Hi Tarrant.
Well, this is certainly getting old. So what does "Hi Tarrant" mean?
[In short it is at once an inside joke, a lesson not to take things so seriously on the internet, a lesson to take a step back and learn, a big running joke among DDO players that is spreading to many other forums, a lesson to moderators to not be overly strict, and a literal greeting of a new player. All at once.
The problem is, even with the joke explained, without the original context (the "you had to be there" phenomena, if you will), the joke isn't funny.
It's like repeatedly telling a joke that only you laugh at. There's an obvious analogy about doing something publically that you're enjoying but everyone else thinks is weird or obnoxious, but it violates the board rules on vulgar speech.
You probably never played Living Arcanis or Living Greyhawk,
I have; munchkin fighters were effective up to a point, but still ultimately paled before the pure casters.
I've seen a cleric with few if any combat feats and wisdom and charisma as his two highest stats crack out hundreds of points of damage every round in melee while tossing quickened miracles. There just isn't anything in the melee munchkin world that competes with that, and the further the adventure gets away from pure combat, the worse the comparison gets.
Granted, the melee munchkin monster + support caster buffs model was pretty much king of the world at the low levels, just because "I'm going to do enough damage to kill you in a round, even if I miss some" competed pretty well with save-or-lose at that point.
Combining monk with barbarian if it was something I saw only once in a blue moon might be a character concept. But it's very clear from that the vast majority if not nearly all of these players aren't looking to make a "concept" they're gaming the system to min/max BAB, saves, and character dips.
I don't think that's a fair observation.
In my 16 years of roleplaying, I've only ever seen one such barbarian/monk character in our games.
To look at a much larger sampling as you have, like this online community here, and then accuse everyone of gaming the system even though, to many of them, it really IS a once in a blue moon thing, is unfair.
It's like saying a first-time criminal in New York should be denied leniency simply because New York is a crime ridden place. (If someone can come up with a better analogy, please do so.)
|
*snip alignment lecture*
Prior in Pathfinder (before errata): You could be a Barbarian/Monk. Start Barbarian NN becomes Lawful so you can be a Monk.
All right, sure. You can start off as a barbarian (who gains strength from emotion and rage) and then turn into a monk (who gains strength through inner peace and being calm and contemplative). And your GM allowed you to keep both of those strengths.
Now the rules as written say that there is a conflict between the two. I still don't see the problem. If there's a specific character that somehow meshes these two well and has an interesting story, then your GM should allow it with no trouble.
The book rules aren't a straitjacket.
All right, sure. You can start off as a barbarian (who gains strength from emotion and rage) and then turn into a monk (who gains strength through inner peace and being calm and contemplative). And your GM allowed you to keep both of those strengths.
It doesn't matter if unless GM is houseruling because before Pathfinder allowed Barbs to rage while lawful.
Now, you are back to 3.5 restriction of being force to be a Monk who becomes a Barbarian.Basically restricting the order not the ability. It now requires you to have a build instead of an organic character.
I believe what Green is saying with "phrase" or "Hi there" is "Your lack of understanding is so extreme I can't really type out anything but I still need to post."
The idea of a monk/barbarian being munchkin is absurd. It is absurd. It is the absense of understanding. It is factually incorrect. His only response to this is "Well I've seen it. I can't explain or describe it and all of your logic is correct but this is what I think.
If this were a Monty Python sketch he would be telling us the bird is just asleep.
The idea of a monk/barbarian being munchkin is absurd. It is absurd.
Well, there I'll split a hair on you.
Is munchkin attempting to exploit something cheesy, or is munchkin actually coming up with something tough?
Monk/barbarian is exactly the kind of thing someone who's trying to min/max out a character, but who isn't very good at it, comes up with.
I played in a 3.5 game a year or two ago where almost all the players were precisely in that mold. I still think of them as munchkins even if they were failures at it.
Munchkin is an alignment now?
What's the opposing alignment, then? I suppose it would be someone who doesn't ever try to optimize and focuses purely on fitting a given RP... what are those called? ;)
Gee, sorry I haven't been posting in the game threads lately...
You don't usually comment too much on the mechanics discussions -- too busy making the lefties go apoplectic on the off-topic threads, maybe. ;)
Of course, as a storyteller you can take it too far...
"Player 1: I'm playing a rogue from Varisia! He accidentally ticked off the lord mayor of Magnimar and is now on the run!
Player 2: Awesome! I'm playing a half-orc cleric of Shelyn, who was called ugly his whole life and now strives to make the world beautiful to compensate.
Player 3: That's cool. I'm playing a halfling wizard from Cheliax. She was a house slave to a powerful wizard, and learned a lot just by watching. When her master died, she was freed and decided to see the world.
Player 4: Well my character's a farmer who needed to raise money quick to support his family when his crop failed.
Player 1: That sounds cool. What class?
Player 4: Commoner.
Players 1, 2, and 3: ...
Player 3: Commoner?
Player 4: It fit the character.
Player 1: You are playing a 5th level commoner?
Player 4: No, that wouldn't fit my concept. He's 1st level.
Player 2: Dude, I'm not healing you.
Player 4: Why not?
Player 2: You are 4 levels behind us and you are playing a commoner!"
Worse than an ubermunchkin!
|
|
Gee, sorry I haven't been posting in the game threads lately...You don't usually comment too much on the mechanics discussions -- too busy making the lefties go apoplectic on the off-topic threads, maybe. ;)
Well, I kinda said all I had to say about mechanics during the Beta test. You came up with alternatives I can live with, so RAW isn't even an issue for me, since what we play isn't it by a long shot.
I love that our game is mathematically more similar to 1e, but still has all of the flexibility of 3x. I just need to get on unnerfing all of the spells and translating a bunch of 1e and 2e spells to 3x, so we can even further restrict the mobility of casters who shouldn't be doing cartwheels while intricately weaving powers with somatic components in six seconds...
I just need to get on unnerfing all of the spells...
I think you'll like what I did with metamagic, particularly for evokers.
Example: in PF, a 15th level caster throws a fireball Heightened to 5th level for 10d6, DC 15. Or he can just throw a hold monster at DC 15, which is a lot more useful. Using the new rules, a 15th level caster throws a 5th level fireball for 15d6 and fatigue and catch on fire, with a save DC of 15. The DC 15 hold monster is still a good spell, but the fireball starts to look viable.
|
|
I just need to get on unnerfing all of the spells...I think you'll like what I did with metamagic, particularly for evokers.
Metamagic feats that apply rider effects (conditions, catch on fire, etc.) at relatively low spell level increase costs;
Bulk savings when using more than one metamagic feat;
Final spell level (after metamagic increases) used to calculate evocation save DCs and damage caps;
Better metamagic options for spontaneous casters. Example: in PF, a 15th level caster throws a fireball Heightened to 5th level for 10d6, DC 15. Or he can just throw a hold monster at DC 15, which is a lot more useful. Using the new rules, a 15th level caster throws a 5th level fireball for 15d6 and fatigue and catch on fire, with a save DC of 15. The DC 15 hold monster is still a good spell, but the fireball starts to look viable.
I think we need to start using the term "Gersenized" to describe classes and concepts that were once suboptimal now being viable without having to do a bunch of splat/dip shenanigans.
I kinda dig that I can play a lightly armored rogue/fighter dueling skirmisher and still (unless my dumb ass rolls a "1" on my save against the stupid meanie head druid's spell) be able to compete with spell casters.
Sure, a properly played spell caster will still own at high levels, but he had better be properly played, as all of the "win" buttons aren't as effective against, say, a fighter with all good saves and nifty fighter talents...
I think we need to start using the term "Gersenized" to describe classes and concepts that were once suboptimal now being viable without having to do a bunch of splat/dip shenanigans.
I'm glad we met, because your attitudes towards gaming are what convinced me I needed to just go ahead and do all that. Now, if we could just get to playtest things past 5th level one of these days...
|
|
I think we need to start using the term "Gersenized" to describe classes and concepts that were once suboptimal now being viable without having to do a bunch of splat/dip shenanigans.I'm glad we met, because your attitudes towards gaming are what convinced me I needed to just go ahead and do all that. Now, if we could just get to playtest things past 5th level one of these days...
Well, SOMEBODY wanted to use slow advancement...
;)
Well, SOMEBODY wanted to use slow advancement...
"He's a good man, Jeffrey. And thorough."
--The Big Lebowski
Combining monk with barbarian if it was something I saw only once in a blue moon might be a character concept. But it's very clear from that the vast majority if not nearly all of these players aren't looking to make a "concept" they're gaming the system to min/max BAB, saves, and character dips.
Tell that to...
** spoiler omitted **
Please tell me the module says he can use rage. *crosses fingers*
Derek, if you're still reading this, be advised that I have no problem with barbarian/monks.
I believe what Green is saying with "phrase" or "Hi there" is "Your lack of understanding is so extreme I can't really type out anything but I still need to post."
It's simpler than that.
Hi Tarrant means Hi Tarrant. Which means exactly the same thing as Hi Cirno, or Hi Robert, or any other subject you choose.
It is greeting someone by name.
Not understanding Hi Welcome is a fair point, as although it has spread beyond the DDO boards it has not become widely known.
Not understanding a greeting by name is being obtuse.
But yes, Hi Welcome can mean "You are so far off base I cannot put into words how wrong you are." But by now we've moved past Hi Welcome and its substitutes, as I found Tarrant's account here.
"Not understanding a greeting by name is being obtuse." Here's the link to the post where you used the phrase "Hi Tarrant."
The post consists of nothing but a quote from me and the words "Hi Tarrant". Doesn't seem obtuse to me to make the conclusion you were responding to me, since, ya know, you actually were responding to me.
Given that your previous posts consisted of "Hi Welcome", "Phrase", and "[This space deliberately left blank]", the idea that "Hi Tarrant" might be yet another example of "Board Speak" or something seems reasonable.
There also doesn't seem to be any posting i.d.'s in this thread named "Tarrant", so I'm a little confused as to why you'd quote me and say hello to someone who isn't part of the discussion.
Oh, wait a minute. This fits the pattern you've set up. You say something with an unclear/in-group meaning, then talk down to anyone who asks what it means. Yeah never mind. Here's some board speak you may be familiar with:
"Obvious Troll is Obvious."
Must be why you chose "Mistah Green".
Good Luck with your game. I suspect you need it.
You are acting just like Tarrant, so I called you Tarrant. Simple to understand. If you didn't, you could have simply asked who Tarrant was. And because you are being deliberately obtuse and are unable to infer anything from context, Tarrant is the name of the mod who woke up one morning and started calling Hi Welcome everything you described.Or you can play the victim and try to make me out as a troll, which will get the condescending attitude you are so concerned about.
Based solely on that comment... one of you's making you out to look like a troll, but it's not Jake.
Okay, let me get this straight. I'm obtuse because I didn't know the name of a moderator who annoyed you on a different board? Really? Reeeaaalllly?
As for asking what the phrase meant, I'm pretty sure I did exactly that. In fact I know I did.
So what does "Hi Tarrant" mean?
You got kicked off the DDO board didn't you? That's why you're here now. Was it a temporary suspension? Or did they tell you not to come back?
Doesn't matter. Given the number of insults you've been slinging at the community, you won't last long here, either.
Yep, green suits you.
|
This is a conversation that could actually happen in his games
Amzing how that mirrors the discussions in this thread...
Does this mean Order of the Stick is a future psychic?
Who here actually plays RAW 100%? Anybody?
Yep 100% RAW
** spoiler omitted **
My mistake!
;)
...
No comment.
No, just that people who cannot understand you do not have to be a fighter to be a Fighter and vice versa have existed for longer than the arguments on this board. :)
Again yall are making stuff up. The fighter stuff had nothing to do with me. I said magical classes are visible by the rules. You guys added everything else.
Ya guys brought the fighter in as a distraction for something else.Nothing more.
You are acting just like Tarrant, so I called you Tarrant. Simple to understand. If you didn't, you could have simply asked who Tarrant was. And because you are being deliberately obtuse and are unable to infer anything from context, Tarrant is the name of the mod who woke up one morning and started calling Hi Welcome everything you described.
Or you can play the victim and try to make me out as a troll, which will get the condescending attitude you are so concerned about.
so wait once more you use an injoke that only you understand and call someone else a troll for asking you yet again to explain your rather foolish jokes that only you understand?
yeah if there is a troll between you two it's not Jake.
Why so serious?
rough day, and its true
Mister Green.
Jake.
Normally I enjoy a good internet tussle to watch or, indeed, get involved in if the topic is interesting enough.
But my god you two are having the most boring fight ever over the dumbest topic ever.
Mister Green.
Jake.
Normally I enjoy a good internet tussle to watch or, indeed, get involved in if the topic is interesting enough.
But my god you two are having the most boring fight ever over the dumbest topic ever.
*preppy teen blond voice* Like, seriously!
|
Basket weavers.Munchkin is an alignment now?What's the opposing alignment, then? I suppose it would be someone who doesn't ever try to optimize and focuses purely on fitting a given RP... what are those called? ;)
Funny this bit. Because (Seriously no joke here) due to this new errata I had to tell a player of mine who is preparing a character for kingmaker game that his favored idea at the time got quashed. The funny bit being that he was going Barbarian/Monk with maxxed out profession (Basket-weaving). He is still doing the character but he has since dropped the barbarian and is simply going to try to make up the gap in crunch with additional RP.