fires on ships (including but not limited to airships, and seacraft.)
9. Have trapfinding, someone somehow needs to have it for all traps that matter are over 20 DCs.
10. Identify items before wearing them.
11. If by its very existance the world would not be the same (and this is not the plot of the story) then it cannot exist.
12. If you dot know the story behind your character either one will be thrusted apon you or you do not exist (DMs call).
13. There is no law 13, its bad luck.
14. Killing any living thing (this omits undead, constructs, elementals, and creatures with the evil subtype) is an evil act, only incase of self defense is it excusable (DMs call).
15. If it does not understand then therefor not God.
There are more but I dont have my DM notebook with me (at work) but I think you get the point.
Hope this helps you in your adventure.
I must admit this is a good read and gets the mind tingling, if anything, we can agree with that. I agree with both sides reasoning. If a rule would destroy fluff then there is an inate property to the world that rights it (we call them DMs where I am from). There are rules that need to be fixed if only to save the DM the pain of having to constently right the problem.
Lich-Loved could if properly worded be law. Kinda like e=mc^2 but
DM=F(fluff)/(supported by)P(players). There is an ultimate truth hidden in here sort of like a catch all of things that dont make sense. There are a few flaws in arguements from both sides but the point still remains the same, if by its very existance the world wouldnt be as it is then therefor it does not exist. Actually that is is making into Jareds laws of Adventuring.
1. Never take your pants off (yes you can pull down but no further then half way.)
2. ALWAYS carry spare shoes and socks(this has saved lives.)
3. Do not tease the barbarian.
4. Do not sleep with vampires (this has happened in most imagenable ways never ending well.)
5. If you see the Paladin running do try and keep up. (For what is behind him is far worse then any fear effect.)
6. Protect the Cleric (duh).
7. If he wants to go first let him (this is sort of a natural selection law.)
8. NO fires on ships (including but not limited to airships, and seacraft.)
9. Have trapfinding, someone somehow needs to have it for all traps that matter are over 20 DCs.
10. Identify items before wearing them.
11. If by its very existance the world would not be the same (and this is not the plot of the story) then it cannot exist.
12. If you dot know the story behind your character either one will be thrusted apon you or you do not exist (DMs call).
13. There is no law 13, its bad luck.
14. Killing any living thing (this omits undead, constructs, elementals, and creatures with the evil subtype) is an evil act, only incase of self defense is it excusable (DMs call).
15. If it does not understand then therefor not God.
There are more but I dont have my DM notebook with me (at work) but I think you get the point.
Hope this helps you in your adventure.
Take a logic class.
For what it is worth, I have. Two actually.
And the only thing worthwhile to come out of them is that everything is dependent on perspective.
Just because one person, or twenty four, see something one way - doesn't make it the truth.
At best, it is only true for them.
8. NO fires on ships (including but not limited to airships, and seacraft.)
Spacecraft should definitely be included in this example, lots of young PCs forget this one. Or perhaps we should just make up a new rule to cover that, too.
#: In any situation where breathing air is limited (spacecraft, hermetically sealed environments, ancient collapsed tombs/mines, pocket dimensions, etc.) DO NOT BURN STUFF or yell "VENT THE ATMOSPHERE!". 'silent-but-deadlies' shall be punished by incineration.
This is interesting, and reinforces my long standing thought that there is always something that can stomp you. If there were indeed a multitude of high level halfling hurlers, for example, leaving a swath of destruction through out the land, others would rise up and crush them. Or one guy crushing another if we are dealing with a more singular situation.
Franks Halfling relies on a combination of three elements to perfect his attack form:
1. Alchemical weapons
2. Sneak Attack
3. Invisibility
How the invisibility is achieved was never mentioned, but I'm assuming we are talking about a wand of greater invisibility. But only a small amount of digging around uncovered a few extremely obvious weaknesses in the strategy (and no, I'm not getting started on the weight/carrying capacity problem again). The key turned out to exploit the reliance on invisibility. To find that, I didn't look in the direction of the monster manual, it was the PHB. The halfings own comrades are best equipped to take him down a few notches:
1. Blind Fighting. Obvious. anyone or thing with this feat fights invisible opponents almost as if they were visible. In our own playtest, a fighter 5 levels lower than our plucky hero armed with this feat and a ghost touch sword, stomped the halfing's colon 4 for 5. The 5th fight ended with the halflings survival only because he retreated and hid.
2. Uncanny Dodge. A fellow Rogue of comparable level defeated the halfling about half the time. These were long, drawn out, running battles, the details of which I don't care to go into here.
3. Magic. We pitted the halfling against an assortment of spellcasters. Again, those that were able to survive the first round of combat and render the invisibility useless had the most luck. At one point the halfing actually failed his save versus a Glitterdust and was, himself, blind for the remainder of the combat, which was short as he was Empowered-Extradimensional-Force-Missiled to death in the following 2 rounds. Freakin' poetic justice.
There might be more, but we grew weary of this. The point is that there is always something out there that can stomp your colon. And in this case, there are a lot of somethings.
Actually, it was blink which gave the automatic dex denial, which was achieved by a ring of blink. Actually, those things are so good for Rogues that I seriously see them as standard equipment for mid-level Rogues in all cases. It's just really helpful.
However, forest for trees here. The fact that a particular build is "good" or that another build is "ineffective" doesn't invalidate the fact that the rules do seriously allow for the creation of both good and bad builds. Heck, Paizo is seriously considering putting out an iconic Fighter/Sorcerer, and we know how that is going to work out.
At the design stage, when presented with the fact that some builds are good and others bad, you have the option of up-modifying the crap builds (such as perhaps doing something about the Multicaster dilemma) or downgrading the good builds (like maybe giving spellcasters some MAD to worry about), or both. What LL is talking about, however, is essentially just deferring all balance concerns to individual DMs. He says that DMs should basically just say no any time anyone comes up with a powerful or weak character.
Leaving aside the fact that many players will not actually know that their character is especially powerful or weak until they have played it for a long time (I mean seriously, halflings get a +1 to-hit with thrown weapons, you don't need to be a rocket scientist to grab the best thrown weapons out of the player's handbook and then use them in combat); there's the even more damning fact that there isn't a single person on this board who actually agrees with anyone else here about exactly what the line is between "not good enough," "good enough," and "too good." Which means that the chances of the DM agreeing with the player making a hypothetical character is likewise vanishingly small.
What this means is that players who follow the rules and DMs who follow Lich Loved's frankly terrible advice will frequently butt heads. The player will make a character that passes the sniff test for him, and follows the letter and intent of the rules without fudging or controversy, and then the DM will ban it anyway because the DM personally feels that such a character is too strong or too weak.
Anything which creates that kind of situation, virtually guaranteed to create long arguments and bad feelings, is incredibly horrible design and advice. For the love of Pelor, don't do that to your players. It will destroy games, and it will destroy friendships.
If you want to change what people do, change it at the rules level. Either through global rules changes in 3P or in house rules.
-Frank
Actually, it was blink which gave the automatic dex denial, which was achieved by a ring of blink. Actually, those things are so good for Rogues that I seriously see them as standard equipment for mid-level Rogues in all cases. It's just really helpful.
I see. I actually missed the part where it says Blink allows you to attack as an invisible creature. My fault. Our halfing was actually equipped with both the ring and the wand. We could re-run it (although I doubt I could talk my folks into it), but the results will likely be the same, with even more bias towards the fighter. It just means he can skip the twice rolled miss chance for invisibility, the ghost touch sword reduced Blink to a miss chance of 20% for concealment, which he then gets to roll twice due to the blind fighting.
Agreed though, the Ring is a bad-ass item for rogues.
Actually, it was blink which gave the automatic dex denial, which was achieved by a ring of blink. Actually, those things are so good for Rogues that I seriously see them as standard equipment for mid-level Rogues in all cases. It's just really helpful.I see. Our halfing was equipped with both the ring and the wand, as the ring allows you to attack as if you were invisible (among other things), and the wand allows you to defend as if you were invisible. We could re-run it (although I doubt I could talk my folks into it), but the results will likely be the same, with even more bias towards the fighter. It just means he can skip the twice rolled mis-chance for invisibility, the ghost touch sword reduced Blink to a miss chance of 20% for concealment, which he then gets to roll twice due to the blind fighting.
Agreed though, the Ring is a bad-ass item for rogues.
I don't know where you keep bringing a wand into this equation. The Ring of Blink by itself says that you negate the Dexterity of your targets, an effect which is only broken if your opponent can both see invisible and touch incorporeal. Having either effect (a ghost touch sword or see invisibility) reduces the miss chance to 20% but still leaves you Dexless when attacked. Blink is an incredibly synergistic effect with Rogue abilities. It's a 3rd level spell that makes their stuff work really well.
If I had been using wands, I would have been throwing around wands like sniper's eye or critical strike. But those aren't SRD spells, and they are kind of crazy awesome. In truth I didn't bother using Use Magic Device at all in that test.
-Frank
What this means is that players who follow the rules and DMs who follow Lich Loved's frankly terrible advice will frequently butt heads. The player will make a character that passes the sniff test for him, and follows the letter and intent of the rules without fudging or controversy, and then the DM will ban it anyway because the DM personally feels that such a character is too strong or too weak.
Anything which creates that kind of situation, virtually guaranteed to create long arguments and bad feelings, is incredibly horrible design and advice. For the love of Pelor, don't do that to your players. It will destroy games, and it will destroy friendships.
Good analysis overall, but in Lich-Loved's defense I'd point out one flaw. Your "guarantee" seems to assume an inability to compromise, and a desire in both parties to have their way that is far stronger than their frienship. It will occur only if (a) the player is intent on pushing the envelope further and further, and will not accept any compromises in that, AND (b) the DM is committed for some reason to an outright ban, and determined to stomp the player come hell or high water, and is not willing to accept any compromises on that.
People who act like that will butt heads over the last piece of pizza, and will have done it long before Lich-Loved's "axiom" ever comes into play.
If the DM sits down with the player and explains what Lich-Loved explained in terms of internal game world consistency, and the player says, "I don't care about that! It's in the rules and I'm doing it, so there!" well, then you have a situation. But if the player says, "yeah, it seems a little wonky, but I'd like to keep my character," and the DM says, "that's OK, we just need to tweak things a bit or add in a balancing factor that we can both agree on," then your eventuality is headed off. Lich-Loved is starting with the assumtion that both player and DM prefer playing the game to engaging in out-of-game pissing contests. He won't always be correct in that, but if he's wrong, those people really shouldn't be playing a cooperative game together; competitive games would be more to their liking.
If everything is dependent on prospective means that there is no absolute truth but "there is no absolute truth" it self would be an absolute truth therefor it is incorrect.
The ending conclusion is that prespective is an illusion and with the use of logic and reason we can deduct a truth from a given subject. The lich loved theory (if you dont mind me moving you up a touch) depends on the assumition that all published material is truth and therefor anything within the game that would be contray through actions of the player must be false because the existance of it would mean changing the world.
Its a thoery of stability really, only things that fit and are intended in the world exist. An ultimate arguement against broken player builds/backgrounds. This is also an unseen and inherent property in the real world because if something existed that would retroactively change the world before this given point we wouldnt be in this world would we so therefor those thing must have not existed. (example if the black death would cause people to become flesh eating monsters at the very least europe would have been wiped out, but it wasnt therefor it did not happen.)Because the potential for something to exist is does not mean that it does exist, atleast in this plane of existance.
|
|
Lich-Loved is starting with the assumtion that both player and DM prefer playing the game to engaging in out-of-game pissing contests. He won't always be...
I didn't explicitly state this but yes, you are right. I do assume this.
However, forest for trees here. The fact that a particular build is "good" or that another build is "ineffective" doesn't invalidate the fact that the rules do seriously allow for the creation of both good and bad builds.
Yes the rules do allow for broken builds (I am not addressing sub-optimal builds for now as they are not an issue in playtesting), but I believe there is more than one solution to fixing “broken” builds. It would seem you advocate fixing the rules in all cases, whereas I am asking for a balanced approach because of the scope of changes needed to fix all the wacky stuff in 3.5. Let me provide an example:
17th level wizard using shapechange to assume the form of an Arrow Demon (MM 3 pg34). In this form he simultaneously wields two large-size +5 composite longbows and shoots large, brilliant energy arrows of wounding (minimum 4 attacks a round exclusive of feats ranged touch, ignores armor but not natural AC ). In addition to this, the wizard still has roughly 160,000gp for other items (gloves of dexterity +6 and bracers of archery, a quiver of +5 arrows for “mundane” targets and boots of speed come to mind). Add to this all of the nice feats archers can take – like Manyshot, Multishot, point-blank shot and your-favorite-splatbook-archer-feats, a handful of arrows of slaying to handle creatures that look ugly, and of course all the other buffs and defenses a 17th level wizard can devise. (As an aside, I had the opportunity to refuse this build - using Splitting Bows no less - when I agreed to run a high-level game for a few strangers and all four of the supplied super-optimized builds looked like this one. We ended up being unable to reach a compromise on a suitable character build for any of the players, but I digress...)
I believe, Frank, that you would consider the rules “broken” to allow this build. But my point is, what specifically in the rules is broken? Shapechange? The arrow demon? The magic items or their specific effects? The feats? The wealth-by-level guidelines? The availability of magic items? Would you change all of these things? Would changing just one of them solve the overarching (pun intended) problem?
My point is that the kinds of changes needed to stop this build would have far reaching consequences, potentially jeopardize backward compatibility and possibly introduce new failures into the system. My Argument allows DMs to deal with this kind of thing without forcing a complete rewrite of the rules and ensures that we don't use examples like this in playtesting, even if we are playtesting the high-level rules.
At the design stage, when presented with the fact that some builds are good and others bad, you have the option of up-modifying the crap builds (such as perhaps doing something about the Multicaster dilemma) or downgrading the good builds (like maybe giving spellcasters some MAD to worry about), or both. What LL is talking about, however, is essentially just deferring all balance concerns to individual DMs. He says that DMs should basically just say no any time anyone comes up with a powerful or weak character.
No, I explicitly state in a post above that I agree some rules are broken and should be fixed for balance or other reasons. I also state that the DM needs to reason through the proposal (read follow the Argument) and check the outcome of the process. If the outcome is reasonable, then the build is probably ok, powerful or no.
This is a stupid argument. I hate to call it stupid even more than I hate to call it an argument, but I stand by my statement.
The most basic problem here is that settings are crafted from whole cloth. They are not emergently generated. Your argument is based on the theory that the elements of a campaign setting are the naturally-occuring result of the influence of other elements. This, of course, is quite simply not the case.
A loaf of bread costs 2 cp. If the players fail in stopping the undead plague which then sweeps through the countryside, decimating acres of farmland, a loaf of bread still costs 2 cp. If a wizard invents a 0-level spell that creates one hundred fresh loaves of bread with no material component, a loaf of bread still costs 2 cp. This is not because there are hidden in-game factors counterbalancing all sources of economic fluctuation; this is because non-static economies in pen and paper games make the baby Jesus (and DMs, and players) cry.
Your argument is not a process for determining if something works; it is a process for generating justifications of DM rulings. The reason you can't wish for a ring of wishes isn't that there's a grand cosmic law about conservation of wishes; you can't wish for a ring of wishes because if you do your DM will give you a stern look and you'll take the hint and wish for something else instead.
To claim that rules considerations are made according to in-game canon is wrong. To claim that rules considerations should be made according to in-game canon is absurd.
I believe, Frank, that you would consider the rules “broken” to allow this build. But my point is, what specifically in the rules is broken? Shapechange? The arrow demon? The magic items or their specific effects? The feats? The wealth-by-level guidelines? The availability of magic items? Would you change all of these things? Would changing just one of them solve the overarching (pun intended) problem?
Yes, actually. Shapechange, specifically, is broken. Changing it would eliminate the problem. Of course, this is because beneficial polymorph effects are inherently broken; there's not a whole lot that can be done about this without crippling the polymorph sacred cow.
I liked this thread more before I clicked it, when I thought it was an argument that the feat "Lich-Loved" was tasteful and should be included in the core Pathfinder rules.
|
|
A loaf of bread costs 2 cp. If the players fail in stopping the undead plague which then sweeps through the countryside, decimating acres of farmland, a loaf of bread still costs 2 cp. If a wizard invents a 0-level spell that creates one hundred fresh loaves of bread with no material component, a loaf of bread still costs 2 cp. This is not because there are hidden in-game factors counterbalancing all sources of economic fluctuation; this is because non-static economies in pen and paper games make the baby Jesus (and DMs, and players) cry.
Luckily for us, my Argument is directed only at game balance issues and determining if some playtest examples are worthy of inclusion as examples. I don't recall mentioning that the Argument solves the D&D economic issue, clears up fungal infections or anything else. The first sentence of the the first post in this thread discusses this, and the last sentence in the first post qualifies this further. The approach is a response to rule purists and need not apply to every rule or situation in the game to have merit.
As an aside, if either of the economic events you mention occurred in my game world, then bread wouldn't cost 2cp. But hey, that is just me; there are cause and effect relationships in my game world.
To claim that rules considerations are made according to in-game canon is wrong. To claim that rules considerations should be made according to in-game canon is absurd.
I never advocate using in-game canon instead of rules, I specifically advocate using in-game canon and common sense when the RAW fails to address an issue or otherwise allows for a strange corner case to occur.
I appreciate your response, but actually reading what is written is important if the conversation is going to be constructive.
there is a problem with using blink to gain sneak attack. it does not work because it gives the attacker a 20% miss chance and you can not sneak attack if you have any miss chance, you could alway buy improved blink but that is worth 120000gp so hard to get and even if you do you have to forgo a lot of other treasure. Power builds are not a problem what percentage of Adventures actually live to a high enough level for them to work. 5% it is a random number point is not many, to obtain the rorts you are extremely weak at low level so you die that keeps the world in balance not this survival of the fittest scenarios
Sneak attack doesn't work if the target has concealment. Blink gives a flat miss chance unrelated to concealment (probably because there are plenty of ways to ignore concealment).
I'm going to argue counter-balance to the Shadow over the Sun argument.
Namely, CLERICS exist. Clerics have holy water. Most settlements of over a hundred people have a cleric capable of making holy water. Oh, and look at paladins with their SMITE EVIL. There are a number of spells made specifically to terminate large numbers of undead.
Does this prevent the Sun over the Shadow? Not entirely. Now consider what happens when society realizes that the peaceful community of Summerville is an undead menace. The undead army is met with an army of clerics, paladins, rogues with GHOST TOUCH and UNDEAD BANE weapons, mages with force effect spells (which smack down incorporeal creatures). Once the primary wave is dealt with, the force then tracks down and kills all manner of shadow creatures in the entire area.
And to make certain they RETAIN their resistance to undead, they form PrCs, like the UNDEAD HUNTER. And just in case, clerics are encouraged to be with all major settlements... oh wait, that happens anyway.
Oh, and the reason so many rustic villages have exactly the types of resources that PCs want? Like society quietly accepts the idea that adventurers exist and could be a strong, if unreliable, defence? Is that TOTALLY coincidence? Or the result of social Darwinism? (Actually, THAT belongs in a seperate thread.)
The point I was eventually building up to was that most things in the DnD game already have their balancing elements in place. Look at adventurers: only one in 10 beings can become a PC. If only half of those survive to the next level, and so on, then the PrCs balance begins to matter less; they'll never have the raw numbers to change the world. Is there a non-broken Epic build (and does that matter unless Elminister chooses to remain among the mortals)?
I'd personally submit it to a 'ruins the fun of the other players' test rather than 'might the world change' test, for reasons:
1) It is more likely to occur
2) It is more relevant to your players
3) If it ain't broke, don't fix it
4) If it is broke, but nobody notices/cares, you don't break something else (which might be more important) to fix it
5) Presuming reasonable players (which I admit might be a fallacy), it's usually an easier fix; if you DON't have reasonable players, your gaming group probably has more urgent problems than a broken build.
I'm going to argue counter-balance to the Shadow over the Sun argument.
Namely, CLERICS exist. Clerics have holy water. Most settlements of over a hundred people have a cleric capable of making holy water. Oh, and look at paladins with their SMITE EVIL. There are a number of spells made specifically to terminate large numbers of undead.
You do know that a single shadow can run around killing all the cattle, ducks, chickens, etc and then attack this one-cleric village with hundreds of his shadow spawn that can walk through walls and can't be hurt by anything thats not magic? A million shadow army is not even unlikely, and if the high level characters of the game world conform to what the DMG says should be there, then the world is over quickly.
And yes, people houserule that away.
But imagine where instead of everyone houseruling away the same problem, we all just played by A RULE. Wouldn't that be good for the game?
You do know that a single shadow can run around killing all the cattle, ducks, chickens, etc and then attack this one-cleric village with hundreds of his shadow spawn that can walk through walls and can't be hurt by anything thats not magic? A million shadow army is not even unlikely, and if the high level characters of the game world conform to what the DMG says should be there, then the world is over quickly.
And yes, people houserule that away.
But imagine where instead of everyone houseruling away the same problem, we all just played by A RULE. Wouldn't that be good for the game?
And the fact that these are chaotic evil undead spirits, creatures that are cursed to live a bodiless existence as literally a shadow of their former selves, never enters into it?
As CE undead spirits, they don't haunt places they knew in life, only preying on the living when they disturb their reprieve, but rather, they get together and say, "you know, the Monster Manual says we are monsters, so I think we should band together and systematically slaughter every being on the planet."
Heck, maybe once one of these one cleric towns gets nuked by Shadows with no heroes around, that's when the good aligned gods set loose their angels/guardinals/eladrin to wipe up the mess.
Rich Baker actually referred to D&D as "a storytelling game with wargaming elements." Shadows in my campaign don't act like they are game pieces, they act like chaotic evil forlorn spirits. Yeah, they attack PCs if they wander into a dungeon that they haunt, but they don't form legions to march on unsuspecting towns.
And the fact that these are chaotic evil undead spirits, creatures that are cursed to live a bodiless existence as literally a shadow of their former selves, never enters into it?
Nope. Shadows get controlled by evil clerics, necromancers, and the like. They may be cursed undead idiots, but there's a necromancer out there who really wants a kingdom where only he breathes, and the rules say that shadows do what he says. Heck, there is a shadow PC race with a level adjustment, so the flavor text is pretty irrelevant.
On top of that, flavor text is just flavor text. The SRD doesn't even have flavor text, and lots of people play with just that a few books they thought were interesting.
Here's a good houserule: any shadow created must stay within 50' of its death. Problem solved, and the game is now more flavorful as heroes use this weakness against a nigh-invulnerable enemy.
I never advocate using in-game canon instead of rules, I specifically advocate using in-game canon and common sense when the RAW fails to address an issue or otherwise allows for a strange corner case to occur.
I appreciate your response, but actually reading what is written is important if the conversation is going to be constructive.
Right there you just filled the world up will fail. Your whole plan is to claim to fall back on "common sense" (as defined by you) every time the rules generate something that you don't like. Which basically is just the Oberoni Fallacy writ large. You are saying that the rules don't need to be changed because you fully intend to ignore the rules every time they produce a result that you don't agree with.
This is not constructive. Reading, comprehending, and fully wrapping our minds around your incredibly bad idea doesn't make it any better. It's still just you threatening to take your ball and go home if stuff happens that you don't like, and then claiming that because you intend to act out your threat that the rules don't need to be changed when they make stuff happen that people don't like. It's not only a fallacy, it's also cruel to the people around you, as it is specifically incapable of differentiating a rule that 90% of people don't like from a rule that you and you alone disdain.
---
And to specifically address your tirade about world verisimilitude, remember that the rules are rules. They are not scientific theories. When the rules say that a fireball will inflict 8d6 of fire damage, that does not mean that based on accumulated evidence we presently believe that a fireball in such a situation will cause somewhere between 8 and 48 damage, it means that the fireball does 8d6 damage. The rules are not there to explain an existent world, they are there to generate an imaginary world.
This means that your basic claim about Rogue Hurlers is exactly backwards. He flat does several hundred damage at 20th level and almost always hits with all his attacks. That's what happens. You can tell stories to explain why or how that works, but those are the scientific theories which are falsifiable. And they are falsifiable by what the rules actually generate, not by your common sense.
I don't know you. I don't care what "makes sense" to you, and your argument from incredulity fallacy does not sway me in the slightest.
-Frank
|
If the DM doesn't like something, he can change it - he is entitled, it is his world. Your desire not to change rules and then come up with incredibly complex ways for getting round the inherent complexities is at the root of most of the "problems" you perceive wth the rules. The rules are actually the bits not carved in stone - they change every five years (these days) so tying oneself in knots over it (like the bizarre economic rules proposed, when the issue is the creation spells that may need amendment, for example) seems a tad counterproductive.
All Lich-Loved is suggesting is a common sense approach (wrapped up in some slightly specious principle) - if it doesn't look right, it probably isn't. The rules are there to have fun, not as a holy text to labour over. If a particular reading might make the world unworkable, then changes are reasonable. No one is suggesting changing rules so that fireballs do less damage, or whatever. The issue arises when odd things pop up, which make things "broken" and wreck the ability to suspend disbelief, through odd combinations of rules (like spells, which are often sloppily drafted).
I think Kirth Gersen kind of said it right - is this a pissing contest? A player who used things in a rules lawyerly way to actively undermine my game would not be terribly welcome at my table, nor at many others. Sure, it might be clever, but it rather flies in the face of a cooperative game. There is a fine, and somewhat fuzzy, line between power-gaming and just being a dick, but a PC who cannot accept a reasonable ruling from a DM for balance purposes should wonder if he is cut out for this game.