Notices


Gaming Discussion

For all things gaming related.


DnD3.5e: An Argument that Dragon Compendium is not " Dragon Magazine"

   
I stopped reading when Atomic Dog said that the goal of optimization boards is to break the game. I don't argue with people who purposely spread misinformation.

Each one of those threads that mention the word "kobold' are in total agreement with you. The ones mentioning words like "Nightsticks" and "Precocious Apprentice" agree as well, but they're doing so from the shadows because they don't want everyone else seeing them.

Thank you for confusing Theoretical Optimization with Practical Optimization.

Only time I've seen Skill Focus that wasn't for a PrC requirement (or given as a bonus feat) was on a Truenamer, and that's more because Truenaming is borked than the feat being any worthwhile.

Well, I suppose I've also seen it on record attempts for jacking a particular skill. Even so, Chuck demolished any prior record with a jump check modifier in the high trillions and he didn't use skill focus. A shame WotC eratted away the core of that build, that was my favorite theoretical build.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyfeld View Post
Thank you for confusing Theoretical Optimization with Practical Optimization.
Which is why Nymph's Kiss is a perfectly balanced feat. Somehow. But hey, when one's argument doesn't hold up, it's often a good idea to try and swing the argument onto something completely asinine, pointless, and wholly irrelevant to the discussion at hand, yes?

Quote:
Originally Posted by snakeman830 View Post
Only time I've seen Skill Focus that wasn't for a PrC requirement (or given as a bonus feat) was on a Truenamer, and that's more because Truenaming is borked than the feat being any worthwhile.

Well, I suppose I've also seen it on record attempts for jacking a particular skill. Even so, Chuck demolished any prior record with a jump check modifier in the high trillions and he didn't use skill focus. A shame WotC eratted away the core of that build, that was my favorite theoretical build.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomic Dog View Post
Sorry, but yes, one of their goals is to break the game. And yes, Skill Focus does come up from time to time, particularly when they're relying on a skill check to make their cheese work. Heck, one of the reasons they dip into a level of Marshal is to score the free Skill Focus (Diplomacy) alongside the associated aura. Truenamer optimization uses it a lot, too, as do a few other specific builds.
Deja vu all over again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomic Dog View Post
Deja vu all over again.
No kidding. You just tried to twist words all over the place.

Truenamers use it ONLY because the Truenaming system itself is broken: you get worse at your main schtick as you level up (the Truespeak DC's increase faster than your check modifier). This has nothing to do with the viability of the feat, but is instead a weakness of the class/system in that they HAVE to go bonus-hunting everywhere just to do their main thing.

Also, you're forgetting that Nymph's Kiss is an Exalted feat, with all the baggage that comes with it (Supernatural, so it goes away in an AMF, you're stuck acting at the epitome of Good or you lose it, etc.)

Chuck was explicitly a Theoretical Optimization exercise. These are never meant to be used in an actual game, they are tests to see how far the system limits extend to see just what is actually possible under the rules. This allows us to know what is and isn't possible so we can better ourselves in Practical Optimization, which is the focus of those boards. The point of Practical Optimization is to make a character who is capable at his chosen role in a normal game.

The goal of optimization boards is not to break the game. The goal is to learn what is possible within the game and apply it in reasonable manners.

Quote:
Originally Posted by snakeman830 View Post
No kidding. You just tried to twist words all over the place.
Only because you want to see them that way.

Quote:
Truenamers use it ONLY because the Truenaming system itself is broken: you get worse at your main schtick as you level up (the Truespeak DC's increase faster than your check modifier). This has nothing to do with the viability of the feat, but is instead a weakness of the class/system in that they HAVE to go bonus-hunting everywhere just to do their main thing.
Sure seems it's about the viability of the feat since, you know, they're using it to "fix" the problem. If it was so useless, even Truenamers would be shunning it. Not that it matters because the discussion isn't actually about Skill Focus. It's about Nymph's Kiss. But, please, feel free to keep trying to twist the discussion to Skill Focus all you like. It's not going to work, but it's amusing watching you try so valiantly.

Quote:
Also, you're forgetting that Nymph's Kiss is an Exalted feat, with all the baggage that comes with it (Supernatural, so it goes away in an AMF, you're stuck acting at the epitome of Good or you lose it, etc.)
Oh no, roleplaying conditions! The horror! That doesn't seem to stop optimizers from recommending two-level dips into the Paladin class. Or recommending Ur-Priest even for builds that actively worship a deity or to players with no interest in playing an evil character. Or, as previously mentioned in the thread, the Saint template and select prestige classes and other options from the Book of Exalted Deeds. Which, again, is what the sub-discussion is about.

Quote:
Chuck was explicitly a Theoretical Optimization exercise. These are never meant to be used in an actual game, they are tests to see how far the system limits extend to see just what is actually possible under the rules.
And that's not trying to break the game... how exactly?

Quote:
This allows us to know what is and isn't possible so we can better ourselves in Practical Optimization, which is the focus of those boards. The point of Practical Optimization is to make a character who is capable at his chosen role in a normal game. [...]

The goal of optimization boards is not to break the game. The goal is to learn what is possible within the game and apply it in reasonable manners.
And yet I don't think I've ever come across a single one of these "practical optimizations" threads (a phrase I can't help but notice that you guys just started throwing around in the discussion now that your arguments that Nymph's Kiss isn't overpowered have been blown to the wind) in which they don't suggest broken concepts one way or another. Precocious Apprentice is a shining example of that in nearly any thread talking about caster prestige classes. Dragonwrought Kobolds come up very, very often, along with derogatory comments such as "if your DM is stupid enough to allow this." And Hell, I can link to a ton of threads here in the game ads section where people voice a desire to play one. The aforementioned Nightstick cheese is another example. So is using a Binder dip to get around the Hellfire Warlock limitation. Should I keep going?

And by optimization threads, I'm specifically talking about the so-called Handbooks. As I've linked to several times in a previous post. You know, the one first Greyfeld dismissed because he had no real arguments left, and the one you're jumping on the bandwagon with for God knows whatever reason.

An experienced DM knows how to never have overpowered players, and can provide them with a challange (and in my case, a couple even getting so pissed that THEY didn't plan accordingly that they through their dice across my table and stormed out) even at epic levels (30-35 to be exact in my case).

I don't care what books you use, etc, I'm the DM and you will be challenged and if your a penis about it, your ass will be handing me that character sheet.




 

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Myth-Weavers Status       Advertise with us