Quote from: Spike;513501The Den's answer to broken skills is to do away with skills and give everyone moar magik.

I pretty much agree with the rest of what you said, but this is the part that rather stands out for me.  It is a very odd stance for the 'linear Fighter quadratic Wizard' folks to take.  Giving everyone more magic would seem to include the Magic User, so they would be even more quadratic.

Quote from: StormBringer;513643Giving everyone more magic would seem to include the Magic User, so they would be even more quadratic.

Polynomial or non-polynomial scaling?

(ie. P or NP?)

Quote from: xech;513641What I believe most people want....

I don't give a damn what "most people" want. The only players whose wants I really care about are those playing at my table. The rules need to meet the needs of my players, not most players. The wider the assumptions of the game designers about the needs players of their game may have, the more likely the game will work for tables like mine, tables like yours, tables like Ben's, etc. Games designed to specifically meet the needs some designer thinks are those of "most players" aren't likely to actually meet the the needs of a broad range of actual tables of players.  

Look at 4e, it meets the needs of the range of D&D players the designers decided were "most players" probably better than any other version of D&D. However, it turned out that what the designers decided were the needs of "most players" were actually just the needs of a much smaller than expected subset of players. That subset is insanely happy with those laser-focued on their desires rules, but that subset of D&D players turned out to be too small to met the profit goals of Hasbro/WOTC.

Quote from: xech;513514Benoist could you please explain what is your point?
You keep repeating one that judges rules should not take them out of context, over and over and over.

Couldn't this be "the point" :rolleyes:

QuoteCan you give an an actual example of applying your argument in a helpful manner for improving any rules?

(Waves)

Did anyone read my "Gnome Giant Slayer" PrC example? I feel ignored.

Quote from: ggroy;513646Polynomial or non-polynomial scaling?

(ie. P or NP?)

Honestly, I don't quite understand the argument, nor if they are using it in a strictly mathematical sense.  For example, I assume 'linear Fighter' means the 3.x Fighter generally increases BaB, Saves, and overall combat skills by a constant, whereas Wizards increase exponentially-ish.

I wouldn't even begin to try explaining how the myriad of spells available is quantified to come up with that idea.  For example, TGD thinks that Fly is essentially an "I win" button and obliterates the need for a Thief.  And if the Magic User took that spell, and that spell only, for all their 3rd level spell slots, that makes sense.  You would be able to negate the Thief's Climb Walls skill several times a day.  But that is pretty much all you would be doing.  Forget Fireball, forget Lightning Bolt, forget all the other useful 3rd level spells you could be memorizing.  Hurting the Thief's feelbads is all that is important!

I understand this is kind of similar to the Diplomacy stuff, in that a player would really have to work at it to exploit the matter in this way.  In my mind, the difference is that Fly would piss the other players off, and would be dealt with through 'peer pressure' ("Hey, man, how about you stop playing your Wizard like a complete fucking douchebag?"), while Diplomacy is ultimately good for the party, and would generally get support from the players.

How many walls do your thieves climb in a day?

Quote from: StormBringer;513652Honestly, I don't quite understand the argument, nor if they are using it in a strictly mathematical sense.

If something is difficult to quantify precisely, there's not much further one can go mathematically.

For example, I've attempted to figure out how to precisely quantify the difference between a melee attack and a ranged attack on an opponent.  I have not been able to figure how the "rules as written" D&D/AD&D functions in a precise quantified manner, in regard to the difference between a melee and ranged attack.

At times I wonder if there is any underlying precise quantification for D&D/AD&D, other than "trial and error" or "Gygax decree".

Quote from: Reckall;513648Couldn't this be "the point" :rolleyes:

It's a common TGD tactic.

1) Completely misunderstand/misread/blatantly misquote what victim said.

2) Completely ignore any attempt by victim to clarify/correct misinterpretration.

3) Insult victim repeatedly for not defending what was "said".

So, don't feel ignored, instead be happy to get a taste of that place.

Quote from: Reckall;513648Couldn't this be "the point" :rolleyes:



(Waves)

Did anyone read my "Gnome Giant Slayer" PrC example? I feel ignored.

I did read it, and I did find it relevant.

Quote from: ggroy;513654If something is difficult to quantify precisely, there's not much further one can go mathematically.

Exactly, which is why I assume Frank and his crew use it as a moderately hyperbolic catch-phrase rather than a strictly accurate assessment.

QuoteFor example, I've attempted to figure out how to precisely quantify the difference between a melee attack and a ranged attack on an opponent.  I have not been able to figure how the "rules as written" D&D/AD&D functions in a precise quantified manner, in regard to the difference between a melee and ranged attack.

Maybe set up some kind of limit and try dividing the damage by the distance or something.  For missile weapons, as range approaches zero, the formula approaches undefined (can't use missile weapons under a certain range).  For melee weapons, as range approaches 3 or 4, damage approaches 0.  Something like that.

QuoteAt times I wonder if there is any underlying precise quantification for D&D/AD&D, other than "trial and error" or "Gygax decree".

A lot of it comes from Chainmail, which had a somewhat different set of assumptions, but largely it was what Uncle Gary and his groups found enjoyable.  None of it is strictly derived from physics or integral calculus, but I think most of it proceeds from the general principles and shaped as required by 'fun' more than 'accuracy'.

Sorry if I come late, but here are my two bits:

Re: Diplomacy. I agree that it is an example to a rule that, took to its extreme, is broken. Without molesting Sauron, does anyone think that having +50 in Diplomacy will steer a Forgite from his delusions? I guess not, and I agree that a DM that allows that is a sign of a broken DM, not of a broken rule (since all rules, soon or late, break up).

I think that it was Tom Clancy who said "God gave us math and physics, but also a brain - there is a reason for that, pilgrim!" IMHO, RPGs should be the epitome of this.

Then there is what I call "The Jason Bourne Factor". A game tells you what you can do with a magazine: learn a skill, get some info, or make someone happy because he was looking for that issue (+2 Diplomacy with him).

Then Jason Bourne comes along, rolls the magazine, and first mauls with it a trained enemy agent, and then uses the same magazine to blow up a house (just watch "The Bourne Supremacy").

So, is the magazine "broken"? Not at all. Truth is, anyone can put together things in a way so out of the loop as to break the common, shared conception we have of them - from magazines to game rules.

More importantly, we cannot even say that it is a bad thing. But here comes the need for the DM's brain: blowing up a house with a magazine isn't in the rules, but if the thing makes sense a brain will tell you: "That's cool! Go with it!"

I even experimented it by myself, in a debate on a Forgite forum (I know, bad idea outright). I made the case that Jason Bourne can survive better in a GDR that in a wargame, because a wargame is deterministic, while a GDR allows for flexible judgement.

This started the usual Forgite rumbling about "DMs" to which I answered (I know, very bad idea) that you cannot judge "the DM" but "a DM". But also that, more to the point, the passage from determinism to free will and flexibility is symbolic of the evolution from Chainmail to D&D - and that this is a way as good as another to explain why 4E was an involution.

At this point a moderator (sorry, "facilitator") comes along and rants about how I had "blown up the intellectualism scale" or something, to which I answered "and starting with a rolled magazine, too!"

Thread locked.

So, I can honestly say that once I blew up a Forgite thread with a rolled magazine. Find the rule for that anywhere: from a game to the real world. Still, it happened

Quote from: StormBringer;513658None of it is strictly derived from physics or integral calculus, but I think most of it proceeds from the general principles and shaped as required by 'fun' more than 'accuracy'.

This is probably similar to the sort of "expediency" which is done for stuff like sci-fi/fantasy literature and tv shows + movies.

If one tries to do the science precisely, it bogs everything down.

Quote from: ggroy;513660This is probably similar to the sort of "expediency" which is done for stuff like sci-fi/fantasy literature and tv shows + movies.

If one tries to do the science precisely, it bogs everything down.

Exactly, and it makes certain tropes impossible, like FTL, which generally negates most of the genre.  I mean, I dug the hell out of Moon, but as a game or ongoing campaign?  Not gonna happen.

Quote from: StormBringer;513662Exactly, and it make certain tropes impossible, like FTL, which generally negates most of the genre.  I mean, I dug the hell out of Moon, but as a game or ongoing campaign?  Not gonna happen.

When I was younger, I use to like reading and watching a lot of sci-fi stuff.  As I got older, I found a lot of sci-fi stuff harder to "suspend disbelief".

These days, I largely see most sci-fi/fantasy tv shows + movies, as something resembling James Bond or Rambo.  Basically not much different than a traditional "western" movie in the wild west, but in space (sci-fi) or an alternate "ancient" time period (fantasy).

Quote from: two_fishes;513637Well, now you're shifting goalposts, but whatever. So the PC is able to convince Sauron to ignore him and have him sent away rather than simply kill him on the spot. Shouldn't a talented and trained diplomat be able to soothe his enemies, especially if he's using magic to help him? This doesn't sound horrible to me, at this point. If a player is spending his resources to be good at diplomacy, he should be good at it.

They weren't my goalposts to begin with, but the point is that Sauron should be ruthlessly implacable and hateful.  He should be unable to be reasoned with because he is the embodiment of evil who desires to rule over Middle Earth with the free people enslaved to his will.  Diplomacy should automatically fail against him in all circumstances.  And in my games, it would, but I'm not going to pretend that I'm not changing the rules.  The rules are garbage, so I'm ignoring them entirely--but the difference is that I am willing to fully admit that the rules are junk, unlike certain people on this website who claim that they aren't broken because the GM just has to write new ones.

For instance:

Quote from: Benoist;513638"Rules as what they are" is nothing. At all.

This is idiotic.  If I give a fighter +300 to attack and damage at level one, we can objectively say that this is overpowered.  But according to Benoist and people who think like him, you can't prove that this is overpowered because you're not taking the rest of the game into consideration.  After all, it's not overpowered because:

a) The DM can simply change the rule.
b) The DM can deliberately screw the fighter over.
c) The DM can fight fighters with fighters.
d) The DM can put the fighter into situations where fighting isn't a solution.

Of course, the only one of those that isn't borderline Down Syndrome-level of thinking is option d), and even then you're still looking at a class that can solo a balor at first level.

Quote from: StormBringer;513643I pretty much agree with the rest of what you said, but this is the part that rather stands out for me.  It is a very odd stance for the 'linear Fighter quadratic Wizard' folks to take.  Giving everyone more magic would seem to include the Magic User, so they would be even more quadratic.

It doesn't really include the spellcasters, but they are already operating under the assumption that the DM allows Spell Compendium and all overpowered splatbooks into the game.  The Tome classes are arbitrarily matched against a power level rarely seen in-game, which means that allowing said material into the game is a disaster waiting to happen.  TGD posters generally assume that all rogues are using rings of blink with acid flasks and an epic-level feat to sneak attack to put out something like 88d6 damage each round.

Yes, the Tomes are balanced with that mindset.

The main problem with the fighter is that it doesn't have anything to do outside of combat.  Give him the option to sneak and notice things and be diplomatic and the class would be fine.  You're still going to have to deal with the bad math of the 3e system, but you can work around that.  If the fighter had six skill points per level and the Weapon Focus line didn't suck so much, I'd be completely fine with the class as-is, even if did wind up weaker than the spellcasters.  (Although the feats in the 3.5 PHB desperately need rebalancing.)