Quote from: Sacrosanct;591544He's a 13 year old kid who thinks D&D isn't pretend and can't come to grips with objective data that shows he is wrong..

Yeah, I don't seriously advocate anyone picking an IRL fight with him.

But it's amusing to picture..."starwars kid" vs an adult fighting with boffer weapons....

would be especially funny if the loser was forced to weave a basket.

QuoteKid needs to see someone professional.  And I'm serious about that.  Before he ends up stabbing someone at a phone booth for trying to steal his spells.

I wish that was joking.

I don't know I'd go that far...I find people are much more outspoken (read: stupid) online (and also stubborn, pigheaded etc). He may not be so maladjusted that he's actually in need of clinical help. Maybe just a bit more attention from mommy and daddy.

Right, well This Guy? Don't enable the autist basket weavers any more. Just disregard their existence. If you validate them, they start spamming these worthless posts.

Now then. I think it's time that folk with nothing to contribute stayed away and if there's someone foolish enough to take up the challenge of this thread - well that's their loss of life.

Once all you've got is the old mental disorder card, then you're contributing to the resultant shit-storm. Don't fool yourself into thinking otherwise. You are also butt-hurt if you are starting threads in reaction to this nonsense.

Anyone can see that this guy's posts are worthless - what amazes me is that people who should know better, and seem to think that they are more mature, are stooping so low as the kind of thing we're starting to see.

Survival of the fittest sometimes means you just leave bambi to wander the woods until starvation sets in, not getting a shooting party ready.

So, unless you have something relevant to the thread i think it's time to let bambi starve.

How goes the party making?

Working on it.  Still in the process of deciding party composition and reading up on the classes I do not know.

Right now I can say I'm going to use a Warlock for certain, toss-up on the Fighter as Dungeoncrasher.  I want to learn more about that particular build before I can say anything specific there; I've seen some people indicate some pretty nasty combinations with that particular feat, but details are slow in forthcoming.

Quote from: This Guy;591762Working on it.  Still in the process of deciding party composition and reading up on the classes I do not know.

Right now I can say I'm going to use a Warlock for certain, toss-up on the Fighter as Dungeoncrasher.  I want to learn more about that particular build before I can say anything specific there; I've seen some people indicate some pretty nasty combinations with that particular feat, but details are slow in forthcoming.

Dungeoncrasher is decent. The thing is, it's generally unreliable on PCs for a number of reasons. If you can get it to work, then it works halfway well. If it gets stopped by any of the large number of things that stop it... of course, this is true of any of the weak classes. You just get variable results in the narrow circumstances where those characters work, from half decent to just terribad.

Any other challengers? I'm assuming That Guy is still interested, but someone was talking about an all Rogue party... actually, two someones. If you want more than one gimp party by different people to go at it, that's fine, as long as the party is made before you have any further information about the scenario (as otherwise, people would just metagame the fuck out of it, build specifically for that specific scenario, and completely miss the point even if that actually works for them).

I would so love to try this, but I don't know 3E.

Quote from: Internet Death;593170I would so love to try this, but I don't know 3E.

Most of the people that are questioning whether a given character is strong enough to play D&D or not don't either. It doesn't stop them, so it shouldn't stop you either (Note: Not talking about That Guy, he seems knowledgeable, yet out of practice. He also isn't making those stupid claims).

Despite how I've generally acted like a Stop Having Fun Guy and Elitist Jerk I actually have no problem with inexperienced players. I just hate when inexperienced players try and act far more experienced than they actually are.

Quote from: Mr. GC;593174Most of the people that are questioning whether a given character is strong enough to play D&D or not don't either. It doesn't stop them, so it shouldn't stop you either (Note: Not talking about That Guy, he seems knowledgeable, yet out of practice. He also isn't making those stupid claims).

Despite how I've generally acted like a Stop Having Fun Guy and Elitist Jerk I actually have no problem with inexperienced players. I just hate when inexperienced players try and act far more experienced than they actually are.

OK, so I've went through this thread so I have a better understanding of the dynamics here.

Basically, you are arguing that there is a whole bunch of classes, seemingly specific to 3E, that are ultimately useless in play.  They are useless because they can't be optimized in a way that allows you to match your opponents in battle or overcome other environmental/situational hazards.

There are those on this board who argue that there can't be a "gimped" class.  Because roleplaying.

The thing is, I don't really disagree with you.  If you're saying that a "gimped" character only drags the rest of the party down and throws a wrench in the game, then that is a sentiment I agree with completely.  Since we're talking about "brave adventurers" and this is the fantasy genre (and also taking into account the focus of D&D mechanics), intentionally making a subpar character seems a little contradictory towards the roleplaying aspect anyway.

So if I were to go ahead and play out this scenario, it wouldn't be me trying to prove you wrong, it would be me going through the motions and taking your word for it that I will fail hard.  

I'm not sure that's what you want?  I think you actually want someone who disagrees with you to try their damnedest at success here.

Quote from: Internet Death;593180OK, so I've went through this thread so I have a better understanding of the dynamics here.

Basically, you are arguing that there is a whole bunch of classes, seemingly specific to 3E, that are ultimately useless in play.  They are useless because they can't be optimized in a way that allows you to match your opponents in battle or overcome other environmental/situational hazards.

Actually, there are useless classes in all games, D&D or not. For example, thieves/Rogues have never been good in any incarnation, and Fighters haven't been much better. I'm mainly focusing on 3.5 though, as contrary to popular belief I don't actually care that much about older editions. Sure I think they suck and are in every way inferior, but as long as people aren't coming at me with stuff like "You don't know about [Old edition stuff] so your commentary on [New edition stuff] is invalid." or otherwise is attempting to bring them up when they are not relevant just to attack me I'm content to just leave it alone. Which is why I'm not posting in all of those "Old School:" threads right now.

But yes, the problem is that they lack critical things required to play D&D, and I'd go over what those things are after the tests have been run.

QuoteThere are those on this board who argue that there can't be a "gimped" class.  Because roleplaying.

The thing is, I don't really disagree with you.  If you're saying that a "gimped" character only drags the rest of the party down and throws a wrench in the game, then that is a sentiment I agree with completely.  Since we're talking about "brave adventurers" and this is the fantasy genre (and also taking into account the focus of D&D mechanics), intentionally making a subpar character seems a little contradictory towards the roleplaying aspect anyway.

So if I were to go ahead and play out this scenario, it wouldn't be me trying to prove you wrong, it would be me going through the motions and taking your word for it that I will fail hard.  

I'm not sure that's what you want?  I think you actually want someone who disagrees with you to try their damnedest at success here.

Well, I'm pretty sure That Guy also agrees, but is willing to do it anyways. Thing is that's actually better, because if you get an incompetent player, they'd fail in such a way that even if they could succeed, they would not. If you get a player that'd play better than any of them, and they still screw up, it's safe to say that it's not something they can win.

In other words, the people that disagree are extraordinarily incapable of proving me wrong due to a catch 22. If they had the knowledge to make those classes the best possible within the limitations set out for them, they'd also have the knowledge to know that that is not enough.

Basically, what I want is for people to actually be trying... stuff like not packing a light source, or any adventuring gear at all at level 7... Even I don't think that lowly of gimp parties. If it's "They died because they were a dumbass, not because they were outclassed." I don't want that. And you know basket weavers will attempt that dodge if given any room to do so.

All of those people that actually believe gimps are invalid also apparently do not fully believe that, or else they would have taken me up on the chance to try and give it a go.

Which means it comes down to neutral people, or those that do think the party will fail but will try it anyways.

Quote from: Mr. GC;593295In other words, the people that disagree are extraordinarily incapable of proving me wrong due to a catch 22.

Appeal to ignorance is still a fallacy.

Quote from: Mr. GC;593295Actually, there are useless classes in all games, D&D or not.

False, of course. A large number of RPGs don't even have classes.

Quote from: TristramEvans;593408False, of course. A large number of RPGs don't even have classes.

He doesn't play a large number of RPGs.  Or a small number, or even one, really.  There is a huge bowl of copy pasta, and each time a key word or phrase comes up, another noodly response is thrown at the screen to see if it sticks.

Quote from: TristramEvans;593408False, of course. A large number of RPGs don't even have classes.

I think it is safe to say he was referring to those games which do have classes.

Of course, I would argue that class and level-based games are inherently flawed anyway, but that's a whole 'nother discussion.