What is this thread even about? Really. 1500 posts, and it's never going to be anything but bickering because it never was anything but bickering.
That's called bad math then.
Actually, it's exactly how the math should be. If you are going to assume the game is just a math problem, then you need to account for as much as possible or simply not do the math at all. One way is accurate the other is a waste of time. I highly suggest taking some more advanced courses than what they teach in high school. I recommend starting with a statistics class. Even 1 quarter of statistics can be a huge start to understanding why you should include the potential for critical hits.
I no longer think that you believe that only casters are awesome. There is no way anyone can logically believe that you need to do a minimum of 60 points of damage per round at 5th level, most likely in a single attack.
When you want to actually discuss the nuances of the game, let us know.
|
What is this thread even about? Really. 1500 posts, and it's never going to be anything but bickering because it never was anything but bickering.
*shrugs* I'm interested in hearing why he chooses to play at the level of optimization he does. Does he enjoy it, or is playing at a lower level unbearable to him? I know I've felt the pain of monsters that can one-shot my characters. I'm just not sure making the PCs able to do the same is the best way to counter that.
Edit: You're still missing the point. This isn't about me. This is about what is. There is no "choose" - if you play D&D, you are playing Rocket Launcher Tag, and the only way you could "choose" to avoid this is to not play D&D.
It is you who is missing the point. The very high majority of players don't play that way. Want to know why? Because it is as much fun as playing Tic-Tac-Toe for 6 hours on a Sunday afternoon with your friends.
Either you are under the misconception that your way is the only way to play the game or you are simply stirring the pot because you can't find something productive to do. I think it's the latter.
What is this thread even about? Really. 1500 posts, and it's never going to be anything but bickering because it never was anything but bickering.
Despite a higher then I would have liked level of peckerdeuling, this thread did spawn your thread about fixing the caster/combatant "imbalance". I realized that there are many folks here playing advanced and different games then I, and got very creative in their own rules.
Besides, I just had two teeth pulled yesterday, and this is keeping me distracted from my aching jaw.
CoD would play tic-tac-toe like this.
What is this thread even about? Really. 1500 posts, and it's never going to be anything but bickering because it never was anything but bickering.
At one point we were getting somewhere and seeing what the best options for a wizard would be. I think it would be nice to see that again. I think it would be great to see what a powerful wizard looks like at each level.
I mean really, you could bring some actual game theory math into this. That seems to be the direction that CoD's pushing for. He presumes rational players and that the game has a solution. I think the actual math tends to support us fluffy players, though — the game is too complex to contain a solution, and players aren't truly rational no matter how hard they try.
CoD would play tic-tac-toe like this.
Tic tac toe has a limited number of permutations. After the first move, yes, you can reasonably foresee them all. So, yes, you can either try and win, or you can throw the game.
At a certain point, D&D breaks down that way as well, because the span of the random number generator (1d20) simply can't keep up with the stacking bonuses. In other words, you can take that into account, or you can "throw the game" by not looking too closely at the numbers, count on your DM to do the same, and keep playing 5th level at 15th.
CoD takes it into account, and as a consequence plays in a Type III game. Most people here choose the latter option. TOZ and I are stuck trying to straddle the fence, which in my case basically means writing Type III rules and then asking everyone to put on selective blinders (the Version 1.0 rules that TOZ uploaded were an effort to write Type II rules, which turned out to be a false lead, as I'll elaborate below.)
On important thing I'm learning is that, optimally, the rules should be written at 1 step higher optimization level than the play style. Playing at the same level can work, but is less workable without a lot of DM intervention, and playing at a higher level than the written rules really isn't possible at all. Which means that playing a Type I game (storytelling) using Pathfinder (Type II) rules works great. Playing a Type II game using Pathfinder is more difficult; ideally it would be played using Type III rules (which I'm targeting with my Version 2.0 houserules, hopefully out in January 2011).
What is this thread even about? Really. 1500 posts, and it's never going to be anything but bickering because it never was anything but bickering.
Good point. I'm out of here.
It's become clear that this thread has more than outlived its usefulness. Locked.