Quote from: ggroy;513537The furthest course I took was a graduate level course in quantum mechanics.

That's way the hell farther then I ever got, I think my teachers were just wackier.  

Quote from: xech;513542We are back at point 0. You still have to explain the point of your rant.

I don't feel like going over it again.
You basically made your decision already, and I'm fine with it.

Quote from: Benoist;513544I don't feel like going over it again. You basically made your decision already.

Is it me or you? I am open to discussion. It is you that want to avoid it.
You did not even try to address any of my arguments.

EDIT: Do you understand what "exception-based design" or any of that jargon means or is it that you just do not care about this sort of discussion?

Quote from: xech;513545Is it me or you? I am open to discussion. It is you that want to avoid it.
You did not even try to address any of my arguments.

Maybe, yes. I'm tired, and I don't want to go over ten pages of tetrapilectomy over this.

You don't get it, I don't feel like explaining it again.

Try reading my posts again to make sense of them on your own. If that doesn't come to you by then, then I'm sorry I couldn't be more clear. Maybe we'll have another occasion to talk about it from another angle in another conversation or whatnot. Over and out for now.

As a thought experiment, DC 50 means our Frodo von Bismarck needs a +30 to the roll for a %5 chance of success. Let's say he wants to be able to have at least a %50 chance of success, since a failure probably means Sauron smites him out of hand, so he needs a +40. Now it's been a long time since I've played 3e, so my numbers might be off. But I believe you can have +4 at first level, plus Skill Training (+3, right?), plus ability score bonus. Let's be generous and call that a +4, and he might be able to manage some kind of synergy bonus for another +2, and let's pretend he managed some kind of +2 circumstantial bonus. So Frodo von Bismarck is sitting at a +15 right out the gate. That's a hefty bonus to the roll, but he's still only half way to a faint hope. If he pumps his Diplomacy every level, and his Charisma at 4th and 8th he won't even be at the  +30 mark until level 15, well beyond any normal human level of ability. At that point he should be able to pull of crazy-ass shit, like talking Sauron into giving it all up for a place in the sun. Do I have that math right?

Quote from: two_fishes;513549As a thought experiment, DC 50 means our Frodo von Bismarck needs a +30 to the roll for a %5 chance of success. Let's say he wants to be able to have at least a %50 chance of success, since a failure probably means Sauron smites him out of hand, so he needs a +40. Now it's been a long time since I've played 3e, so my numbers might be off. But I believe you can have +4 at first level, plus Skill Training (+3, right?), plus ability score bonus. Let's be generous and call that a +4, and he might be able to manage some kind of synergy bonus for another +2, and let's pretend he managed some kind of +2 circumstantial bonus. So Frodo von Bismarck is sitting at a +15 right out the gate. That's a hefty bonus to the roll, but he's still only half way to a faint hope. If he pumps his Diplomacy every level, and his Charisma at 4th and 8th he won't even be at the  +30 mark until level 15, well beyond any normal human level of ability. At that point he should be able to pull of crazy-ass shit, like talking Sauron into giving it all up for a place in the sun. Do I have that math right?

I think that the problem with some people around here is that a skill like diplomacy is no way applicable with some dude like Sauron. His ego is the whole point of Sauron's existence so it is kind of moot to try to "diplomance" something like Sauron. After all, could one use their diplomacy skill against a skeleton or a zombie?

Quote from: CRKrueger;513543That's way the hell farther then I ever got, I think my teachers were just wackier.  

It was a strange confluence of factors, which led me to that graduate level course on quantum mechanics.

Previously to that time, I already took the freshman/sophomore sequence of physics courses for engineering majors, and an additional junior year physics course which covered topics in modern physics and introductory quantum mechanics.  I wanted to take the next undergraduate course on quantum mechanics, but the professor was a hardass and wouldn't let anybody who didn't have the proper prerequisites enroll in the course.

Just for fun, I looked through the textbook they were using for the graduate level course on quantum mechanics, and thought I could do it with my background.  (At the time, I already had three years of undergraduate level math and engineering courses).  So I went to the professor who was teaching the graduate level quantum mechanics course, and found out that he wasn't too picky about prerequisites.  I ended up enrolling, just to find out the hard way how much homework that class required.  (It was a graduate level course which almost all of the incoming physics graduate students took.  Hence the large amount of homework, in the form of a new problem set every week).

In such a crowd, I never heard them once using the term "spherical cows".  But the term "toy model" was used quite often.

Quote from: two_fishes;513549As a thought experiment, DC 50 means our Frodo von Bismarck needs a +30 to the roll for a %5 chance of success. Let's say he wants to be able to have at least a %50 chance of success, since a failure probably means Sauron smites him out of hand, so he needs a +40. Now it's been a long time since I've played 3e, so my numbers might be off. But I believe you can have +4 at first level, plus Skill Training (+3, right?), plus ability score bonus. Let's be generous and call that a +4, and he might be able to manage some kind of synergy bonus for another +2, and let's pretend he managed some kind of +2 circumstantial bonus. So Frodo von Bismarck is sitting at a +15 right out the gate. That's a hefty bonus to the roll, but he's still only half way to a faint hope. If he pumps his Diplomacy every level, and his Charisma at 4th and 8th he won't even be at the  +30 mark until level 15, well beyond any normal human level of ability. At that point he should be able to pull of crazy-ass shit, like talking Sauron into giving it all up for a place in the sun. Do I have that math right?

The highest Diplomacy roll I've ever seen from a PC in 3.5 was an 87.
This was a completely insane game I was running with actual demigod characters (the PC in question was about level 12 at the time with about a 50 Charisma), but even before they got divine ranks the guy was cracking 30 or 40 regularly. Also had the Silver Tongue feat from Dragon magazine, which let him  actually make female NPCs fall in love with him with about a DC 40 - a  number of female BBEGs fell to his charms.  After this game, the actual Diplomacy skill was permabanned from our table.
The main trick he was using was Marshal, which gave him free Skill Focus (diplomacy) for +3, and then the Motivate Charisma power that let him twice his Charisma bonus to the check.

EDIT: I definitely remember the number, but trying to figure out how he got all the bonus there. It might have been a 20, since we were using the optional rule from the Epic Level Handbook where you roll up on 20s.

Quote from: two_fishes;513549Do I have that math right?

No.  Depending on how much you min/max, the diplomancer is doable very early on.  Using skill synergies and various class combos, you can get bonuses that far exceed what ought to be allowed.  Knowledge (nobility), Sense Motive, and Bluff all grant a +2 bonus, so you're already up +6 there.  With Skill Focus: Diplomacy and Negotiator, you have an additional +11 total.  A circlet of persuasion grants a +3 bonus (and only costs 4,500 gp) for +14.  If you have 18 Charisma, that's another +4, for +18 in all.  Add in 3 + your level skill ranks, and you have a +26 by level five.  Turn Frodo into a half-elf for +28 total.  And this is without getting into multiclass shenanigans--the "ultimate" diplomancer has levels in marshal, binder, warlock, and possibly dragonfire adept, human paragon, and half-elf paragon.

The diplomancer is a thought experiment and shouldn't be taken seriously, but it does highlight how retarded the 3e Diplomacy rules are.

Ben: Rules can't be balanced or broken in a vacuum!
Frank: If your diplomat meets Sauron, he can talk Sauron into whatever.
Ben: Your diplomat shouldn't meet and get a chance to talk to Sauron.
My question: So if your party has a diplomat, they can't have a conversation with the villain ever?

Basically you shouldn't encounter a situation because one of your PCs is good at it and the rule is crap? Why not just have a rule that isn't crap so you don't have to avoid situations?

I'm starting to wonder who's talking about situations in a vacuum. If a rule is so bad that it flat out cuts you off from certain things happening, I think there's a problem.

I see similar arguments provided for Vancian magic and why the fifteen minute day shouldn't happen.

A: You can't sleep, you have to defend yourself from wandering monsters!
B: What if we're not in the dungeon or the wilderness?
A: All your quests should have deadlines.
B: And if every single session ever doesn't have one of those two.
A: You're being lazy because you can't force these contexts into your adventure to fix the rule.

Not saying that Vancian magic is broken, given the context of your games, but its functionality is kind of fragile and context sensitive. Especially when there is little specific guidance in 3x telling new DMs what kind of contexts justify the rules. New DMs aren't going to just know this stuff.

Never mind that there are issues of apples-to-apples comparison. Like "bat wizard" vs rogue. All characters shouldn't be equal in all fields certainly, but if people are fighting better than the fighter, healing better than the healer, thieving better than the thief, or wizzing better than the wizzard it's still bad design.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;513557EDIT: I definitely remember the number, but trying to figure out how he got all the bonus there. It might have been a 20, since we were using the optional rule from the Epic Level Handbook where you roll up on 20s.

This guy should have been able to convince Sauron to convert to Jainism and starve himself to death.

Quote from: beejazz;513560Ben: Rules can't be balanced or broken in a vacuum!
Frank: If your diplomat meets Sauron, he can talk Sauron into whatever.
Ben: Your diplomat shouldn't meet and get a chance to talk to Sauron.
My question: So if your party has a diplomat, they can't have a conversation with the villain ever?

Basically you shouldn't encounter a situation because one of your PCs is good at it and the rule is crap? Why not just have a rule that isn't crap so you don't have to avoid situations?

I'm starting to wonder who's talking about situations in a vacuum. If a rule is so bad that it flat out cuts you off from certain things happening, I think there's a problem.

I see similar arguments provided for Vancian magic and why the fifteen minute day shouldn't happen.

A: You can't sleep, you have to defend yourself from wandering monsters!
B: What if we're not in the dungeon or the wilderness?
A: All your quests should have deadlines.
B: And if every single session ever doesn't have one of those two.
A: You're being lazy because you can't force these contexts into your adventure to fix the rule.

Not saying that Vancian magic is broken, given the context of your games, but its functionality is kind of fragile and context sensitive. Especially when there is little specific guidance in 3x telling new DMs what kind of contexts justify the rules. New DMs aren't going to just know this stuff.

Never mind that there are issues of apples-to-apples comparison. Like "bat wizard" vs rogue. All characters shouldn't be equal in all fields certainly, but if people are fighting better than the fighter, healing better than the healer, thieving better than the thief, or wizzing better than the wizzard it's still bad design.

well said

Quote from: B.T.;513559The diplomancer is a thought experiment and shouldn't be taken seriously, but it does highlight how retarded the 3e Diplomacy rules are.

Ultimately I think people on both sides of many mechanical arguments make the mistake that thought experiments like this are really meant for play, though I stand by my assertion that if a rule depends on a specific context to function, it should really be called out in the advice section.

EDIT: I know I'm on an RPG relevant topic tangentially related to the topic of the thread. But why exactly do we have a thread where half of it has turned into a discussion of some guy who doesn't currently post here AFAIK? Firstly, what does it have to do with anything, and secondly, what use is talking about somebody that isn't here?

Gm: so you are in front of Sauron what do you say.

Player: I try to convince him that he should be my friend.

GM: Ok that's going to be difficult, he seems to have his angry face on, what do you say.

Player: I...


Honestly, who lets the players roll without at least coming up with some kind of reason for what they want to do?  If the player does come up with something, then the roll is very heavily dependent on context.  Maybe he can convince Sauron that he wants to defect from all those human and elf forces.  Fine, Sauron believes him and lets him wander perhaps, or makes him a servant.

It really doesn't matter what the rules say here.  Long standing GM practice at adjudicating skills in many systems trumps whatever shit is supposed to be RAW (That mythical non-existent thing).  It's the same reason the supposed brokenness of skill challenges in 4e doesn't bother me.  I don't need them, I know how to set DCs and adjudicate skill rolls.

Quote from: beejazz;513560Ben: Rules can't be balanced or broken in a vacuum!
Frank: If your diplomat meets Sauron, he can talk Sauron into whatever.
Ben: Your diplomat shouldn't meet and get a chance to talk to Sauron.
My question: So if your party has a diplomat, they can't have a conversation with the villain ever?

Basically you shouldn't encounter a situation because one of your PCs is good at it and the rule is crap? Why not just have a rule that isn't crap so you don't have to avoid situations?

I'm starting to wonder who's talking about situations in a vacuum. If a rule is so bad that it flat out cuts you off from certain things happening, I think there's a problem.

I see similar arguments provided for Vancian magic and why the fifteen minute day shouldn't happen.

A: You can't sleep, you have to defend yourself from wandering monsters!
B: What if we're not in the dungeon or the wilderness?
A: All your quests should have deadlines.
B: And if every single session ever doesn't have one of those two.
A: You're being lazy because you can't force these contexts into your adventure to fix the rule.

Not saying that Vancian magic is broken, given the context of your games, but its functionality is kind of fragile and context sensitive. Especially when there is little specific guidance in 3x telling new DMs what kind of contexts justify the rules. New DMs aren't going to just know this stuff.

Never mind that there are issues of apples-to-apples comparison. Like "bat wizard" vs rogue. All characters shouldn't be equal in all fields certainly, but if people are fighting better than the fighter, healing better than the healer, thieving better than the thief, or wizzing better than the wizzard it's still bad design.

Yes, Benoist's position is retarded and is based on the Oberoni fallacy (rules aren't broken because you can change them).  He relies on the DM changing the rules to fuck the wizard or using DM fiat to arbitrarily fuck the wizard to balance the game.  There is a middle ground between the Asperger's-riddled Frank position and the asshole Benoist position.