Lemmy Z |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And Stormwind isnt a "fallacy." Just because someone calls it that , doesnt make it so. At best it's a observation.
You're right, it's not a fallacy because just someone calls it so... It's a fallacy because it's devoid of actual logic. It's a faulty conclusion that does not logically follow from the original premise.
Why bring it up then?
Because it's pertinent to the subject at hand. It's meant to point out that many people (typically angry elitist grognards) will completely ignore any uniqueness a character has if it's not written down in the character's class description and/or feat selection. And will quickly accuse the player of having a "cookie-cutter" character with no regard to the character's backstory, personality or behavior. Ironically, sticking as rigidly to class descriptions as said angry elitist grognards do leads to masses of "cookie-cutter" characters, where every Rogue is a sneaky scoundrel and every sneaky scoundrel is a Rogue.
When you set up a hypothetical then attack it, that is a strawman. You didnt know that?
Who exactly did I attack? As far as I can tell, all I did was to criticize close-mindness and elitism.
In fact I have never seen the "Stormwind fallacy" properly used, except as a attack on others.
I'm sure that if you take a look at past threads where you participated, you'll see more than a few fair accusations of "stormwind fallacy".
Lemmy Z |
Lemmy Z wrote:The classes are at theoretically balanced taking their SAD/MADness in consideration (1.obviously, Pathfinder fails quite hard in the balance department, but that's more an issue of magic x non-magic than anything else).
Admittedly, Monks are very, very MAD (2.and extremely poorly designed all around), b... 3.Channel Energy tends to fall quite quickly in usefulness, so Cha 10 is more than enough.
1. You state this like it's true as opposed to your opinion.
2.You state this like it's true as opposed to your opinion.
3. You state this like it's true as opposed to your opinion.
You opinion is as valid as anyone else's but it's still your opinion.
Everything everyone says is their opinion. Do you want every single post in the forums to have a warning sign saying "this is my opinion"?
Reread your own posts and see if you never state your opinion as if it were fact (spoiler alert: you do).
DM Beckett |
DM Beckett wrote:That's where the horsey comes in.Horsey can't wear the armor for you.
(I was mostly trying to be humorous)
A medium sized creature with 10 Strength and a heavy load will have the same encumbrance as they will with Full Plate, and still have 50lbs beyond the Full Plate to mess around with other gear. It's not great, but doable.
Add in a 50g Mastrwork Backpack and Medium goes to 76lbs and Heavy goes to 115lbs, which honestly isn't going to matter too much if they are already going to be looking at Heavy Armor asap.
The penalties for Medium or Heavy Armor and also a Medium or Heavy Load don't stack.
Here is an example of a pretty standard starting gear package I use, with Full Plate and a Heavy Shield that is still under the Max Load for a 10 Str Paladin with Masterwork Backpack.
I did forget to throw in a Grappling Hook, (4lbs), was assuming that the Heavy Shield could also double as a (B) weapon, to cover all three types, and also added a Spell Pouch (5lbs) even though it's not needed for a while. It shouldn't be too difficult to swap out a few things for others, like a ranged weapon and ditching the scrivener's kit or mess kit which I normally get for flavor, or to maybe pick up a Crowbar. A Portable Ram is probably outside the character's realistic scope at this level, but not strictly required either.
Bill Dunn |
Unless you have to pick class and race first minmaxing will still happen, the class and race will be chosen to fit the stats instead of the stats being set to fit the class.
Well, sure. But there's still a difference between putting a number you can't control into an out of the way stat and specifically buying a low stat to be able to buy another one higher. In the former, it's called making do with what you get because you aren't compensated for a low score.
Snowblind |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Talonhawke wrote:Well, sure. But there's still a difference between putting a number you can't control into an out of the way stat and specifically buying a low stat to be able to buy another one higher. In the former, it's called making do with what you get because you aren't compensated for a low score.
Unless you have to pick class and race first minmaxing will still happen, the class and race will be chosen to fit the stats instead of the stats being set to fit the class.
Here is a hypothetical for you.
If the roll system was something like 4d6d1, and then get 5 points to boost ability scores using the point buy progression, would you consider it dumping if the player did not buy up low ability scores that they don't care about instead of improving decent to good ones which they do?
Likewise, if the roll system generated a handful of random stat arrays for you to use, would picking an array that has a bunch of high and low rolls as opposed to picking a more balanced but less "powerful" array be any less of a form of dumping?
Aranna |
Bill Dunn wrote:Talonhawke wrote:Well, sure. But there's still a difference between putting a number you can't control into an out of the way stat and specifically buying a low stat to be able to buy another one higher. In the former, it's called making do with what you get because you aren't compensated for a low score.
Unless you have to pick class and race first minmaxing will still happen, the class and race will be chosen to fit the stats instead of the stats being set to fit the class.Here is a hypothetical for you.
If the roll system was something like 4d6d1, and then get 5 points to boost ability scores using the point buy progression, would you consider it dumping if the player did not buy up low ability scores that they don't care about instead of improving decent to good ones which they do?
Likewise, if the roll system generated a handful of random stat arrays for you to use, would picking an array that has a bunch of high and low rolls as opposed to picking a more balanced but less "powerful" array be any less of a form of dumping?
Your describing optimizing or power gaming if taken to an extreme, NOT dumping. Dumping has a specific definition it sounds silly to use it as it wasn't intended.
wraithstrike |
4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Talonhawke wrote:Well, sure. But there's still a difference between putting a number you can't control into an out of the way stat and specifically buying a low stat to be able to buy another one higher. In the former, it's called making do with what you get because you aren't compensated for a low score.
Unless you have to pick class and race first minmaxing will still happen, the class and race will be chosen to fit the stats instead of the stats being set to fit the class.
That does not change the end result(lowest score for most useless stat) which is what the argument seems to be against. If the real issue is "I don't want you to give up A to get B", then that should be said instead of hiding behind things that still happen when you roll for a score. Also a GM can just say you can't buy down below a 10, and then explain why.
Buri Reborn |
TriOmegaZero wrote:Meh, 13 is good enough for Power Attack. Only concern is encumbrance.But since when is 13 enough to reliably HIT with Power Attack? (except against a smite target of course.)
At level 2, my most recent paladin had a +6 to hit with only a +2 str mod. +4 would be fine, stats wise.