Gworeth wrote: This is probably a point that should be added to my 10 rules ;) Aaall the way up there Would this be the equivalent of having 11+ teams in the Big Ten conference of College Sports?
I don't think we gain much by having a thread like this debating the merits of a single poster (or a couple of posters). I've seen this stuff before (and indeed participated) and it only gives the site a bad name while providing no genuine closure or satisfaction to anyone. Things have moved on, and a system put in place. If there are substantive issues then fine, but if this about how we feel about a person or two it isn't appropriate to have a public kick-about - flag it and move on so the Paizo staff can decide what to do.
Dies Irae wrote: Quote: Well it's pretty simple really. Actual level 5 stuff averages around 56 HP. So if you're only doing 15 damage, you need 4 hits to kill it (and at level 5, you're not auto hitting). Said enemy can also kill you in much less than 6 or 7 rounds. You need more dakka.
I guess...
I see where you're coming from (and in general this looks like a knock against the damage output of Sword & Board), and that a Sword and Board fighter is somewhat lacking in output against a CR level opponent compared to a two handed hitter. Wasn't aware the guy was going sword and board. But now that you mention it, yes SAB does do terrible DPS, while also not succeeding at its supposed goal. Namely, surviving.
Quote: Of course this is subjective experience, and I don't want to argue the math (where possible), but in situations where CR is comprised of multiple lower CR targets, I've found that the two handed fighter tends to get nickel and dimed (I think that's the correct expression...) while the lower output of the sword and board fighter becomes less notable. You even admit this.
Quote: Basically a mook mash. Here. As I stated before, mooks can be beaten down any kind of way. Nothing you do to them matters. What matters are the real fights.
Quote: Frank was smart. He was also a jerk.
There's plenty of threads by board members like TreantMonk who is an unashamed optimizer and even the board members who dislike the whole idea of optimization in RPGs are generally cool with him.
I think that there's a false dichotomy being presented here that being smart gives you the right to be a jerk.
You have a somewhat acerbic tone regarding people who don't agree with you. Maybe it's unintentional, but robbed of context by the fact that all we see is a wall of text, one interpretation is that you're belittling them. People are obviously annoyed by this and, judging by the fact that the Mods are watching these threads, concerned that you're flame-baiting.
TreantMonk is at least as snarky as I am, unless he changed considerably. You haven't read his work, have you?
It's also not about disagreement, as evidenced by the people who don't agree, and are also not being insulted. Why? Because it's not about rather someone agrees or disagrees with what I'm saying. It's rather they are right or wrong. Objective, not subjective. And when discussing objective matters such as this, there are right and wrong answers to questions. It's not like politics where things aren't so clearly defined. Incidentally, I avoid politics threads.
As for the mods watching these threads, that might have something to do with the fact that whenever a sock puppet contributes nothing of value except a derailment that I flag it and move on, which has led to more posts in this thread being flagged than not.
Quote: Frankly, I've basically given up on the whole Caster/NonCaster debate so I've got no horse in the race. In a sense, you could say I've learnt to have fun with what you'd term 'fail' (I dislike playing casters). I don't think it makes me a bad person anymore than wanting to optimize a character makes you a bad person. Not all non casters are 'fail' builds. Just all the PF ones. Also read my earlier posts on the subject.
Quote: As for sock puppets... the thread's in off-topic. Of course there are going to be sock puppets.
So what you are saying is that people can't be off topic without talking to themselves and such here?
JMD031 wrote: Gworeth wrote: This is probably a point that should be added to my 10 rules ;) Aaall the way up there Would this be the equivalent of having 11+ teams in the Big Ten conference of College Sports? Probably, but me being from Denmark and not completely familiar, or at all, with Big Ten conference that sort of leaves me unable to agree or even disagree :) But I'll just say yes and hope that it's a fun alegory...
And hope it makes sense.. :D
Aubrey the Malformed wrote: I don't think we gain much by having a thread like this debating the merits of a single poster (or a couple of posters). I've seen this stuff before (and indeed participated) and it only gives the site a bad name while providing no genuine closure or satisfaction to anyone. Things have moved on, and a system put in place. If there are substantive issues then fine, but if this about how we feel about a person or two it isn't appropriate to have a public kick-about - flag it and move on so the Paizo staff can decide what to do. I'm with Aubrey on this.
JMD031 wrote: The creature has 5 attacks (1 Bite, 4 Tentacles plus grab), constant invisibility (but this is negated as the PC's gain items to remove this condition), DR 10/magic (which is obviously pointless as most PCs at 5th level have a magic weapon), Immune to fire and cold, Resist sonic 10, SR 20, is Large (10ft reach, 10ft space), CMB +19, CMD +31, AC 24 T 11 FF 22, 133 HP, F +9 R +8 W +12. In one round of full attacking it was able to do 50+ points of damage if it hit with every attack (and it most likely would). Answer: Except for its bad saves yes. But you still didn't answer about the suicidal tactics thing.
KnightErrantJR wrote: Aubrey the Malformed wrote: I don't think we gain much by having a thread like this debating the merits of a single poster (or a couple of posters). I've seen this stuff before (and indeed participated) and it only gives the site a bad name while providing no genuine closure or satisfaction to anyone. Things have moved on, and a system put in place. If there are substantive issues then fine, but if this about how we feel about a person or two it isn't appropriate to have a public kick-about - flag it and move on so the Paizo staff can decide what to do. I'm with Aubrey on this. This thread wasn't intended to be about the merits of discussing me, or Elswyr. It was intended to be a debating ground between us. Of course it has been derailed, but that was not the original subject.
I'm aware of that, but since it has been derailed it might be better to get it back on the rails.
Mistah Green wrote: It's rather they are right or wrong. Objective, not subjective. The level which people weigh the importance of optimization and the enjoyment they derive from it is subjective. In this case, your opinion is as subjective as mine.
Mistah Green wrote: TreantMonk is at least as snarky as I am, unless he changed considerably. You haven't read his work, have you? See... it's stuff like this that generally gets my hackles up. I read TreantMonk's threads and occasionally mine them for ideas.
You could have easily just said "TreantMonk is at least as snarky as I am, unless he changed considerably." without the ad hominem follow through of "You haven't read his work, have you?".
Your posts tend to be littered with these.
His post tend to be "I disagree, but your entitled to your opinion. I certainly don't think Monks are all broken kinds of powerful, but I do think they can be offensively dangerous. My guides do not change the game mechanics, they only look at the game mechanics and make the best of what they are given." and "Because apparently there is some confusion between "example" and "THIS IS THE ONLY BUILD MAKE YOUR CHARACTER COMPLETELY LIKE THIS OR YOU SUCK" so I've decided to only use examples where required."
Aubrey the Malformed wrote: I'm aware of that, but since it has been derailed it might be better to get it back on the rails. Heh. I've got very little to say in this case.
Mistah Green wrote: JMD031 wrote: The creature has 5 attacks (1 Bite, 4 Tentacles plus grab), constant invisibility (but this is negated as the PC's gain items to remove this condition), DR 10/magic (which is obviously pointless as most PCs at 5th level have a magic weapon), Immune to fire and cold, Resist sonic 10, SR 20, is Large (10ft reach, 10ft space), CMB +19, CMD +31, AC 24 T 11 FF 22, 133 HP, F +9 R +8 W +12. In one round of full attacking it was able to do 50+ points of damage if it hit with every attack (and it most likely would). Answer: Except for its bad saves yes. But you still didn't answer about the suicidal tactics thing. The first round of combat it snuck up on the party and killed one of the monks outright.
Dies Irae wrote: Mistah Green wrote: It's rather they are right or wrong. Objective, not subjective. The level which people weigh the importance of optimization and the enjoyment they derive from it is subjective. In this case, your opinion is as subjective as mine. This isn't about how important they think it is. This is about how important it actually is. Likewise it isn't about whether or not they like it, but about it being necessary.
Quote: See... it's stuff like this that generally gets my hackles up. I read TreantMonk's threads and occasionally mine them for ideas.
You could have easily just said "TreantMonk is at least as snarky as I am, unless he changed considerably." without the ad hominem follow through of "You haven't read his work, have you?".
Your posts tend to be littered with these.
If you had read his threads, you would know that he is at least as snarky as I am and would not claim that he is less so. Yet this is exactly what you did.
This means that one of the following is true:
1: You have not read his work, and since you just claimed you have you are lying.
2: You have read his work, and were also telling the truth about not being offended by it. But as he does do the same thing I do, yet he doesn't bother you your problem with me lies elsewhere.
I'm leaning towards 2, though it could be 1.
And a question isn't an ad hominem unless you are looking to be offended. A question is a question. If you are looking to be offended, you will be. None of which has any bearing on the topic. Which I am trying to get us back on.
Gworeth wrote: JMD031 wrote: Gworeth wrote: This is probably a point that should be added to my 10 rules ;) Aaall the way up there Would this be the equivalent of having 11+ teams in the Big Ten conference of College Sports? Probably, but me being from Denmark and not completely familiar, or at all, with Big Ten conference that sort of leaves me unable to agree or even disagree :) But I'll just say yes and hope that it's a fun alegory...
And hope it makes sense.. :D I apologize, I'm not a sports fan myself, but I do enjoy ironic situations like the one I described above. All of college football is broken down into separate conferences which helps keep local team rivalries and whatnot. One of the Conferences is called the Big Ten, but for several years now has had 11 or more teams in the conference. Again, I don't know much about sports but I assume that the original reason it was named the Big Ten was because there was 10 teams in the conference but the will not rename it or change it because of tradition. So, now you have a conference called the Big Ten with more than ten teams, and another conference called the Big Twelve with less than twelve teams in it.
And now you know the rest of the backstory.
JMD031 wrote: Mistah Green wrote: JMD031 wrote: The creature has 5 attacks (1 Bite, 4 Tentacles plus grab), constant invisibility (but this is negated as the PC's gain items to remove this condition), DR 10/magic (which is obviously pointless as most PCs at 5th level have a magic weapon), Immune to fire and cold, Resist sonic 10, SR 20, is Large (10ft reach, 10ft space), CMB +19, CMD +31, AC 24 T 11 FF 22, 133 HP, F +9 R +8 W +12. In one round of full attacking it was able to do 50+ points of damage if it hit with every attack (and it most likely would). Answer: Except for its bad saves yes. But you still didn't answer about the suicidal tactics thing. The first round of combat it snuck up on the party and killed one of the monks outright. Now that sounds more like what I expect it to do to a low level Mook. Now the question: How did they beat it?
Mistah Green wrote: This isn't about how important they think it is. This is about how important it actually is. Likewise it isn't about whether or not they like it, but about it being necessary.
If you had read his threads, you would know that he is at least as snarky as I am and would not claim that he is less so. Yet this is exactly what you did.
This means that one of the following is true:
1: You have not read his work, and since you just claimed you have you are lying.
2: You have read his work, and were also telling the truth about not being offended by it. But as he does do the same thing I do, yet he doesn't bother you your problem with me lies elsewhere.
I'm leaning towards 2, though it could be 1.
And a question isn't an ad hominem unless you are looking to be offended. A question is a question. If you are looking to be offended, you will be. None of which has any bearing on the topic. Which I am trying to get us back on.
I find this post to be interesting because it does two things. First of all, it makes the original poster (Dies Irae) look like he doesn't know what he is talking about.
Secondly, by making the assumptions that he has made (i.e. 1 and 2), he is already putting the original poster in a bad position. He can either be wrong because he is an idiot or because he has a personal issue with Mistah Green. This does not leave any room for other possibilities to include what Dies Irae was talking about which was that in his opinion Treatmonk is not as snarky as he believes Mistah Green to be. The fact that Mistah Green now tries to argue this point is in fact, pointless as Dies Irae is stating an opinion (which is not based on fact but a matter of personal preference) and Mistah Green is attempting to combat it as if it is fact (which is impossible because there is no benchmark for which to base anything off of, and no data to support either chioce). All in all, he is progressing an exercise in futility in an effort to appear right, when he should just ignore the poster who is stating his opinion rather than producing facts. In fact, if he so chooses to continue this conversation, Mistah Green might have an easier time pointing out the Dies Irae isn't stating a fact and therefore his points are less valid without actual proof.
Mistah Green wrote: JMD031 wrote: Mistah Green wrote: JMD031 wrote: The creature has 5 attacks (1 Bite, 4 Tentacles plus grab), constant invisibility (but this is negated as the PC's gain items to remove this condition), DR 10/magic (which is obviously pointless as most PCs at 5th level have a magic weapon), Immune to fire and cold, Resist sonic 10, SR 20, is Large (10ft reach, 10ft space), CMB +19, CMD +31, AC 24 T 11 FF 22, 133 HP, F +9 R +8 W +12. In one round of full attacking it was able to do 50+ points of damage if it hit with every attack (and it most likely would). Answer: Except for its bad saves yes. But you still didn't answer about the suicidal tactics thing. The first round of combat it snuck up on the party and killed one of the monks outright. Now that sounds more like what I expect it to do to a low level Mook. Now the question: How did they beat it? They didn't and in no way could have because they were 5th level and were tapped out after the previous battle. They initially started to fight it but when it killed the second monk, the remaining two ran for it. My point about this creature is that for the module is was way above what any 5th level party could handle even if it had a fully optimized party. A party of four 5th level wizards would have had a majority of them eaten for lunch due to SR and it's other defenses, not to mention that it could easily kill a wizard with one round of attacks. Sure a good, well prepared, fully rested, smart group of wizards could manage to defeat it eventually, but how many of them would be left standing at the end?
Even if this particular party managed to be fully rested and ready to fight it, I still believe that at least one or two of them would have died due to the sheer amount of damage the creature could do in a round.
JMD031 wrote: Mistah Green wrote: This isn't about how important they think it is. This is about how important it actually is. Likewise it isn't about whether or not they like it, but about it being necessary.
If you had read his threads, you would know that he is at least as snarky as I am and would not claim that he is less so. Yet this is exactly what you did.
This means that one of the following is true:
1: You have not read his work, and since you just claimed you have you are lying.
2: You have read his work, and were also telling the truth about not being offended by it. But as he does do the same thing I do, yet he doesn't bother you your problem with me lies elsewhere.
I'm leaning towards 2, though it could be 1.
And a question isn't an ad hominem unless you are looking to be offended. A question is a question. If you are looking to be offended, you will be. None of which has any bearing on the topic. Which I am trying to get us back on.
I find this post to be interesting because it does two things. First of all, it makes the original poster (Dies Irae) look like he doesn't know what he is talking about.
Secondly, by making the assumptions that he has made (i.e. 1 and 2), he is already putting the original poster in a bad position. He can either be wrong because he is an idiot or because he has a personal issue with Mistah Green. This does not leave any room for other possibilities to include what Dies Irae was talking about which was that in his opinion Treatmonk is not as snarky as he believes Mistah Green to be. The fact that Mistah Green now tries to argue this point is in fact, pointless as Dies Irae is stating an opinion (which is not based on fact but a matter of personal preference) and Mistah Green is attempting to combat it as if it is fact (which is impossible because there is no benchmark for which to base anything off of, and no data to support either chioce). All in all, he is progressing an exercise in futility in an effort to appear right, when he should just... Only if you buy into comments made by people who are looking to be offended. Which is exactly what you are doing.
Stop looking to be offended, and you will not be offended so much.
Mistah Green wrote:
And was this a real CR 10, or CR 10 in name only?
Accidentally, I believe I've read that module (Carrion Hill) just yesterday. It is CR 10 with 6 negative levels (unless the party screwed up).
JMD031 wrote: Mistah Green wrote: Now that sounds more like what I expect it to do to a low level Mook. Now the question: How did they beat it? They didn't and in no way could have because they were 5th level and were tapped out after the previous battle. They initially started to fight it but when it killed the second monk, the remaining two ran for it. My point about this creature is that for the module is was way above what any 5th level party could handle even if it had a fully optimized party. A party of four 5th level wizards would have had a majority of them eaten for lunch due to SR and it's other defenses, not to mention that it could easily kill a wizard with one round of attacks. Sure a good, well prepared, fully rested, smart group of wizards could manage to defeat it eventually, but how many of them would be left standing at the end?
Even if this particular party managed to be fully rested and ready to fight it, I still believe that at least one or two of them would have died due to the sheer amount of damage the creature could do in a round. SR is a joke, and its saves are only half decent. Even so it is boss battle material which means it's supposed to be hard but good groups will beat it instead of it eating two mooks, causing the other half the party to retreat.
I also see absolutely nothing it can do about flight, which comes online at exactly this level.
This however makes my point exactly. That fight is not out of line for boss battle material. The group had no chance against it. A competent group would have been able to take it with moderate to significant difficulties. Therefore, there is a minimum baseline of competence that [Monks, Fighters, and perhaps the poorly designed Cleric] do not meet.
FatR wrote: Mistah Green wrote:
And was this a real CR 10, or CR 10 in name only?
Accidentally, I believe I've read this module just yesterday. It is CR 10 with 6 negative levels (unless the party screwed up).
Are the stats listed taking the -6 to almost everything into account or no? Because if not, it has single digit saves and is therefore a total joke even to a level 5 party.
I had such high hopes that maybe, just maybe, this thread could still to the original premise of having a reasoned discussion, and maybe trying to find some common ground (bridge not a wall), and not just fall into a ball of hate and loathing.
Thread locked.
I will be removing posts.
Recent threads in Off-Topic Discussions
|
