The OotS Thread III

[Lord Relvenous]

Good lord, can a mod split out this talk to its own thread? This argument started only tangentially related to OOTS, and by now isn't even close to still talking about the strips.

[Jub]

Jub there is a set standard it's called Encounter level.

If your Level X Wizard can solo something meant for four people he's breaking EL. If he can solo something meant for four people four levels higher than he is he's getting into munchkin territory.

The standard of playing D&D is to mix encounters to fight player strengths and weaknesses and if your party of 5th level adventures can fight and win vs an equivalent EL fight your doing fine. If they can struggle past and just beat a little bit higher EL fight fine. But if the Wizard can solo the fight you meant for all of them to have it's breaking. Sometimes it happens with someone getting smart/lucky/DM is dumb. But when up several fights and all are one and done affairs you've got a breakage. A weakness... a screw lose in the world.

Challenge Rating, isn't even close to being on the nose in so many cases that I shouldn't even have to produce an example. I will anyway though.

Which is a harder fight for the average party and why?

CR1:

A Grig or a Gnoll?
A Nixie or a Riding Dog?
A Ghoul or a Wolf?

CR5:

A Pixie or an Animated Object?
Dire Lion or Basilisk?
Manticore or Young Black Dragon?

See these fights aren't even close to equally challenging. A Grig at CR1 might be mostly immune to a fighters attacks and can sit in a tree and rain arrows down on his foes, or make them dance long enough that animals can tear them apart. What can a Gnoll do that comes close?

[Mr Bean]

Wait... Jub so you say which is worse then instantly give one side advantages?
Which is worse a Dire Lion or four orcs with heavy Crossbows firing from 9/10 cover?

Yes a Grig in it's home territory vs a riding dog would be an unfair fight but it's a frigging guideline. If your Level 2 Wizard has hit enough splatbooks that he has a 50/50 shot of taking on six Dire Lions at the same time we might have issues yes?

[Jub]

Wait... Jub so you say which is worse then instantly give one side advantages?
Which is worse a Dire Lion or four orcs with heavy Crossbows firing from 9/10 cover?

Yes a Grig in it's home territory vs a riding dog would be an unfair fight but it's a frigging guideline. If your Level 2 Wizard has hit enough splatbooks that he has a 50/50 shot of taking on six Dire Lions at the same time we might have issues yes?

You brought up CR, I showed examples from the book. You don't get to bitch that you picked a terrible example of game balance.

Also, those Orcs are terrible shots that likely won't hit at all. So the wizard can win by walking up, behind the mobile cover, I mean fighter, and casting sleep. Or, if the wizard is smart, he whips out a tower shield, takes a defensive stance, walks up alone, sets down the shield and then casts sleep. That tactic is 100% PHB as well, so we're not even talking splat books. Does that make a first level wizard with between 4 and 6 hp and a normally bad AC over powered, or does it mean mooks with crossbows are bad compared to an actual threat with spell like abilities?

Now let me answer my questions and show you why fighters suck.

CR1:

A Grig or a Gnoll? The Grig is tougher, by virtue of it's ability to go invisible, high AC, DR, and it's fiddle.
A Nixie or a Riding Dog? The Nixie, no challenge.
A Ghoul or a Wolf? The ghoul, it can wear gear and paralyze the party.

CR5:

A Pixie or an Animated Object? The Pixie, again SLA's beat brawn.
Dire Lion or Basilisk? Basilisk, the dire lion has few options against a smart party.
Manticore or Young Black Dragon? The Dragon, once again it has actual options in combat.

See the pattern? More options beats less and makes for a harder fight. The same goes for the caster versus the mundane members of the party.

[Simon_Jester]

Good lord, can a mod split out this talk to its own thread? This argument started only tangentially related to OOTS, and by now isn't even close to still talking about the strips.

Fair enough.

I think the original point which kicked this off was that in OotS-land, direct damage actually seems to work as a mechanism for caster duels, though it's not the only option. Maybe it's not supposed to, but it does. I kind of like that, for some reason.

[PainRack]

Pretty much what simon says. Wizards, especially towards the beginning of the game need their team to handle any threat they don't have a spell prepared for. As the game progresses, the casters need to learn to work with their team to be more than a Wizard and his meat shields. Wizards bring options to the table, spells that help you get around easier, battlefield control, communication, buffs. Direct damage is the least of what they can do, a capability they share with everyone else.

Sure, you can build a Wizard that can smite everything that looks at him wrong, in much the same way you "can" (assuming the world's most permissive DM) play Pun-pun. But the game will suck for both you and everyone playing with you if it's all you. Wizards are supposed to be wise men, creative and intelligent in their use of magic, and there's no creativity in a Fireball.

To bring this back to OOTS, isn't this exactly what V chose to do?

And then flubbed because he chose to make a saving throw to sanity instead?:D

[Jub]

Pretty much what simon says. Wizards, especially towards the beginning of the game need their team to handle any threat they don't have a spell prepared for. As the game progresses, the casters need to learn to work with their team to be more than a Wizard and his meat shields. Wizards bring options to the table, spells that help you get around easier, battlefield control, communication, buffs. Direct damage is the least of what they can do, a capability they share with everyone else.

Sure, you can build a Wizard that can smite everything that looks at him wrong, in much the same way you "can" (assuming the world's most permissive DM) play Pun-pun. But the game will suck for both you and everyone playing with you if it's all you. Wizards are supposed to be wise men, creative and intelligent in their use of magic, and there's no creativity in a Fireball.

To bring this back to OOTS, isn't this exactly what V chose to do?

And then flubbed because he chose to make a saving throw to sanity instead?:D

To stay on the topic of OOTS. Is there any creativity in a Prismatic Spray either?

There is far more creativity in a harmonious build than there is in something that is cobbled together and suboptimal. One can be done without care and without research, and the other happens after much reading and planning. Which is, in the end, more creative?

[PainRack]

To stay on the topic of OOTS. Is there any creativity in a Prismatic Spray either?

There is far more creativity in a harmonious build than there is in something that is cobbled together and suboptimal. One can be done without care and without research, and the other happens after much reading and planning. Which is, in the end, more creative?

I don't really play D&D and my interest in the game is purely because of its impact on fantasy. The last time I played a game was in.... 1998 and that was as a mere participant.

Having said that, the effect is purely on GAMEPLAY. You essentially came into the thread and said that wizards should always play in easy mode....

I had a Mechwarrior game where my player once said "let's stop fighting in Mechs and throw them into an infantry firefight on Battletech scale instead." Why? Because mechs in RPG mode have become too easy and boring.(Look, if your mech fight evolves into mechwarriors sticking middle fingers out of the cockpit at each other, ......... yeah..........) Instead, the sheer challenge of having an assymetrical fight, of infantry against other infantry and for boss mode, a Battlemech was the challenge he wanted.

And that's what people are reacting to. Now, if you're involved in a game where you have to optimise that much just to stay alive, go ahead. I never run such a game myself but I can see where the fun and challenge is, but stop bashing others who want to play it slow instead. But seriously, part of the reason for gameplay being fun IS to restrict resources. If I allow you to have an Assault Mech with lostech running out of the gazoo, well,I need to hit you with some kinda penalty just to maintain that penalty.

For like it or not, demi-gods become EXTREMELY difficult to gameplay, at least for a GM anyway.

[PKRudeBoy]

The problem is, at least with any DM that I've played with, the DM is just as good at optimizing as the players are, and have infinitely more resources to work with then you. Anything you can do as a player is fair game for your foes, but when that goes to it's logical conclusion, you end up with Instant Respawn Rocket Tag Pileup! from all the contingencies and time stops and contingent time stops in a battle comprised solely of focused specialist Wizards. If I wanted to play Instant Respawn Rocket Tag Pileup! I would break out my copy of Paranoia, because it's better designed for it.

Jub, why hasn't your Wizard already been killed by the Big Bad Evil Boss Wizard at the end of the plotline? After all, they probably have a higher INT then you do so if you could think of scry and die, why haven't they already taken care of their future problem?

[Jub]

The problem is, at least with any DM that I've played with, the DM is just as good at optimizing as the players are, and have infinitely more resources to work with then you. Anything you can do as a player is fair game for your foes, but when that goes to it's logical conclusion, you end up with Instant Respawn Rocket Tag Pileup! from all the contingencies and time stops and contingent time stops in a battle comprised solely of focused specialist Wizards. If I wanted to play Instant Respawn Rocket Tag Pileup! I would break out my copy of Paranoia, because it's better designed for it.

Jub, why hasn't your Wizard already been killed by the Big Bad Evil Boss Wizard at the end of the plotline? After all, they probably have a higher INT then you do so if you could think of scry and die, why haven't they already taken care of their future problem?

The question of why you're being allowed to live is one that the DM should be thinking of before the game even starts. Perhaps he only looks at those that will be a threat within a set timeline and your adventure takes place between him checking up when he swings by this particular plane of existence. Maybe he knows that you'll come to threaten him, but a god has blocked him from seeing the end result so he's waiting and gathering more information about the PC's. Who knows, and who cares, the fact remains that you can have a crazy powered game with a plot and challenging combat without pushing it into rocket tag territory.

[Crazedwraith]

To stay on the topic of OOTS. Is there any creativity in a Prismatic Spray either?

Nothing. It's almost like the creativity and interest in OotS is to do with the plotting, humour and characterisation and not V's spells selection. Fancy that?

[Jub]

To stay on the topic of OOTS. Is there any creativity in a Prismatic Spray either?

Nothing. It's almost like the creativity and interest in OotS is to do with the plotting, humour and characterisation and not V's spells selection. Fancy that?

Exactly, so what would it matter if they were optimized as long as the story is still good?

[Sharp-kun]

We had an issue in our last D&D game (4ED) where one of my mates was a cleric. He decided to find out what would happen if he ignored anything that wasn't a healing spell when taking abilities. Unintentionally he created the most broken thing possible - no one else in the party could die. The only way around it for the GM was to either work encounters such that he would be sidelined and unable to help or to have a big anti-healing fuck you field. Neither of those are good options for more than a fight or two.

In the end he and the DM had a chat since it wasn't fun for either of them (since there was no challenge in any encounter and the DM had to keep thinking of "fuck you!" ways around him) and he rolled a new character for most of the rest of the campaign, his old one becoming an NPC he took over again for the final session.

That's the way things should work ideally. DM and player come to a nice consensus of how to solve the OP character problem.

[Jub]

We had an issue in our last D&D game (4ED) where one of my mates was a cleric. He decided to find out what would happen if he ignored anything that wasn't a healing spell when taking abilities. Unintentionally he created the most broken thing possible - no one else in the party could die. The only way around it for the GM was to either work encounters such that he would be sidelined and unable to help or to have a big anti-healing fuck you field. Neither of those are good options for more than a fight or two.

In the end he and the DM had a chat since it wasn't fun for either of them (since there was no challenge in any encounter and the DM had to keep thinking of "fuck you!" ways around him) and he rolled a new character for most of the rest of the campaign, his old one becoming an NPC he took over again for the final session.

That's the way things should work ideally. DM and player come to a nice consensus of how to solve the OP character problem.

Agreed.

I'm only taking the hardline stance I am because people seem to think that playing a min-maxed caster somehow equates with not being able to RP and have an interesting game.

[Simon_Jester]

Playing stories with interesting supermen is quite possible- read Zelazny's Corwin of Amber novels for an example. The protagonist is a multiverse-walking demigod with superhuman strength, regenerative powers, magical abilities both implied and literal, and the ability to literally make universes containing whatever he desires.

However, the protagonist also has very real limitations- such as not being able to see what's happening except at his own location, such as not always being able to tell when he's being lied to and manipulated, such as not actually being able to fight and win against a hundred soldiers at once, even if he could (and does) cut down a hundred men one at a time without even stopping for breath.

These limitations, along with the unique abilities other people have and he doesn't, help to define the story.

Since the object of 'optimizing' a D&D character is usually to abolish as many of their limitations and weaknesses as possible, it becomes much harder to define a story involving them that doesn't end with "push button, win plot."

Exactly, so what would it matter if they were optimized as long as the story is still good?

Because there would be much less opportunity for the characters to make, and learn from, mistakes. The Order suffers repeatedly from V's inability to cast Teleport, which is a consequence of the elf's (suboptimal) build. Mindless monsters present credible threats to the party- again because V can't just one-shot all the encounters. Durkon dies to a vampire cleric who may be higher level than him but not that much higher level- if his build were optimized, surely he'd have won that one, because what kind of anti-optimization is more pathetic than "vampire cleric?"

The Order lacks the raw scrying ability to pull 'scry and die' tactics, is forced to accept that they have limited time and can't always rest up as they'd like between fights, and so on.

A party of 'optimized' characters would have to have an entirely different story told about them, and one that many of us would find less entertaining. As noted, it would reduce to Instant Respawn Rocket Tag Pileup.

[Napoleon the Clown]

The "right way to play" is the way that everyone enjoys. Whether that's everyone being ungodly powerful or everyone having to be sure and play smart during every encounter. You "win" at D&D by everyone having a good time. Hell, you can lose a fight and still win D&D if everyone had fun in the process. There is no single tactic that is the best way to play for all groups.

These kinds of conversation are basically just people trying to say "my opinion is more right than yours." Personally, I like a play style where everyone is a badass that can take on encounters designed for their level with relative ease, and then throwing in fights where they have to play smart. You go into a fight that should be moderately challenging and, because you designed your character intelligently, you come off far better than expected. Then your next fight is above CR and you actually get threatened by it. That's the great part about a powerful party. They can have those fights that show off how badass they are and they can feel like their characters are something special. And then you give them those fights where they start looking for retreat options. Sometimes being able to just dominate a fight will be a blast. But then it can also be a blast to have that fight where if you don't play smart you could be taken captive or even die.

And honestly, there are more ways to challenge a character than just tossing them into a fight. Your party is composed of people who can kick the ass of stuff that should kill them? Okay, throw them into a social setting where violence won't get them what they want. They can screw up in a way that allows a side-quest that will let them role-play their characters, maybe discover an aspect of the character's personality they didn't expect. And if the party prefers to just fight through everything... Well, then they can go into a bar and pick fights. D&D is about having fun, not about playing a character exactly according to the numbers on the character sheet.

That Wizard with an intellect that would put the greatest minds to shame? Maybe they never had tactical training. Maybe their education level hasn't exposed them to all these spells that would make them horrifically powerful. As the person playing the character, you can decide "Okay, so there's this killer combo. But maybe the spells needed for it are not the ones my Wizard has encountered. Or the Wizard may have an incredible grasp of spells and know many things but hasn't ever been trained in proper battle tactics." You can play a character with an effective 34 in Int that doesn't know everything and isn't a tactical genius. Or, if everyone is going to have fun even if you play a tactical genius artillery piece, then you can just play like that.


OotS? The characters in it may not be mechanically optimized, but they're designed in a way that makes for a good story. That's the important part. You can tell a story with D&D, and if playing minimally optimized characters tells the story people want told, then they're building great characters. If the story the people involved want told involves optimized characters, then playing optimized characters is the way to go. OotS is the former. That doesn't make the latter wrong. If the characters make for a good story, then their build is a fantastic build. It's about entertainment.

[PKRudeBoy]

We had an issue in our last D&D game (4ED) where one of my mates was a cleric. He decided to find out what would happen if he ignored anything that wasn't a healing spell when taking abilities. Unintentionally he created the most broken thing possible - no one else in the party could die. The only way around it for the GM was to either work encounters such that he would be sidelined and unable to help or to have a big anti-healing fuck you field. Neither of those are good options for more than a fight or two.

In the end he and the DM had a chat since it wasn't fun for either of them (since there was no challenge in any encounter and the DM had to keep thinking of "fuck you!" ways around him) and he rolled a new character for most of the rest of the campaign, his old one becoming an NPC he took over again for the final session.

That's the way things should work ideally. DM and player come to a nice consensus of how to solve the OP character problem.

Agreed.

I'm only taking the hardline stance I am because people seem to think that playing a min-maxed caster somehow equates with not being able to RP and have an interesting game.

No one is saying that it is impossible to have an interesting game and RP with min-maxed casters, just that they're not appropriate for every game. Personally, I think a game set in Netheril or the Imaskari Empire would be absolutely awesome with a party of nothing but optimized casters, having to deal with other optimized casters who are just as smart and have just as many resources as they do. Or a campaign in a Drow city-state, where everyone really is out to get you, and has spell resistance to boot! It's not that you cant have fun with very high power characters, but if the DM says something like 'I want to have a game that takes place building up a frontier region, with side arcs that involve representing it at court, exploring deeper into the frontier, and repelling a horde of monsters,' then Batman Wizard might not be the best pick for the game.

[lance]

Jub there is a set standard it's called Encounter level.

If your Level X Wizard can solo something meant for four people he's breaking EL. If he can solo something meant for four people four levels higher than he is he's getting into munchkin territory.

Actually a character should be able to solo something meant for 4 people of the same EL, as the character with worse stats, and equipment would be such an encounter.

The standard of playing D&D is to mix encounters to fight player strengths and weaknesses and if your party of 5th level adventures can fight and win vs an equivalent EL fight your doing fine. If they can struggle past and just beat a little bit higher EL fight fine.

Actually you should be able to go level +4- The same EL as a mirror party.

But if the Wizard can solo the fight you meant for all of them to have it's breaking. Sometimes it happens with someone getting smart/lucky/DM is dumb. But when up several fights and all are one and done affairs you've got a breakage. A weakness... a screw lose in the world.

The problem is that the wizard has so many options that he could be ending encounters left right and center in different ways. Touch of Idiocy, Black Tentacles, Grease, Color Spray, well rolled fireball, then out of combat things like fly, dimension door, invisibility can ruin the encounter

[lance]

Jub there is a set standard it's called Encounter level.

If your Level X Wizard can solo something meant for four people he's breaking EL. If he can solo something meant for four people four levels higher than he is he's getting into munchkin territory.

Actually a character should be able to solo something meant for 4 people of the same EL, as the character with worse stats, and equipment would be such an encounter.

The standard of playing D&D is to mix encounters to fight player strengths and weaknesses and if your party of 5th level adventures can fight and win vs an equivalent EL fight your doing fine. If they can struggle past and just beat a little bit higher EL fight fine.

Actually you should be able to go level +4- The same EL as a mirror party.

But if the Wizard can solo the fight you meant for all of them to have it's breaking. Sometimes it happens with someone getting smart/lucky/DM is dumb. But when up several fights and all are one and done affairs you've got a breakage. A weakness... a screw lose in the world.

The problem is that the wizard has so many options that he could be ending encounters left right and center in different ways, accidentally. Touch of Idiocy, Black Tentacles, Grease, Color Spray, well rolled fireball, then out of combat things like fly, dimension door, invisibility can ruin the encounter.

[Napoleon the Clown]

On the subject of the comic: 928 is up.

[Kuja]

And Miron is out of the game! Good pile-on by the Order.

Laurin has really gotta be scraping the bottom of the barrel for PP after all of this. I don't like the look of this spell though. Tarquin can soak a bit of aoe damage, while much more than 10 points is gonna put Belkar down.

[Dass.Kapital]

Spoiler

Count Durkulon should be going to OWN Tarquin in the next strip! Tarquin is focused on Sir Gree...Um, I mean Roy but has a high level Cleric/Vampire behind them. Yup, I predict Tarquin will move to stand over the helpless Roy and gloat....then get chowed on by Durkulon.

[Ahriman238]

Good tactics, and contingency spell backfire!

Do have to wonder at the first bits of dialogue, V signals the plan by saying "Xykon is feeling chilly today?" And Tarquin. "How did you get to be so high level without someone teaching you your place?" You get to be high-level by not letting people push you around or kill you off when they decide it's narratively convenient.

[Lord of the Abyss]

Good tactics, and contingency spell backfire!

Do have to wonder at the first bits of dialogue, V signals the plan by saying "Xykon is feeling chilly today?"

A possibility: It's code for "the big bad spellcaster we need to dogpile on (Xykon) is wearing a scarf (chilly today)". It may also refer to Roy using the same anti-spellcaster move that he used against "Xykon" in the illusion hall; it looks like he used it for real in panel 3.

[Lord of the Abyss]

Too late for an edit, but I see Burlew confirmed what it meant:

Well, they're right anyway. It's just as simple as, "The highest priority target is the guy with the scarf," said in such a way that Tarquin didn't understand that's what was being said. Belkar later reiterates in the vernacular this exact idea in his panel.