Scraped from here.
Chapter 1
Summary: A while back, Dantrag posted a challenge...
Chapter 1
Summary: A while back, Dantrag posted a challenge...
User | Total |
---|---|
weirdbutgifted | 5 |
While I'd love to give you a quick answer, could you elaborate on what you mean with an example or two? I've seen so many different types of nerdrage from D&D fans that I'm not sure what your specific hate is. For example, some prefer to stick exactly to mechanics (including floating dice rolls and level up screens), others insist on literal interpretations of game rules, even when it is clearly a game balance issue and not applicable to real world situations.Satori said:I have just one question for you before I am willing to try reading this.
CAN. YOU. DO. MATH?
because the sheer amount of nerdrage that inability to apply basic arithmetic and logic to D&D (especially 3.5 and pathfailure) that infects 90% of the internet generally keeps me away from D&D fanfiction that isn't Baldur's Gate.
I do really do want to read this, but I have to know first.
English isn't your first language is it? Lemme see if i can unscramble your grammar...Jossan Alhi said:
I'm trying to rationalize this. I can't.
Let's see, an example. Yes, I hate My Little Pony, and Hate when someone try to sell me the new series. Ok. So, I don't go to the treads that say "MLP", evade the thing I don't like, and let the people who enjoy that series to do just that, with any level of appropriate deepness and nerdism they want.
Now, Satori, you claim to evade the "nerdrage" of the D&D Fans. Fair enough, after all, you can read a history without read the comments of it. Then, put a comment without even reading the history, calling D&D fans illogical and bad mathematicians, and mocking a name with "Pathfailure". Seriously, what logic do you see in that?
Maybe, and this is only because I want to retain hope that this is not a trolling, maybe you are a fan of the Buffy series and were interested by the fact that two persons mentioned good characterizations. Or maybe you are a Troll. Well, since I'm a D&D fan, maybe I'm committing a logical fallacy (false dichotomy) and you have a third motive for your insulting comments, would you kindly explain them in a manner that we, illogical amathematicals morons could understand?
While much of what you said is true, especially at higher levels, it's canon that fighters do exist - If I made this a story where one of the core classes simply didn't exist, I'd be buried under the outraged howls of fans. While personally I would be hard pressed to choose anything other than an arcane spellcaster, for a whole host of reasons, people make stupid decisions and decisions based on different priorities that what an outsider would consider sensible all the time. We see that in real life where someone with an internship or job at a major company with excellent prospects quits to pursue music or art. From a financial and logical perspective, that's generally considered a sub-optimum choice, but they're doing what they enjoy.Satori said:...Snip...
Simple basic logic:
1) Fighters shouldn't exist. Really. There are literally dozens of other classes which can do everything a fighter does, and do it better, and still have room left over for competence at other tasks that fighter's can't do. Fighters don't even make sense if you totally ignore mechanics and rely solely on fluff. Linear Warriors Quadratic Wizards is even more difficult to avert with fluff than mechanics. And while you do need town constables, caravan guards, and generic soldier # 7, that's what the NPC Warrior class is for.
One of my biggest aims in this story is to write the characters true to their backgrounds and personalities, and to show their attributes as more than informed ability. On the spell front that will be Giles mostly at the moment, and you should see him utilise his intelligence in battle, when it comes. They're all going to make mistakes, though I hope to show them learning from them and applying the lessons believably.2) Fireball is one of the most inefficient spells ever. The fact that wizard sho are supposedly superhuman-level smart toss it around in fluff is frankly SOD breaking to the extreme. There is a rare occasion in which it may be useul, but any wizard who is using it regularly is frankly not acting as intelligently as he is supposed to be.
ETC, ETC.
D&D only makes sense if you ignore the fuckstupid written into the fluff by people who can't do math, and who often time, have never even played the game. Frank and K's tome materiel is a good place to start for exploring what the implications of a world with magic are on society and warfare. It makes way more sense than 90% of what is officially published
In the D&D recs thread I was arguing against someone who complained that the characters were too underoptimized, so take your unjustified stereotyping and shove it.Mizuki_Stone said:Edit: Satori's a rather enthusiastic mechanics optimist, not quite a Munchkin, but the kind of person who will complain heavily if you work off the fluff over the crunch, or use sub optimal builds no matter the reason.
what's decent about it?arthurh3535 said:Wow, someone who hates the basic first huge AOE decent damage spell.
Remind me to never play in any game your run or play in, as it sounds like if you aren't optimized to .01% it wouldn't be fun.
No, I am not Minmaxing. Certainly I'm not going to an extreme. Picking a better spell is not minmaxing, it's being *sensible*. No one who has a positive INT modifier is going to consistently pick the ineffective option, unless he is deliberately being The Load. This "you want to pick the effective option, therefore you're a dirty minmaxer" bullshit you're spouting is both offensive and totally inaccurate. You have offered not one iota of analysis to back your claims besides "i do it this way".arthurh3535 said:Fireball might be pretty crappy against a single, high CR but it's *wonderful* against lower level foes in decent numbers.
In fact, in the dozens of gaming groups I've played in, no one ever thought it was a 'crappy low damage spell that no one should ever pick up'. Like I said, you are min-maxing to an extreme.
A fireball is not the solution to every problem, but it is *not* a bad spell. And is, in fact, the basis that all damaging 3rd level spell are designed around.
Fantasy and Sci-fi Stories need Suspension of Disbelief. If you read a sci-fi story, where the guy used his expensive, rare, limited use nanotech macguffin to make not-especially-powerful plasma bursts when he had a fully functional blaster pistol, and the guy next to him had a gatling coilgun, instead of using it for speed enhancement or recon drones, you'd think he had crummy tactics, wouldn't you?jhymesba said:Really? You think this is the best way to make your _opinion_ on whether or not D20 handles a class the way you think it should? Really? Way to set the bar to confrontational right out the bat. I must give weirdbutgifted credit for keeping things civil on his end.
Ah yes, the "we'll make the fighter suck less by giving him a OMGWTFBBQ artifact weapon that makes him wizard-light" strategy. I should point out it's an implicit admission that the fighter is inherently inferior to the wizard. Which it is, unless you play 4e.So, instead of demanding to know if the author can do math (when the author may just handwave in ways for fighters to be more effective, say, by equipment...),
See above note about validation. Though if you're saying it's good I'm happy to take your word for it.just read it and decide for yourself if you'll read chapter two. More flies with honey, dude.
Thank you for the feedback. I was worried about that, and you might be horrified to learn that the entire thing was considerably heavier on the first draft. As an example, I do not normally use contractions in writing and have to go back and edit them in for a more natural flow to the words. The first sentence was originally the same length as the second, and I tried to cut it down to something that was easier to swallow, though obviously I need to go further. With the second sentence, when you say 'wrestle with words' I assume you mean the aforementioned complex structure, or should I also omit words like 'herculean'?Rihaku said:My first impression is that your writing style is too heavy. I like long sentences and use them a lot, but you need to vary your sentence structure. Have you read your own work out loud? The logical connections in your syntax are too meandering for the relatively mundane subject matter. For example:
You could simply say, "Xander caught his foot on the sidewalk and stumbled" instead of the tortured prose of the first sentence. The second sentence is a mess; certainly there's nothing wrong with complex verbal structure but it ought be reserved for complex takes on a topic. You don't want to sap your reader's stamina by forcing them to wrestle with words about a subject not worth wrestling with conceptually.
It sounds to me like you are writing what comes to mind, semi-stream of consciousness style. If you read enough well-composed fiction, what comes to mind will naturally possess a good rhythm and flow. You are not at that stage, so you either need to proofread extensively or take a more deliberate approach to production.
Um, at heart this is all min-maxing. And biased opinion. You seem to be one of those people that has to squeeze the utter utmost out of your spell.Satori said:No, I am not Minmaxing. Certainly I'm not going to an extreme. Picking a better spell is not minmaxing, it's being *sensible*. No one who has a positive INT modifier is going to consistently pick the ineffective option, unless he is deliberately being The Load. This "you want to pick the effective option, therefore you're a dirty minmaxer" bullshit you're spouting is both offensive and totally inaccurate. You have offered not one iota of analysis to back your claims besides "i do it this way".
Fireball is a noticeably weak spell, for it's level. Whether this is good or bad depends on your goal. If it's to be an alive wizard at the end of the encounter, it's BAD 90+% of the time.
3.0 Spell design was terrible, mostly because they playtested as though they were still playing 2nd, and thus never actually playtested 90% of the spells, or even half of the new/changed mechanics. Maybe the weak tea power of fireball is what they intended. If you want to run it that way, feel free to erase 2/3rds of sorc/wiz spell list from the game when you play.
Fireball was great in 2e because it always dealt damage even when the enemy saved, which was often. In 3e, fireball deals the same damage, but creature HP has been scaled up considerable. This already makes fireball weaker. You then have to factor in that Save DC's in 3e scale with level, which makes "half damage even on a save" far less of a big deal, especially since Evasion now exists, and is fairly easy to get. Some WOTC designers never made that mental adjustment, and neither have a good number of players. That they haven't doesn't mean fireball is still good. It means they haven't bothered to think about it.
Sarevok, like virtually every character in BG has special abilities that his class doesn't normally have. EG: Deathbringer Assault. He can also be dualed to Mage or Thief. This makes him much more useful that a normal fighter. And in 2e, the fighter at least had passable survivability, due to high HP in a game where HP was much harder to come by. than in later editions.Zawisza Czarny said:
True. And that's the best justification for using fireballs. If you're doing a setting where 99% of spells are carefully guarded secrets only known to a few, and fireball use is actually heavily promoted because the (Red?) Dragons, who are natural mages and don't want pesky human mages homing in on their territory, encourage the use of a weak fire spell that can't hurt then, while trying to keep spells that are actually a threat to them out of the hands of the Irresponsible Younger Races (TM).... well, then, using fireball a lot makes sense. If you're a human.I generally agree with Satori but:
1)spells doesn't grow on trees(most of time anyway)
Wizards may use fireball because it's very popular spell and very easy to get.
You keep saying this, but you never offer a WHY. At this point, i'd say you're just an inch away from outright flaming. "because i say so" is not a credible argument.arthurh3535 said:
If I was, I'd never play anything but Incantatrix. Smart spell selection is basic tactical sense.You seem to be one of those people that has to squeeze the utter utmost out of your spell.
Anyone can take "shape soulmeld: impulse boots" and "Open Least Chakra" or just buy a ring of evasion, or Prc into Divine Oracle, etc. It is pretty easy to get really. How is that suspect?Some of your reasoning is even very suspect (evasion is too common!)
Because you don't have any arguments. Only bald-faced assertions.
It *was* a bedrock spell in older editions. but 3e is NOT 2e. As I mentioned before, inability to change mindset is mental laziness. Thus why i asked about ability to do math in the first place. It requires not only skill, but willingness to make an effort.but like I said in the dozens of groups I was in... no one held the utter hatred and anger against this bed-rock spell of the genre.
Did you see any *number* crunching? No. Your strawmanning has gone from merely ignorant to intentionally offensive. YOU are the one being rude, by constantly insinuating that I care only about mechanics, with intent to insult, even though i repeatedly pointed out that my concerns are both crunch and fluff.arthurh3535 said:Satori, the reason I was not arguing rules is *not* because I can't, but because I'm not going to be rude in someone else's thread.
Take your number-cruchiness (and being wrong) somewhere where someone will actually care that you can squeeze an extra 10% damage by using every single sourcebook in the world.
Wait, are you claiming that 3e has balance? I thought that idea was debunked ages ago.Mizuki_stone said:Truth is, you have to ether allow for a save or risk punching through spell resistance at some point. Only a tiny amount of the highest saves can get results (and often not optimal) without facing one of the two. It's a game balance mechanic.
I started to reply that 3e was released in 2000, then realised you meant by BtVS timeline. Yeah, you have a point, but everything I own from earlier editions is in storage along with most of my belongings, and I won't be accessing that for about five years, so... My apologies if it's not to your liking, I did try to provide version information in the thread title, and I simply have access to far more personal reseach material for 3.5 compared to earlier editions (a friend has gone overseas for some time and loaned me his collection).AndrasOtto said:I like it so far, I was just hoping that it might be 1e/2e based since 3e hadn't been released IIRC