Is this what the average player/GM thinks "powergaming/optimization/min-maxing" looks like in D&D?

Is this what the average player/GM thinks "powergaming/optimization/min-maxing" looks like in D&D?

>warrior/rouge
no

No. Its not a caster. It is pretty edgy though

>warrior/rogue

Lol, as if an optimizer would fill his headband slot with something that just looks good.

>Extra attack in broad daylight
>Can sneak attack every attack while in shadows

Garbage combo

>average player/GM thinks

>No rule says you can't wear two

It clearly states that you can only use one shield at a time. This isn't min/maxing, this is shitty DM who's too beta to call his players out on their bullshit.

Maybe 3.P players, but I don't think its right to make fun of people with brain damage lime that.

No, see, you just have to make most of your attacks from the shadows, then 5-foot step out into daylight and gain your bonus attack.

>It clearly states that you can only use one shield at a time. This isn't min/maxing, this is shitty DM who's too beta to call his players out on their bullshit.

It doesn't matter anyway, because shield bonuses don't fucking stack.

>+10 headband (no mechanical bonus)
I have half a mind to keep him around for potential humor.

This is like an example of a inexperienced GM seeing something he doesn't know how to deal with. Like oh no! He outdamages my poorly optimized overleveled dmpc!

Nah, it's more like this

>average player/GM

Maybe back in early 2000s and before, but unlikely these days. It mainly depends on what how you define average player/GM in D&D. One who did not play past level 4 in 3.0 and stopped paying attention to the game after 11 years might think of this character as powergaming. Nowadays this character is more of a joke about disruptive scrubs than min-maxers.

So like a 'Timmy card'.

Hey I remember reading that comic

I feel like people forgeting what bonuses do and don't stack is pretty commen

I love that joke post. It was an ironic troll because 9/10th of the options listed don't work on the dragon and the others allow a save.

>Ivory tower was some group of designers assuming their playerbase was intelligent and didn't need interactions explained.
>Invented as a derogatory term for the system by one of the designers
>Used to blame selfsame designer because he apologized and acknowledged it while the others remained silent.

Da fuck am I scrying? Is this real?

Yep. 3.5 was intentionally designed with bad mechanics *on purpose*.

Don't worry, though, there's still clearly no such thing as caster superiority. That would be absurd.

You're an idiot.

I think the dragon symbolizes combat encounters in general rather than solely signifying a dragon.

Nah, just been around long enough to remember that images origin.

There's plenty of cool history.

This isn't a powergamer. This is a martial player attempting to bridge the gap and failing

Nope, that's just Shamus.
I recall reading DM of the Rings and enjoying it, but the comments that inevitably hinted at a super-railroady DM style that basically agrees with the comedic parody sort of put a damper on it.

>Shamus
What? Who?

>direct damage

>I'm an autistic faggot who doesn't allow creative use of martial abilities, but I will gladly spread open my ass cheeks to let my caster use his spells in the most effective way due to non-lateral thinking

This is the cancer that killed 3rd Edition.

And what creative use of martial abilities would these be?

Nigger, as 'creative' as you can be with your martial? I can be just as creative with all my spells and my SUMMON THAT FIGHTS JUST AS GOOD AS YOU CAN.

Blinding enemies with arrows, slitting enemies throats, sundering limbs.

Have you ever played D&D?

Give examples

>my SUMMON THAT FIGHTS JUST AS GOOD AS YOU CAN

I once killed a Hezrou that a level 10 Wizard summoned for a fight as a level 9 Barbarian just because he kept bragging about how powerful his summoning was.

He ragequit the skype session, and it took an hour of his friend convincing him to come back.

Good times.

Alright. Enjoy having all those things done to you.

They only have to be lucky once, remember. You? Every single fucking time.

All of which allow the enemy a chance to prevent it from happening, why give them a chance when you can just magic them into a pocket dimension or grease the ground under them & toss a fireball in their near vicinity.

Way to avoid the actual argument, you fucking faggot. All the 'creativity' you can do? I can do, and oh so much more because I have more options. You want to try and push horse-shit rules like hurdur arrow to the eye? Enjoy the fireball I just flicked into your mouth. Enjoy the summon water cantrip I just cast that went off in your skull. Enjoy the literally infinite options I have, you stupid dipshit.

>Blinding enemies with arrows

So a called shot to the eyeball to permanently maim someone. Enjoy your -5 while the Wizard can either cast blindness or creatively point out that he has an unnerring bolt of force that he can just direct towards the enemy's eyes, since we're being 'creative'

>slit their throat

You mean what your character tries to do on every single attack? Because you're trying to kill someone?

Either way, if we're allowing one-shot kills for creativity, then a caster can just cast Create Water in the enemy's lungs. Less messy and less difficult.

>Sundering limbs

So just called shots to the limbs. I'm sure glad the wizard can't summon a bear and have it rip people's arms off instead.

And this is also assuming that they didnt decide to pick up a sword and some strength themselves and buff themselves to do all this in the same way but better.

How do any of those things possibly compare to what casters can do? Slitting a throat is literally just fluff when you kill someone, or a Coup de Grace. Sundering limbs or shooting eyes is just a type of Called Shot.

All of these are purely examples of damage and debuff, and are fucking nothing compared to the amount of shit casters can do in any situation.

You've made a lot of fuss about creativity, but the fact is that games like D&D are governed by their rules. The rules give structure and provide a mechanical framework to roleplay in. And in the case of 3.x, that framework is heavily stacked against martials, no matter how much you might want to pretend otherwise. Martials can attack, or attempt to do things with a limited amount of skill points. Casters, with their bloated lists of spells, have something for every conceivable situation a GM could come up with that isn't designed purely to fuck them over.

>Martials are fine and I have the anecdotes to prove it!

Nigga, for all we know that fight basically came down to you getting super good dice rolls and the Hezrou not hitting once, and the Wizard left because you would not stop bragging about how good your barbarian when it was all just dumb luck.

Brain damage. I swear to god, the fucking edition induces aggressively cancerous brain damage in people.

Not like it matters. The Barb won a fight with a single spell slot, without the wizard backing it up.

Imagine if he summoned one, and then next turn he summoned another. And if he was worried about the barbarian going for him, he can just cast fly first before he starts dropping monsters

Lol, wow you're mad.

>charge with my 80 foot movement phase
>I grapple you

Wow, look at all that fancy sorcery I just avoided.

>All the creativity you can do

None of that is in the rules you "stupid dipshit", so if you want to rules lawyer, than rules lawyer. If you want to be an interpretive asshole, well then a single arrow aimed at your skull has about the same effect as your little "water cantrip", you "stupid dipshit".

Jesus kid, get a life.

I've never seen this level of butthurt from one simple post that merely was saying that martials can do things with weapons.

Jesus Christ, when did this board become infested with literal 12 year olds.

That, my triggered little fucktard, is the point.

None of your garbage is in the rules either, so if you want to go down that route, I have so many more options.

I win initiative, because I have a Int boosting familiar and have more open feats I can do without crippling myself(I get scrbe scroll for free, and that's all I really NEED), cast invisibility. Next turn I cast fly. What do you do now, faggot?

>Hurduur, I can totally win if I'm allowed to utterly invent rules!
>People called me out?! Uh, uuhhh, y-you're all babies!

Fuck off, kid.

If you follow the rules, Casters have more options than martials and are therefore better

If you allow 'creativity', Casters have a wide variety of magical powers to improvise and are therefore better.

Do you have a point?

>single spell slot
>Barbarian Rage is a spell

How come it still activates in Anti-Magic Shell then?

The anger is because they tried to imply that the problem was somehow fixed if you allowed Fighters to bounce arrows off of walls, when the issues run much deeper.

'Just be creative' doesn't fix anything.

Sorry. I phrased that poorly.

I meant, 'the barbarian won a fight AGAINST a single spell slot'

As in, the wizard used one use of his many, many daily abilities, and the Barbarian probably burned a rage and lost a fair chunk of hitpoints in the process.

>*average* GM

yes

>dispute is now butthurt
I told you about "safespace degradation" effect Veeky Forums,I told you ,dog.

I don't know what to tell you. I just really hate anecdotal evidence.

>winning initiative
>against a Barbarian

Looking at the players handbook right now. Which familiar gives the Sorcerer an Initiative bonus again? Because uhh, says here none of them do.

Do you have a point?

>Look, the little barbarian is proud he was able to defeat one of the summons of a Wizard.
This alone should show you how many miles above you he was in terms of power in the first place. Its far worse than being proud you were able to defeat the druids animal companion.

literally lol if you think sean reynolds has ever come close to acknowledging the faults of 3e

>Hurduur, I can totally win if I'm allowed to utterly invent rules!

>win

Found the kiddo.

Also:
>Hurduur, I can totally win if I'm allowed to utterly invent rules!

How exactly is sundering limbs making up rules? They give you rules for sundering limbs for enemies such as the Kraken and Hydra, so it can be applied to any other in the game.

>53 replies
>28 posters

There be an awful lot of samefagging going on in here.

That comes down to what, little less than 2 posts per poster?

Citation needed.

See, D&D is a joyful little creation called an Exception Based System. Meaning that unless the rule is explicitly general, it's only for those things.

But if you really want to go that route, ok. Every foe is going to be targeting your limbs now.

And yes, my little bitchboy, it is in fact, win an encounter.

So, called shots? They are in the rules.

>dispute

Disputing what? That players can think about how to approach combat?

"THIS GAME IS FANTASY
The action of a dungeons and dragons game takes place in the imaginations of the players. Like actors in a movie, players sometimes speak as if they were their characters or as if their fellow players were their characters. These rules even adopt that casual approach, using "you" to refer to and to mean "your character." In reality, however, you are no more your character than you are the king when you play chess. Likewise, the world implied by these rules is an imaginary one."

Aside from the fact that it specifically states in the 3.5 edition DMG guide under DETERMINING OUTCOMES "You're the arbiter of everything that happens in the game. Period."

So if the DM allows it, it's allowed and you have absolutely no say. Get over it I guess? Not sure what else to tell you.

>my little bitchboy

Lol, well at least we know why you play RPG games now, you're a power-fantasy loser who's so pathetic in real life he makes up how cool and edgy he is online and in the world of make believe.

"My little cuntboy." Now come over here so daddy can fuck your little pussy.

>if the DM explicitly goes against the rules the game is balanced
Veeky Forums I love you but how many times do we have to have this discussion?

Disputing that it matters.

Yes, if the DM allows, your fighter can make Jump checks to lop off the head of every enemy in one shot.

No, that doesn't mean Wizards are worse off, since they can still use spells to do the same thing, help out outside of fights, or boost their strength and jump skill to also chop of heads.

What are you not getting about this?

>citation needed

Never read the 3.5th edition Monster Manual huh?

>the anger
>he's literally getting angry over an RPG game

....Really?

>I have literally no argument, so let me spew insults

The 3.PF mindset, people. Fucking. Brain damage.

too often to count right now.

You literally can't read, can you? Exception. Based. You fucking faggot. Why do you think those rules are only under those monsters, rather then in the corebook itself?

>explicitly goes against the rules

>the rules state he's the arbiter of the rules and can allow whatever he wants

Are you a fucking tard?

>>I have literally no argument, so let me spew insults

>I ignore all the points being made because I have literally no argument outside of my insane little nutshell

You're a fucking nutter.

>....Really?

Yeah, I'm really confused why you're getting so upset about this.

You made no points, retard. Don't expect another reply unless you actually have anything to say.

>so it can be applied to any other in the game.
Not the guy you're replying to. This is the part that needs citing. It's sort of like saying "The game has rules for destroying a lich's phylactery, that means owlbear's have phylacterys."

>Rules clearly lay out how called shots work
>DM decides he's not going to handle called shots that way
>Not explicitly going against the rules
He's allowed to do it, sure. I'm not disputing that. But it doesn't mean that the rules are any good.

>So a called shot to the eyeball to permanently maim someone. Enjoy your -5
Also you need two arrows to get it.

>And this is also assuming that they didnt decide to pick up a sword and some strength themselves and buff themselves to do all this in the same way but better.
That's mainly a divine caster fare, though.

>your fighter can make Jump checks to lop off the head of every enemy in one shot.

Nice false equivalency, but I don't think Jumping would decapitate an enemy. Now a sword, there's something that could do that. Now if only there were rules for decapitation.

Now if only there was a way to attack with a sword...Well, damn, too bad but no luck here. Guess I'll just have to use these boots to jump!

>so upset

Lol, okay

>Rules clearly lay out how called shots work

There's multiple rules for many various things people are talking about scattered all throughout different supplements for 3.5.

Using the core rulebooks as the standard is not winning anything in your favor.

>Now if only there were rules for decapitation.
I'm honestly not aware of any rules for decapitation in 3.5. I know I'd fluff a killing blow that way sometimes, but it wasn't a special maneuver or anything, the player had just made an enemy's health tick down to 0.

>Nice false equivalency

It literally does not matter. Your entire argument was that the DM could make up the rules to let you do it.

He could rule that you need to lift his refrigerator, or pat your head and rub your belly.

Making it an attack roll changes nothing

>You made no points!
>As long as I ignore them they won't exist!

Nice ad hominem btw, I can tell you're not stranger to being a huge hypocritical faggot.

I can also guess that you have no friends and have never had a GF and are a kissless virgin.

>There's multiple rules for many various things people are talking about scattered all throughout different supplements for 3.5.
Yes. I'd label this as one of 3.5s problems. It makes it hard to "just be creative" about something because now you've completely nullified some feat or class, going by rules as written.

>Using the core rulebooks as the standard is not winning anything in your favor.
This bit I don't understand. I didn't say anything about core, and AFAIK there isn't anything about called shots in core that isn't a variant rule.

ITT: butthurt for miles

See

If someone were to post the forbidden one would it get the thread deleted or just a ban?

>combat is now based on how well someone can perform a skill

>having people with jumping contests flying into pieces

>people having duels to the death with lyre's and lutes

This sounds like a hilarious setting to use.

CHILDRENS CARD GAMES

>could make up rules to let you do it

>making it an attack roll changes nothing

Well, essentially, every single spell in the spell book is just a "problem solved" spell, so it's no more than just saying the magic words of "my spellcaster does X" and it's done, so there's actually more gameplay involved in combat.

See
Boy, why so upset?

>So upset that he spent time linking every single person who is proving him wrong

See

ON MOTORCYCLES

>GM gives overpowered equipment to the fighter: The Image
>complains about "powergaming/optimization/min-maxing"
literally what
if you don't want them to have it, don't give it to them

Bingo!

Well, idealistically speaking, if you're going to go that route, then all actions in the game are binary, and all spells, actions, and skills used are made merely to make an enemy go from 1 to 0.

That is, unless you actually use the fluff as roleplaying mechanics.

The rules are literally just there for you to feel safe and secure as a fall-back. The original comment was stating that you could use your weapons for more than just a standard attack and use them to disable foes, perhaps to not just 1HKO them and to cause them to surrender or disable them temporarily or permanently.

>if I say they prove him wrong, that means I'm right!

Aside from the various posts in direct response to them that objectively proves them to be wrong, and ignoring the ones that are simply stupid personal attacks, what are you talking about exactly?

>A barbed kukhri is overpowered

I'm fucking dying.

See

>exception
>based

A term you literally just made up on the spot which says nothing about what it says in the DMG or players handbook, congrats on being a fucking moron.

You know what I'm talking about, the image implies that it's overpowered, but even if it was overpowered in the first place, what's to stop you from denying it to the players?

Where does it state that, and you DO realize that this is a non-existent system(albeit one heavily based on D&D)?

Maybe he bought it with starting wealth.

>what it says in the DMG or players handbook

Following the conversation, nobody mentioned either of those. Some idiot was trying to claim that because a hydra has rules for decapitation, you can use those same rules against a dragon. Which doesn't follow, because if you could, the decapitation rules would also be listed under dragon, or be in another book as a generic thing you could do to anything.