Quote from: Crabbyapples;594895I'm asking you not about the current rules, but how you would change the rules. If the Gimp Party is something not desired, why allow rules that allow people to make Gimp characters?

Yes, I get that. And you can't fully protect people from themselves. I mean, there's people around here that'd call Californians metagaming for taking precautions against earthquakes. There's plenty more that claim there are no such thing as worthless classes, something that is easily and demonstrably false and then outright refuse to illustrate how they can be worthwhile.

QuoteYou do not advocate removing the classes because of the dipping potential? If you were in charge, would force some classes into "multiclass" only?

That wouldn't work because you have to take your first class of something. I would consider shortening them though. I've already made Fighter 6 levels long.

QuoteChange the dynamics. You are in control of the game. Can you change the dynamics to make them viable?

It is not possible to change the dynamics to make them viable. The things they lack in order to become viable are mutually exclusive from and diametrically opposed to what they are.

QuoteYou could change how the game works. You would need change monster statistics, rules for actions and how the SAD works. Would you change how monsters and rules for actions work if you were in control?

Why would I dumb down the entire game just to try (and fail) to accommodate some worthless gimps? Besides, we've seen that game already. It's called 4th edition. It was the first edition to not replace its predecessor.

QuoteSo you are against removing those bad choices because it allows stronger tiered characters a better choice? Why not make all the choices viable?

Because this is not possible. What you can do is make a significant number viable, and then the game is all about those guys.

QuoteI'm not talking about how you would change 3.x D&D, but what would you change to make the game playable by all. If D&D is designed to be survived, would the game suffer from allowing direction that allows the creation of non-Gimp characters? If that's the case, D&D 3.x is a terribly designed game.

...What? This makes no sense at all.

Quote from: Mr. GC;594915...What? This makes no sense at all.

A well designed game should give you direction in character creation. Their are two reasons to incorporate class based progression in a 1) to give clear-cut direction in how the game is played and 2) given characters niche protection (quick character creation is another reason, but not really possible with point buy and feats).

If you desire to remove Gimp characters from a game, you have to hardwire it in the rules. You say you can't play the game without playing a non-gimp character. If you can't play the game the game is flawed. That is really the point of a game designer is to give a very clear direction, and eventually when the players understand the game better, deviate from the standard. When I look at the book and see Fighter as a whole class, that makes it seem like a viable choice. It is not. This is misleading me and needs to be redesigned.

Quote from: Crabbyapples;594924A well designed game should give you direction in character creation. Their are two reasons to incorporate class based progression in a 1) to give clear-cut direction in how the game is played and 2) given characters niche protection (quick character creation is another reason, but not really possible with point buy and feats).

If you desire to remove Gimp characters from a game, you have to hardwire it in the rules. You say you can't play the game without playing a non-gimp character. If you can't play the game the game is flawed. That is really the point of a game designer is to give a very clear direction, and eventually when the players understand the game better, deviate from the standard. When I look at the book and see Fighter as a whole class, that makes it seem like a viable choice. It is not. This is misleading me and needs to be redesigned.

If you're arguing the game designers done fucked up you are preaching to the choir. There's only so much can be done though. Never doubt the ingenuity of a fool and all. After all, picking the wrong class is just one way you can fuck up. A Fireball spamming Wizard is no less gimpy (it's just far easier to fix his problem, as he can do something else in the future).

I can only protect people from themselves to a point, and really, I've learned to stop caring about the bad players a long time ago as nothing you do works with them. Since the good players already know at least somewhat what is up or are willing to learn, it isn't an especially high priority. And I've seen people go from zero D&D knowledge to about the best player ever, even more than me in a matter of months so it's more about mindset than knowledge and experience. If you are willing to learn you will. If not you don't.

Alright. that does it. I made an account on this site just to do this challenge.

My group is absolutely of the opinion that, played properly, the lower tiers can beat CR-appropriate challenges. It's just that casters tend to outshine them in every way.

So, Mr. GC, I will totally take you up on this challenge. I do have a couple requests of my own, though, which I hope you will honor:

1). I'm looking to test if bad classes can actually do their job. That means I want to test them against CR appropriate things. If the gauntlet is above standard CR, I will be rather vexed.

2). I am going to minmax the absolute **** out of this party. Don't call them Team Gimp. I might be restricted to bad base classes, but they are going to SHINE. Especially compared to 'hurr durr DMG NPCs'.

It's probably going to take me about a week to put this party together. Please have patience. And if you don't want an optimizer running this challenge, please let me know now. I am in it for the experiment, but I will also try my damndest to win.

Quote from: The Noobiest Noobie;596612Alright. that does it. I made an account on this site just to do this challenge.

My group is absolutely of the opinion that, played properly, the lower tiers can beat CR-appropriate challenges. It's just that casters tend to outshine them in every way.

So, Mr. GC, I will totally take you up on this challenge. I do have a couple requests of my own, though, which I hope you will honor:

1). I'm looking to test if bad classes can actually do their job. That means I want to test them against CR appropriate things. If the gauntlet is above standard CR, I will be rather vexed.

The gauntlet is according to standard distribution. This means not everything is the same level. There will not be anything significantly higher however.

Quote2). I am going to minmax the absolute **** out of this party. Don't call them Team Gimp. I might be restricted to bad base classes, but they are going to SHINE. Especially compared to 'hurr durr DMG NPCs'.

It's probably going to take me about a week to put this party together. Please have patience. And if you don't want an optimizer running this challenge, please let me know now. I am in it for the experiment, but I will also try my damndest to win.

I am extremely facetious. I made my username Mister Gimp Culler for fuck's sake. Team Gimp is just a name.

I have no problem with an optimizer doing it. They might learn something about their own claims. That and if the party dies because their controller was a noob? That doesn't necessarily mean anything, even though I already know the deal.

Quote from: TristramEvans;589862Nothing's going on. Your scenario isn't a roleplaying game scenario, its a tournament wargame. And if anyone wanted to play a wargame, there are better systems to use than D&D. The major disconnect here is that what your doing isn't how RPGs are meant to be played, and its providing a very limited experience. I'm usually not one for "badwrongfun"; I think everybody should game how they want and however is the most fun, but it saddens me that you seem to be completely oblivious to what RPGs potentially have to offer a player.

RPGs are about fantasy, imagination, and creativity, and your games seem to be devoid of those things, based on this and the example of another scenario of yours posted on the other thread. The concept of "being in character" is meaningless in such a game, and Immersion is frankly impossible. I just don't personally see what's enjoyable, or why I would give up all the possibilities RPGs offers me to adhere to such a myopic and limited experience.

In my time I've led armies into battle, negotiated treaties between kingdoms, seen the universe saved by an assistant pig-herder, rode on the backs of dragons, stormed a Deathstar, discovered new dimensions, foiled the schemes of supervillains, romanced an elven princess, chased murderers through the shadowy streets of 30s NY, invented a time machine, fended off sky pirates in a zepelin, called forth Elder Gods from the abyss, pantsed Darth Vader, freed a colony of slaves from alien overlords, danced in a graveyard with the lichqueen, found El Dorado: the lost city of gold,  met a talking mongoose named Gef, been slimed by ghosts, crafted a golem, gave it life,  and unleashed it upon a group of vicious witch-hunters, fended off The Orient Express from werewolves in the woods of Russia, tricked gods, seduced goddesses, slain angels, and exorcized demons...I could go on. It's been nearly 30 years of adventures. Glories.

If that's basketweaving, then I take that term gladly. The alternative you're offering is....simply not appealing.

I think I will print this post out and have it framed.

Quote from: Mr. GC;596623The gauntlet is according to standard distribution. This means not everything is the same level. There will not be anything significantly higher however.

I am extremely facetious. I made my username Mister Gimp Culler for fuck's sake. Team Gimp is just a name.

I have no problem with an optimizer doing it. They might learn something about their own claims. That and if the party dies because their controller was a noob? That doesn't necessarily mean anything, even though I already know the deal.

As long as you're not like 'hurr durr, one CR 11 is totally by the book fair" then I'll be okay.

Which it technically is. But that's not what I would call a standard adventuring day And as the DMG says, the odds of death increase dramatically with higher CR encounters.

I am hoping to build and play this party strong enough that it not only survives, but nets loot. I'm gonna take some pride in the endeavor, is all. Optimizing bad classes is not easy, but it's still optimization. And I LOVE that.

Do you really think I have no chance of victory?

I'd like to see Mr. GC make a party and run them through vs any of the old school AD&D S-series Dungeons. I'd start a betting pool on how many feet he gets through the front door before the TPK, in 10' increments.

I'll give him 50'. Tops.

Then he can shut the fuck up about "playing objectively".

Quote from: Doctor Jest;596639I'd like to see Mr. GC make a party and run them through vs any of the old school AD&D S-series Dungeons. I'd start a betting pool on how many feet he gets through the front door before the TPK, in 10' increments.

I'll give him 50'. Tops.

Then he can shut the fuck up about "playing objectively".

Yes, things that randomly kill you unless you suck off the DM would randomly kill me because I would not suck off the DM. What the fuck is your point? This is a skill based thread, so you can fuck right off with your lolluck.

Quote from: The Noobiest Noobie;596638As long as you're not like 'hurr durr, one CR 11 is totally by the book fair" then I'll be okay.

Which it technically is. But that's not what I would call a standard adventuring day And as the DMG says, the odds of death increase dramatically with higher CR encounters.

I am hoping to build and play this party strong enough that it not only survives, but nets loot. I'm gonna take some pride in the endeavor, is all. Optimizing bad classes is not easy, but it's still optimization. And I LOVE that.

Do you really think I have no chance of victory?

Level +4 encounters or higher only have an 8.75% occurrence. Not typical on any given day but definitely typical.

That said I hardly think that is required to take out some gimps.

I don't think you'll win. You are welcome to try and prove me wrong and validate all the gimps that cannot back up their own points because they are too weak to do so though.

I mean, to me this is a clinical experiment. I think the bad classes might be capable of at least doing their job, even though they suck royally compared to better classes. This seems like a solid way to test that.

Oh, and with that in mind, that is the purpose of this thread. I'm here to do an experiment. I'm here to test a hypothesis. I'm not here for theorycrafting; I'm not here for value judgments; and I'm certainly not here to spew Internet bile everywhere.

This is like Mythbusters-style science. it's not perfect, but at least we can run a test and see how the claim holds up. Why is there so much anonymonauesa in this thread?

Quote from: The Noobiest Noobie;596660This is like Mythbusters-style science. it's not perfect, but at least we can run a test and see how the claim holds up. Why is there so much anonymonauesa in this thread?

It's not even remotely like any kind of science.  Clearly, you buy into this 'objective play' nonsense at some level, so you have already failed.

Have fun with Mr Gaping Cockholster.

Quote from: StormBringer;596716It's not even remotely like any kind of science.  Clearly, you buy into this 'objective play' nonsense at some level, so you have already failed.

What I am interested in is whether a group of base classes can actually handle a day of fights at appropriate CR. That seems like a rather important thing to test in a system where a very substantial percentage of the text written for it involves rules for combat.
If I win, it doesn't prove much because of how very hard I will optimize, but if I lose, it seems like it should indicate a flaw in the CR system. If such a flaw exists, I would like to know about it and thus be able to account for it in future games.
Why does that make me 'fail'?

EDIT: Also, may I have access to the Cityscape web enhancement, or do I only get the books themselves?

Quote from: The Noobiest Noobie;596723What I am interested in is whether a group of base classes can actually handle a day of fights at appropriate CR.

They can.  

It really is that simple, but you have to actually play the game to figure that out, not a highly biased, white-room, contrived scenario run by someone with a grudge and zero integrity looking to prove a point by any means necessary.   And absolutely when that scenario arises from an appeal to ignorance plea in a different thread.

QuoteThat seems like a rather important thing to test in a system where a very substantial percentage of the text written for it involves rules for combat.

This isn't a test, there are no parameters nor any structured methodology to determine if the results are valid or not.  Like many of us suspect, this might not even really be possible with RPGs to begin with.

QuoteIf I win, it doesn't prove much because of how very hard I will optimize, but if I lose, it seems like it should indicate a flaw in the CR system. If such a flaw exists, I would like to know about it and thus be able to account for it in future games.

Such a flaw does exist.  Almost any where you go with coherent posters, you will read message after message decrying the CR system for a variety reasons.

And without the structure in place like I mentioned before, it doesn't matter if you 'win' or 'lose', nothing will be proven (especially without a cogent hypothesis to work from).  We already have the answer for the CR system:  don't use it except as a very, very broad guideline.  There really isn't a controversy over that.

As far as what is actually going on here, we have one very inexperienced poster desperate to show that 'gimp classes' are objectively bad in every case and there is an 'objective' style of playing RPGs.  In both of these cases, someone shot off their mouth and now they are backed into a corner of their own making and have their fragile ego on the line.  

QuoteWhy does that make me 'fail'?

That isn't what makes you 'fail'.  What sets you on the downward spiral to the pits of failure is thinking there is an 'objective' or 'hard mode' style of RPG playing.  Bury it under as many sheaves of numbers as you like, the entire game is still 'magical tea party' or 'Mother-may-I'.  Arguing against that is pure foolishness.

Quote from: StormBringer;596716It's not even remotely like any kind of science.  Clearly, you buy into this 'objective play' nonsense at some level, so you have already failed.

I'm pretty sure GC is talking to himself at this point.

Meanwhile, I've started the Basketweavers vs. The Sunless Citadel thread.

Quote from: StormBringer;596760They can.  

It really is that simple, but you have to actually play the game to figure that out,

I mean, the DMG actually has suggestions for how many encounters to throw at players and how tough they should be. it's a book that says 'if you want to run a game, we suggest doing these things.' The OP says he's going to do those things. If he does, then he's running a version of the game. It's going to be a one-shot--admittedly less fun and in-depth than a real campaign, but it's still something people do at conventions all the time. I think it'll be fun.

Quote from: StormBringer;596760This isn't a test, there are no parameters nor any structured methodology to determine if the results are valid or not.  Like many of us suspect, this might not even really be possible with RPGs to begin with.

Of course there are parameters. The OP has made a very strong claim--that it is flatly impossible for a party consisting of characters of these classes to run his one-shot (which he claims is based around a SAD) with no losses. The statement is binary. I think as long as the one-shot is CR-appropriate. he's wrong. My IRL D&D group thinks he's wrong. There is a simple way to test it. Now whether this can be generalized is a little sketchier. Not everyone plays on the same level as me--some are worse, some are far better. But if my guys survive this one-shot, then it has been proven that it is possible to survive this one-shot. It also suggests that other one-shots at this level are survivable by this class mix. I mean, it's not perfect, but it's definitely a data point.

Quote from: StormBringer;596760Such a flaw does exist.  Almost any where you go with coherent posters, you will read message after message decrying the CR system for a variety reasons.

And without the structure in place like I mentioned before, it doesn't matter if you 'win' or 'lose', nothing will be proven (especially without a cogent hypothesis to work from).  We already have the answer for the CR system:  don't use it except as a very, very broad guideline.  There really isn't a controversy over that.

In most of the games I have played before this, my party has not only beaten but annihilated encounters well above our CR. However, in those games we had higher tiers of classes. If I actually drop the challenge rating back down, I feel that I should be able to cope even with lower tiers of characters.
So yes, even if my group and I are the only ones contending, there is absolutely contention about the merit of the CR system. And since I personally have this contention, I wish to investigate it. I can't use this test as 'proof positive' about it, but again, it's a data point. And I can most certainly disprove a claim.
Plus it's D&D. Who doesn't love playing D&D?

Also, I get that you don't like the OP. I really, really, do not care.

Quote from: StormBringer;596760That isn't what makes you 'fail'.  What sets you on the downward spiral to the pits of failure is thinking there is an 'objective' or 'hard mode' style of RPG playing.  Bury it under as many sheaves of numbers as you like, the entire game is still 'magical tea party' or 'Mother-may-I'.  Arguing against that is pure foolishness.

I'm not saying ANYTHING about a right or wrong way to play the game, or the nature of the game, or any of that. I am here to examine the monster ranking system, and the achievable power levels among some classes that have been called into question. It's a system with two major inputs, and if I fail, the two are not in balance with one another. I think they are, so if they're not, I'd like to know.