Y'know, Xan, Gene Ray is looking for an apprentice. I think you'd be perfect for the job. E-mail him at [REDACTED], alright?
:roll:
Beating a dead Arcadian Pony
Thu, 2005-06-02 11:44
#253
Beating a dead Arcadian Pony
Thu, 2005-06-02 15:20
#254
Beating a dead Arcadian Pony
Fig. A:
It's apparent that none of you got the point of the argument if you think that I said there's no animal as a feat with drawbacks....
Are you trying to claim that your side of the argument is not that d20 3.5 does not support the inclusion of feats with built-in drawbacks?
Fig B:
here[/url]"]
To whomever designed the feats to include the penalties from the 2e factions, I ask you to direct me to WotC examples of similiar penalties built into feats.
To whomever designed the feats to include the penalties from the 2e factions, I ask you to direct me to WotC examples of similiar penalties built into feats.
Thu, 2005-06-02 16:11
#255
Beating a dead Arcadian Pony
Y'know, Xan, Gene Ray is looking for an apprentice. I think you'd be perfect for the job. E-mail him at [REDACTED], alright?
:roll:
Wow. Isn't it amazing how the web attracts belligerent nut-jobs with no concept of good web design?
Thu, 2005-06-02 19:28
#256
Beating a dead Arcadian Pony
Xan, I've given up trying to have an intelligent debate with you. In part I'm giving up out of frustration; frustration from knowing you'll never concede but have no intention of arguing fairly. But mostly, I'm giving up because I feel like you're deriving some sort of sick pleasure out of being the villain and I want no part of it.
Thu, 2005-06-02 19:30
#257
Beating a dead Arcadian Pony
Y'know, Xan, Gene Ray is looking for an apprentice. I think you'd be perfect for the job. E-mail him at [REDACTED], alright?
:roll:
Wow. Isn't it amazing how the web attracts belligerent nut-jobs with no concept of good web design?
Nah what's greater is the number of people who want you to "Prove them wrong" and say they have evidence but don't put it forward.
Thu, 2005-06-02 20:10
#258
Beating a dead Arcadian Pony
Fig. A:
It's apparent that none of you got the point of the argument if you think that I said there's no animal as a feat with drawbacks....
Are you trying to claim that your side of the argument is not that d20 3.5 does not support the inclusion of feats with built-in drawbacks?
Fig B:
Emperor Xan here wrote:
To whomever designed the feats to include the penalties from the 2e factions, I ask you to direct me to WotC examples of similiar penalties built into feats.
I like how you took it out of context by failing to show how I was referring to feats that cannot be compensated for.
Thu, 2005-06-02 20:15
#259
Beating a dead Arcadian Pony
Fig. A:
It's apparent that none of you got the point of the argument if you think that I said there's no animal as a feat with drawbacks....
Are you trying to claim that your side of the argument is not that d20 3.5 does not support the inclusion of feats with built-in drawbacks?
Fig B:
Emperor Xan here wrote:
To whomever designed the feats to include the penalties from the 2e factions, I ask you to direct me to WotC examples of similiar penalties built into feats.
I like how you took it out of context by failing to show how I was referring to feats that cannot be compensated for.
Out of context? The second post was put out in its entirety. Also the context was given by a link to the post.
Thu, 2005-06-02 20:17
#260
Beating a dead Arcadian Pony
Epic mage destruction (only requires a 4th level fighter to reach):
Blind Fight
Swarm Fighting
Mage Slayer
Pierce Magical Protection
Pierce Magical Concealment
Let's start with an easy mathematical calculation to show the flaw.
21st level Wizard: CR 21
Per DMG, CR is the level 4 characters should possess with minimum resources to defeat the target. Following this, you can extrapolate that out to total levels necessary as 84.
The combination above allows 16 4th level fighters to surround the wizard and proceed to rip him up one side and down the other before the wizard has a prayer in hell of escaping without self immolation.
Combined levels of said characters: 16 x 4 = 64
Level difference from DMG's explanation on how CR works: 20.
Without magical enhancements, said fighters have a +19 to hit the wizard. No defensive casting allowed. Each spell evokes 16 AOO.
Who wins the fight?
Thu, 2005-06-02 20:19
#261
Beating a dead Arcadian Pony
Y'know, Xan, Gene Ray is looking for an apprentice. I think you'd be perfect for the job. E-mail him at [REDACTED], alright?
:roll:
Wow. Isn't it amazing how the web attracts belligerent nut-jobs with no concept of good web design?
Nah what's greater is the number of people who want you to "Prove them wrong" and say they have evidence but don't put it forward.
I'm sorry, I have finals and 59 days to finish my book, I should have thought about you first.
Thu, 2005-06-02 20:27
#262
Beating a dead Arcadian Pony
Epic mage destruction (only requires a 4th level fighter to reach):
[...This doesn't matter]
Who wins the fight?
Who wins? The mage if the mage has any sense at all and is played at all well because what mage would allow themselves to be surrounded by those 16 4th level fighters at once? What epic mage would NOT have contingencies on? What epic mage would not have any plans and not have their eyes open to see the fighters coming?
Basically you are saying that if ambushed and trapped an epic mage can be defeated by many low level characters. The thing is Xan that kind of thing is a plot related point and a character should be defeatable if they are properly ambushed.
Thu, 2005-06-02 20:34
#263
Beating a dead Arcadian Pony
Epic mage destruction (only requires a 4th level fighter to reach):
[...This doesn't matter]
Who wins the fight?
Who wins? The mage if the mage has any sense at all and is played at all well because what mage would allow themselves to be surrounded by those 16 4th level fighters at once? What epic mage would NOT have contingencies on? What epic mage would not have any plans and not have their eyes open to see the fighters coming?
Basically you are saying that if ambushed and trapped an epic mage can be defeated by many low level characters. The thing is Xan that kind of thing is a plot related point and a character should be defeatable if they are properly ambushed.
Do you want real world examples of how your statement is wrong?
Thu, 2005-06-02 20:51
#264
Beating a dead Arcadian Pony
Epic mage destruction (only requires a 4th level fighter to reach):
[...This doesn't matter]
Who wins the fight?
Who wins? The mage if the mage has any sense at all and is played at all well because what mage would allow themselves to be surrounded by those 16 4th level fighters at once? What epic mage would NOT have contingencies on? What epic mage would not have any plans and not have their eyes open to see the fighters coming?
Basically you are saying that if ambushed and trapped an epic mage can be defeated by many low level characters. The thing is Xan that kind of thing is a plot related point and a character should be defeatable if they are properly ambushed.
Do you want real world examples of how your statement is wrong?
You are suggesting that real world rules apply to a fantasy setting?
Thu, 2005-06-02 21:19
#265
Beating a dead Arcadian Pony
You are suggesting that real world rules apply to a fantasy setting?
All military tactics are the same now as they were then, only the technology has changed how and when you can use them.
Thu, 2005-06-02 22:03
#266
Beating a dead Arcadian Pony
Now, I'll just assume that you've done your bonus-adding correctly, but Xan, could you please explain to me how 16 fighters could surround one wizard? Because, unless I'm terribly mistaken, no more than eight opponents could fit in the squares around one opponent.
Wait, don't answer. I've got it. The wizard is Garganutan size so he occupies more squares and has a bigger area, and the fighters are all Tiny size so that more of them can fit in a space. And they're on the Astral plane so they can attack in three dimensions. I've got it, right?
But besides that, your "proof" that Mage Slayer is horrendous hinges on huge lapses in logic that make assumptions about very specific mechanics in the d20 system. You just invented a method for calculating appropriate encounters for a party of 16. Now, I know that you tell us all the time about your d20 rpg-publishing experience, but you also told us that, as of January of this year, you had a grand total of three actual gaming sessions under your belt, so I think that that sort of assumption is something of a stretch. And in this reasonable hypothetical, how exactly does a level 21 wizard allow himself to be surrounded defenseless by 16 enemy warriors without blasting them all to dust with a single epic spell and becoming immune to their attacks?
And I took those quotes directly, even including a link to the one that wasn't from a handful of posts previously. But the second quote didn't even matter, because in the first quote you claimed that we don't "get the point" of your argument if we think you're arguing against the idea that 3.5 d20 has feats that include drawbacks, which is, of course, what these entire 18 pages of nonsense have been about. I hardly think I need to prove that you've claimed that.
Fri, 2005-06-03 07:41
#267
Beating a dead Arcadian Pony
You are suggesting that real world rules apply to a fantasy setting?
All military tactics are the same now as they were then, only the technology has changed how and when you can use them.
That is so wrong it is funny. You are saying that there have been no tactical advances? Napoleon was just a very good student? The Civil War didn't demonstrate any needs to change prevailing tactical thought at all? The addition of modern artilery, planes, bombers, long range weaponry, guns didn't change anything tactically on the battle field other than the same tactics had to be altered to fit the new scenareo?
Oh PS: This also assumes that these 16 fighters are using military tactics. Why would they be trained in group tactics when fighters are generally individual warriors and mercinaries rather than soldiers?
PS: PS: Some food for thought:
Lets put that same average 21st level wizard in a room filled completly with an antimagic field(Min caster level 11th but also naturally occuring and can be perminantly placed on an area). Now without his magical abilities that wizard only has a +11/+6/+1 attack bonus and for hp he would have as a base between a minimum of 24 (all ones rolled) and 84 (all sixes rolled). Now we add in any con bonus, but even an epic wizard probably isn't boosting con to the extreem so we'll give him a +2 bonus w/o any magical items which translates into another 40hp. Now we'll assume that he rolls well for his hp and comes up for a total of 104hp which is above average.
Now to have that same attack bonus a fighter has to be level 11. We'll give the fighter the same con bonus and average hp. Now for a d10 the average roll would be (10+1)/2=5.5 and multiply that by 10 (first level maxed) we get 55. Plus first level and con bonus would bring that up to 87 total hp, less than the wiz but still considerable.
Looking at the match up so far the wiz is still in the lead. However consider that the fighter would certanly have a better str (Obviosly he didn't put his good stat into con) and could very well have equal or better dex than the wizard. Add into this that the fighter is almost certainly wearing armor while the wizard almost certainly is not. Furthermore, consider the weapons each will use. The fighter can pick from any martial weapon and has more than enough feats to get an exotic weapon if he likes. The wizard traditionally would be using something like a staff, dagger, or if he invested a feat or two could be using a rapier w/his dex bonus to hit.
Without going through any more math I think it is fairly clear that the fighter will probably win. All he has to do is keep that wizard inside the room.
Now a gang of low level fighters could also beat up the wizard. Firstly the wizard would be flanked and if the fighters from ranks around him (a well known tactic even in the ancient world) some could jab at him with spears while others hit him with swords. He could still be brought down relativly easilly, though he might take out one or two of the lowbies. They certainly wouldn't let him out of the room as that would mean their certain death.
Just food for thought.
Fri, 2005-06-03 09:28
#268
Beating a dead Arcadian Pony
Let's all drop this pointless tangent. Xan's not going to throw off the arguments like that. The facts stand that Mage Slayer fulfills all the criteria, regardless of anybody's personal opinions about the feat.
Fri, 2005-06-03 09:56
#269
Beating a dead Arcadian Pony
Hi, Xan! This is Baloo from WOTC’s chat. You told us to come check out this thread, and now I have. I tried telling you these things in the chat, but you must have had me on ignore or something, since I never saw you reply to any of these issues.
Epic mage destruction (only requires a 4th level fighter to reach):
Blind Fight
Swarm Fighting
Mage Slayer
Pierce Magical Protection
Pierce Magical Concealment
First, that character is illegal. You can’t take Mage Slayer until 3rd level, which means you have to use your 4th level feat both for Pierce Magical Protection and Pierce Magical Concealment.
Without magical enhancements, said fighters have a +19 to hit the wizard. No defensive casting allowed. Each spell evokes 16 AOO.
Said fighters do not have a +19 to hit. Swarmfighting maxes the bonus out at the attacker’s Dexterity bonus. In the chat, you said the fighters were halflings. Let’s assume they’re using the elite array of stats, and put their top stat in Str (they are fighters, after all), their second stat in Dex, and increased Str at 4th level. This gives them Str 14 (15 –2 race +1 level) and Dex 16 (14 +2 race). That’s a Dex bonus of +3. Combined with flanking, this gives the halflings +5 to hit the wizard. This will give them a total attack bonus of +13(+4 BAB, +2 Str, +1 size, +1 masterwork or magic; +5 situational). Also note that the Swarmfighting bonus only affects the attack roll, not damage.
Second, Pierce Magical Protection doesn’t undo all magical protections. It specifically only affects spells that give a bonus to AC (such as mage armor, protection from evil, shield of faith and barkskin. It does not affect spells that give DR (like stoneskin), concealment (like displacement – although Pierce Magical Concealment does that, but you can’t have both of them at 4th level). It won’t affect the wizard’s bracers of armor +8, his ring of protection +5 or his possible amulet of natural armor +5 (though most wizards will prefer an amulet of health +6 over that, assuming you don’t allow them to make a custom item that includes the effect of both, or that you don’t let them put either effect in some other item slot). The wizard will likely have an AC of over 30, and a contingency with stoneskin in (at the very least).
So the halflings will need a 17 or so to hit. That gives us three hits. Assume they use Small greatswords – heck, let’s make them greatswords +1. That means they’ll do 1d10+4 damage (+2x1.5 Str, +1 enhancement). Most of that won’t get through the wizard’s stoneskin – an average of 1 point per attack. Even if one of them crits, that’s a max of 28 points of damage, which gets reduced to 18 by the stoneskin. Since the wizard has 24 ranks in Concentration, and a Con bonus of at least +4, he has a concentration check of +28 (ignoring any items he might have that increase this).
So even assuming that the 16 halflings can surround the wizard (and you’d think that a 20th level wizard would have been around the block a few times and wouldn’t let himself be surrounded that way), the likely outcome is:
Surprise round: halflings move in and draw their weapons (if they have their weapons drawn already, the wizard will certainly not allow them to surround him).
Round 1: Halflings attack (the wizard probably has a better initiative than the halflings, but let’s say they rolled well). Contingency with stoneskin is activated. Wizard takes no damage, either because the halflings miss or can’t penetrate DR. Wizard casts greater fireburst (from Complete Arcane, does 1d8/level (max 15d8) to all within 10 ft except the caster), provoking attacks of opportunity. One of them crits and does 20 points of damage, reduced to 10 by stoneskin. Wizard easily succeeds in Concentration check (DC 10+damage+spell level = 10+10+5 = 25) without even having to roll. Halflings take 15d8 damage, for an average of 68. Halflings have ~30 hp, so even if they save they’re dead (or dying).
End result: wizard takes 15 points of damage (3 from the halflings’ regular attacks, 2+10 for the halflings’ AoOs). Halflings die, with their flesh melting from their bones. Wizard then proceeds to hunt down the halflings’ families as well as anyone who aided them in this endeavor, and proceeds to slaughter those as well.
To the rest of you guys, hi! Nice to meet ya!
Fri, 2005-06-03 11:03
#270
Beating a dead Arcadian Pony
Oh, snap!
Fri, 2005-06-03 11:33
#271
Beating a dead Arcadian Pony
Now, I'll just assume that you've done your bonus-adding correctly, but Xan, could you please explain to me how 16 fighters could surround one wizard? Because, unless I'm terribly mistaken, no more than eight opponents could fit in the squares around one opponent.
Wait, don't answer. I've got it. The wizard is Garganutan size so he occupies more squares and has a bigger area, and the fighters are all Tiny size so that more of them can fit in a space. And they're on the Astral plane so they can attack in three dimensions. I've got it, right?
But besides that, your "proof" that Mage Slayer is horrendous hinges on huge lapses in logic that make assumptions about very specific mechanics in the d20 system. You just invented a method for calculating appropriate encounters for a party of 16. Now, I know that you tell us all the time about your d20 rpg-publishing experience, but you also told us that, as of January of this year, you had a grand total of three actual gaming sessions under your belt, so I think that that sort of assumption is something of a stretch. And in this reasonable hypothetical, how exactly does a level 21 wizard allow himself to be surrounded defenseless by 16 enemy warriors without blasting them all to dust with a single epic spell and becoming immune to their attacks?
And I took those quotes directly, even including a link to the one that wasn't from a handful of posts previously. But the second quote didn't even matter, because in the first quote you claimed that we don't "get the point" of your argument if we think you're arguing against the idea that 3.5 d20 has feats that include drawbacks, which is, of course, what these entire 18 pages of nonsense have been about. I hardly think I need to prove that you've claimed that.
How nice, an ad hominem attack and your "so-called" superior knowledge of d20 made you overlook Swarmfighter, which allows 2 Small-sized individuals to occupy the same square.
I think its funny none of you know military history but tell me that tactically none of this is possible.
Lemme name a few examples:
Warsaw Ghetto, WWII
Stalingrad, WWII
Russian General surrenders entire batallion to 9 Finns armed with cross-country skis & high-powered rifle.
Little Big Horn
Something about some pesant farmers in Mexico who defeated the French on some holiday we seem to celebrate on May 5 every year.
Hannibal (numerous battles where he fought with irregulars against superior Roman troops, but that's tactically not accurate for a fantasy world, right?)
Want more?
Fri, 2005-06-03 11:42
#272
Beating a dead Arcadian Pony
Oh, snap!
Except I thought about that and, damn, guess what, those AC bonuses don't stack according to the DMG, and I even had people work with me on this one. OOPS!!! Try again!
Fri, 2005-06-03 11:50
#273
Beating a dead Arcadian Pony
Except I thought about that and, damn, guess what, those AC bonuses don't stack according to the DMG, and I even had people work with me on this one. OOPS!!! Try again!
Not sure which DMG you are reading or who helped you, but my DMG says they stack:
bracers of armor +8 - Armor bonus
ring of protection +5 - Deflection bonus
amulet of natural armor +5 - Natural armor bonus (technically an enhancement bonus to natural armor bonus)
Different bonuses. They stack. Heck, throw in a shield spell for a few more points if you want.
For more info:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040127a
(And I think it's safe to assume Skip Williams is an authoritative WotC source.)
Fri, 2005-06-03 11:51
#274
Beating a dead Arcadian Pony
And I think it's safe to assume Skip Williams is an authoritative WotC source.
And what does that say about Sage Advice?
Fri, 2005-06-03 11:55
#275
Beating a dead Arcadian Pony
Xan, I've given up trying to have an intelligent debate with you. In part I'm giving up out of frustration; frustration from knowing you'll never concede but have no intention of arguing fairly. But mostly, I'm giving up because I feel like you're deriving some sort of sick pleasure out of being the villain and I want no part of it.
Hey, there's a reason why all my posts to this thread in the past few months have been Parody Patrol material. I'm performing a public service!
Fri, 2005-06-03 11:59
#276
Beating a dead Arcadian Pony
And I think it's safe to assume Skip Williams is an authoritative WotC source.
And what does that say about Sage Advice?
That Sage Advice is correct (even though Skip Williams no longer writes it. I think Andy Collins does now after WotC gave Skip the ol' corporate heave-ho.)
But did Sage Advice say that Mage Slayer is a broken feat that needs to be fixed? Or that Mage Slayer does not have an inherent drawback?
Anyway, I didn't want to get pulled too deeply into the fray. Just wanted to clarify that that AC bonuses in Staffan's wizard build do indeed stack.
Fri, 2005-06-03 12:01
#277
Beating a dead Arcadian Pony
And I think it's safe to assume Skip Williams is an authoritative WotC source.
And what does that say about Sage Advice?
That Sage Advice is correct (even though Skip Williams no longer writes it. I think Andy Collins does now after WotC gave Skip the ol' corporate heave-ho.)
But did Sage Advice say that Mage Slayer is a broken feat that needs to be fixed? Or that Mage Slayer does not have an inherent drawback?
Anyway, I didn't want to get pulled too deeply into the fray. Just wanted to clarify that that AC bonuses in Staffan's wizard build do indeed stack.
What it says is that the feat was not intended for use by spellcasters of any sort, ruling out Mage Slayer from the original purpose that it was presented to me as a counter to my argument. Thus, I win the debate.
Fri, 2005-06-03 12:04
#278
Beating a dead Arcadian Pony
Xan, I've given up trying to have an intelligent debate with you. In part I'm giving up out of frustration; frustration from knowing you'll never concede but have no intention of arguing fairly. But mostly, I'm giving up because I feel like you're deriving some sort of sick pleasure out of being the villain and I want no part of it.
All's fair in love and war, Enzo; and if love is hell, imagine war, because that's how I apporach debates, with the same strategies and tactics I'd use for a war.
Fri, 2005-06-03 12:09
#279
Beating a dead Arcadian Pony
Despite the feat's name, the benefits apply against both arcane and divine spell casters -- this feat isn't specifically intended for use by divine casters against arcane casters.
Flavor text does apply. I win.
I don't have that issue of dragon in front of me, but your quote says "this feat isn't specifically intended for use by divine casters against arcane casters."
Is there more to the quote that states "that the feat was not intended for use by spellcasters of any sort."
I'm not seeing it. "not specificially designed for A to use against B" certainly isn't the same statement as "not intended for A or B" to use. Besides, what about the penalty to spell-like abilities? That's certainly not class-specific. Who's speaking up for all of the poor fighters with spell-like abilities if we don't?
Fri, 2005-06-03 12:22
#280
Beating a dead Arcadian Pony
Despite the feat's name, the benefits apply against both arcane and divine spell casters -- this feat isn't specifically intended for use by divine casters against arcane casters.
Flavor text does apply. I win.
I don't have that issue of dragon in front of me, but your quote says "this feat isn't specifically intended for use by divine casters against arcane casters."
Is there more to the quote that states "that the feat was not intended for use by spellcasters of any sort."
I'm not seeing it. "not specificially designed for A to use against B" certainly isn't the same statement as "not intended for A or B" to use. Besides, what about the penalty to spell-like abilities? That's certainly not class-specific. Who's speaking up for all of the poor fighters with spell-like abilities if we don't?
It is based on the fact that we know that the spell system for arcane magic is the same as divine magic. If the feat penalized arcane and divine spellcasters equally, does it not correspond that the intention crosses over?
Fri, 2005-06-03 12:28
#281
Beating a dead Arcadian Pony
How nice, an ad hominem attack and your "so-called" superior knowledge of d20 made you overlook Swarmfighter, which allows 2 Small-sized individuals to occupy the same square.
I think its funny none of you know military history but tell me that tactically none of this is possible.
Lemme name a few examples:
Warsaw Ghetto, WWII
Stalingrad, WWII
Russian General surrenders entire batallion to 9 Finns armed with cross-country skis & high-powered rifle.
Little Big Horn
Something about some pesant farmers in Mexico who defeated the French on some holiday we seem to celebrate on May 5 every year.
Hannibal (numerous battles where he fought with irregulars against superior Roman troops, but that's tactically not accurate for a fantasy world, right?)
Want more?
Sure. give us more. But next time tell how these examples are relevent to your argument against an in-game mechanic? The number of opponents able to attack a single target with melee weapons is somewhat arbitrarly defined by the rules.
However I do applaud your ability to name off historic battles from the top of your head. BTW: You can get the same information that you presented above by watching the history channel or by attending a few collegate classes on history.
Oh and most battles in the ancient world, even up to the present day are fought with one side using "irregular" troops. The US military is the deviant as far as fighting forces go, and not the norm.
Fri, 2005-06-03 12:34
#282
Beating a dead Arcadian Pony
It is based on the fact that we know that the spell system for arcane magic is the same as divine magic. If the feat penalized arcane and divine spellcasters equally, does it not correspond that the intention crosses over?
But my mage-slaying drow ranger not only has weak ranger spells, his darkness lasts 4 hour less!
Anyway, to your question, you are reading a lot more into the quote than it really there. Sure, I'll grant you that it's not specifically designed for arcane casters to use against divine casters. "Not specifically designed for A to use against B" does not even imply "A can't use it" or even "A shouldn't use it". Show me where Sage Advice says divine casters can't take Mage Slayer, and I'll concede that arcane casters can't take it, either.
As it stands, they can take it, and they can get a penalty. It's suboptimal, but so are 16 greatsword-wielding halfling fighters that Staffan BBQ'ed.
Either way, will no one help my mage slaying drow ranger? Will no one prove that Mage Slayer doesn't apply to spell-like abilities or non-primary casters?! I don't want him to be penalized since feats don't have penalties.
Fri, 2005-06-03 12:35
#283
Beating a dead Arcadian Pony
Well if we want to really figure out if a feat is broken, in the end, there is only one way and that is to look at how it is used in play by several different players through the coarse of a game.
What do your players think of the Mage Slayer feat? Anyone have expiriance with it?
Fri, 2005-06-03 12:36
#284
Beating a dead Arcadian Pony
Sure. give us more. But next time tell how these examples are relevent to your argument against an in-game mechanic? The number of opponents able to attack a single target with melee weapons is somewhat arbitrarly defined by the rules.
However I do applaud your ability to name off historic battles from the top of your head. BTW: You can get the same information that you presented above by watching the history channel or by attending a few collegate classes on history.
Oh and most battles in the ancient world, even up to the present day are fought with one side using "irregular" troops. The US military is the deviant as far as fighting forces go, and not the norm.
As to how tactics apply to D&D: Minatures Handbook, Heroes of Battle, Battifield Adventures
Fri, 2005-06-03 12:38
#285
Beating a dead Arcadian Pony
Sure. give us more. But next time tell how these examples are relevent to your argument against an in-game mechanic? The number of opponents able to attack a single target with melee weapons is somewhat arbitrarly defined by the rules.
However I do applaud your ability to name off historic battles from the top of your head. BTW: You can get the same information that you presented above by watching the history channel or by attending a few collegate classes on history.
Oh and most battles in the ancient world, even up to the present day are fought with one side using "irregular" troops. The US military is the deviant as far as fighting forces go, and not the norm.
As to how tactics apply to D&D: Minatures Handbook, Heroes of Battle, Battifield Adventures
I wasn't saying that they don't apply. What I'm saying is that you are not a de-facto expert Xan. Just because you're enlisted military does not nessasarly mean you know more than anyone else here. It might mean that you know more than the average but not more than anyone else.
Furthermore, even if you did have a superior knowledge of military tactics that doesn't mean you know how tactics in a fantasy roleplaying game should work. There is a reason adventuring is not a common profesion. If the world of Planescape worked like the realworld and realworld tactics worked exactly as they do in the fantasy world then there would not be the adventurers.
Finaly, tactics has nothing to do with wether or not the feat in question is broken. This is a tangential argument.
Yes low level fighters in the right curcumstances can beat an epic mage with this feat.
However, Low level fighters could beat an epic mage without this feat as well.
Fri, 2005-06-03 12:46
#286
Beating a dead Arcadian Pony
Well if we want to really figure out if a feat is broken, in the end, there is only one way and that is to look at how it is used in play by several different players through the coarse of a game.
What do your players think of the Mage Slayer feat? Anyone have expiriance with it?
Nope, haven't used it in play. I'd allow it in any of my games, but I'd consider tweaking it myself. As it stands, it looks like the classes that get the most benefit (front line melee-types) have the smallest penalty. Whereas those that gain the least benefit (back-line spellcasters) have the biggest penalty. I'd rather the penalty matched the benefit myself. But as it stands, I'd allow it and see how it played.
But, yep, playtesting is really the best way by far to test new mechanics. Number crunching only goes so far.
Fri, 2005-06-03 12:48
#287
Beating a dead Arcadian Pony
I wasn't saying that they don't apply. What I'm saying is that you are not a de-facto expert Xan. Just because you're enlisted military does not nessasarly mean you know more than anyone else here. It might mean that you know more than the average but not more than anyone else.
Furthermore, even if you did have a superior knowledge of military tactics that doesn't mean you know how tactics in a fantasy roleplaying game should work. There is a reason adventuring is not a common profesion. If the world of Planescape worked like the realworld and realworld tactics worked exactly as they do in the fantasy world then there would not be the adventurers.
For one, I never claimed to be an expert on military tactics. But then again, how do you know that I'm not? And even in today's world, we have modern-day adventurers, many may not seek to kill people, but they nevertheless face the challenges of weather, flora and fauna.
Fri, 2005-06-03 13:08
#288
Beating a dead Arcadian Pony
I think its funny none of you know military history but tell me that tactically none of this is possible.
Lemme name a few examples:
Warsaw Ghetto, WWII
Stalingrad, WWII
Russian General surrenders entire batallion to 9 Finns armed with cross-country skis & high-powered rifle.
Little Big Horn
Something about some pesant farmers in Mexico who defeated the French on some holiday we seem to celebrate on May 5 every year.
Hannibal (numerous battles where he fought with irregulars against superior Roman troops, but that's tactically not accurate for a fantasy world, right?)
Want more?
Oh, man, do I feel stupid. I forgot all about the battle of Little Big Horn, where Elminster Custer the epic mage was swarmed by sixteen halfling fighters using Swarm Fighter. And then, stupid Germans, their epic mages stumbled into the same trap when the Stalingrad halflings sent their swarm fighters to battle them out in a 20x20 room. God, where did my history classes go?
Oh wait, none of these battles have anything to do with "A mage walks into a room. Sixteen halfing swarm him. Mage Slayer is broken."
Isn't this whole thing an example of how an army of Swarm Fighting halflings is too effective, rather than anything about Mage Slayer?
And it doesn't matter, because this entire tangent is an attempt to throw the argument off-track and, as I've said several times now and haven't been challenged on, the example in no way proves that Mage Slayer is a feat that abides fully by 3.5 rules (being that it is a 3.5 feat) and includes a drawback.
The feat was designed fully expecting that some spellcasters would use it. That's why the rules specifically tell you what happens when a spellcaster uses Mage Slayer. If they wanted no one who could cast spells or had spell-like abilities, the rules would have said "Special: This feat may not be used by a character who casts spells or has spell-like abilities" like the writers had already done for certain anti-psionic feats.
Fri, 2005-06-03 13:12
#289
Beating a dead Arcadian Pony
[snip snide comments]
The feat was designed fully expecting that some spellcasters would use it. That's why the rules specifically tell you what happens when a spellcaster uses Mage Slayer. If they wanted no one who could cast spells or had spell-like abilities, the rules would have said "Special: This feat may not be used by a character who casts spells or has spell-like abilities" like the writers had already done for certain anti-psionic feats.
Care to name said feats, Rhys?
Fri, 2005-06-03 13:21
#290
Beating a dead Arcadian Pony
[snip snide comments]
The feat was designed fully expecting that some spellcasters would use it. That's why the rules specifically tell you what happens when a spellcaster uses Mage Slayer. If they wanted no one who could cast spells or had spell-like abilities, the rules would have said "Special: This feat may not be used by a character who casts spells or has spell-like abilities" like the writers had already done for certain anti-psionic feats.
Care to name said feats, Rhys?
Sorry, I'm not Rhys, but I happened to have the SRD open for some writing I'm doing.
Antipsionic Magic
Chaotic Mind
Closed Mind
Force of Will
Hostile Mind
Mental Resistance
Psionic Hole
"Special: You cannot take or use this feat if you have the ability to use powers (if you have a power point reserve or psi-like abilities)."
Oh, and forget psionics! My mage slaying ranger loses 40 minutes of read magic!
Fri, 2005-06-03 13:28
#291
Beating a dead Arcadian Pony
Sorry, I'm not Rhys, but I happened to have the SRD open for some writing I'm doing.
Thanks...these will help out tremendously....
Fri, 2005-06-03 13:33
#292
Beating a dead Arcadian Pony
Sure, my post was completely snide and dripping with sarcasm, but I still have yet to see an explanation as to how a list of historical battles relates to sixteen halfling fighters Mage Slaying an epic wizard in the context of the feat being broken. You never explained it, but I assume you're saying that lots of individually weak opponents may overcome individually more powerful ones, as happened in your various examples of peasant fighters overcoming armies. It's strange, though, because your point was that the halflings shouldn't be able to overcome the wizard, and that the feat was obviously broken as a result.
And I might add in that the Expanded Psionics Handbook came out in April of last year, while Complete Arcane came out in November. So the writers would have been fully aware of the XPH's manner of doing things, and specifically barring certain characters from the feat is not an innovation. Therefore, the writers deliberately allowed spellcasters to take the Mage Slayer feat, albeit with a drawback.
Fri, 2005-06-03 13:40
#293
Beating a dead Arcadian Pony
Sure, my post was completely snide and dripping with sarcasm, but I still have yet to see an explanation as to how a list of historical battles relates to sixteen halfling fighters Mage Slaying an epic wizard in the context of the feat being broken. You never explained it, but I assume you're saying that lots of individually weak opponents may overcome individually more powerful ones, as happened in your various examples of peasant fighters overcoming armies. It's strange, though, because your point was that the halflings shouldn't be able to overcome the wizard, and that the feat was obviously broken as a result.
And I might add in that the Expanded Psionics Handbook came out in April of last year, while Complete Arcane came out in November. So the writers would have been fully aware of the XPH's manner of doing things, and specifically barring certain characters from the feat is not an innovation. Therefore, the writers deliberately allowed spellcasters to take the Mage Slayer feat, albeit with a drawback.
We'll see, Rhys... we'll see...
Fri, 2005-06-03 13:46
#294
Beating a dead Arcadian Pony
Sure, my post was completely snide and dripping with sarcasm, but I still have yet to see an explanation as to how a list of historical battles relates to sixteen halfling fighters Mage Slaying an epic wizard in the context of the feat being broken. You never explained it, but I assume you're saying that lots of individually weak opponents may overcome individually more powerful ones, as happened in your various examples of peasant fighters overcoming armies. It's strange, though, because your point was that the halflings shouldn't be able to overcome the wizard, and that the feat was obviously broken as a result.
Don't worry about the halflings, Staffan already toasted them. Should be to their families pretty soon now, too. Mage Slayer isn't broken, I'm sure we're on a different three tangents now.
Speaking of which, my mage slaying drow ranger was thinking of multiclasing into paladin, but his detect evil and remove disease spell-like abilities would be penalized. Hmm... maybe bard? Nope, half of the bardic music abilities are spell-like.
Fri, 2005-06-03 13:49
#295
Beating a dead Arcadian Pony
Don't worry about the halflings, Staffan already toasted them. Should be to their families pretty soon now, too. Mage Slayer isn't broken, I'm sure we're on a different three tangents now.
Speaking of which, my mage slaying drow ranger was thinking of multiclasing into paladin, but his detect evil and remove disease spell-like abilities would be penalized. Hmm... maybe bard? Nope, half of the bardic music abilities are spell-like.
Oh, ye of little faith...
Fri, 2005-06-03 13:54
#296
Beating a dead Arcadian Pony
And I might add in that the Expanded Psionics Handbook came out in April of last year, while Complete Arcane came out in November. So the writers would have been fully aware of the XPH's manner of doing things, and specifically barring certain characters from the feat is not an innovation. Therefore, the writers deliberately allowed spellcasters to take the Mage Slayer feat, albeit with a drawback.
We'll see, Rhys... we'll see...
I don't see a change in last year's release dates being included in the errata.
Oh, man! My mage slaying drow ranger just realized that he not only has 160ft. less range with his fairie fire, but it also lasts 4 minutes less!! For a feat with no drawbacks, this sucks!
Fri, 2005-06-03 14:11
#297
Beating a dead Arcadian Pony
Xan, buddy, you need to change your avatar. Here's a suitable pic:
(Yeah, it'll need some Photoshopping to fit within the 80 pixel square limit, but that shouldn't be hard to handle, hmm? Given your vast range of expertise?)
Fri, 2005-06-03 14:31
#298
Beating a dead Arcadian Pony
Xan, what are these posts you're doing now? "We'll see..." What kind of supervillain dialogue is this? We'll see what? Debate over!
Being smug doesn't work when there is no argument to back it up.
Fri, 2005-06-03 14:35
#299
Beating a dead Arcadian Pony
Xan, buddy, you need to change your avatar. Here's a suitable pic:
That was uncalled for. Or were you referring to...[ brick wall ]
Oh, I may want to tell you that it will require my death to make me back down on this. I will never concede.
Now Xan, you might need to revise this post a bit. First off, you state that you'll never concede the larger debate, which is dangerous because it means that if a successful argument against your position were to exist, you would respond to it illogically. Second, people won't be convinced of your opinion unless positive evidence for it is provided (more on this later); a lack of counterarguments is proof only to the proverbial choir. Finally, for the vast majority of us (the exceptions probably being folks who were around far before my time) the debate is about whether the feat system in d20 can support the drawbacks of faction belief. It's not about who has more design skill; each side has enough that it does not need to defer to the other on principle.
And before you misquote me and think I'm somehow insane, I'll explain this....
You have not proven me wrong. Your evidence is weaker than water soup. You will never prove me wrong beause there is more material to back me than you, if this is not the case, prove me wrong. One feat does not prove me wrong. Give me more than this, otherwise your cause, not mine, is lost. I say this because I've examined the flaws very carefully and have people urging me to write a letter to WotC for justification for such blatant flaws.
As I stated before, I am right and you are wrong. Prove that I'm wrong. Mage Slayer isn't enough because it is inherently flawed and I can prove it beyond a shadow of anything you can throw at me. If you don't believe me, let's play this out until you concede and understand that I know more about systems design than you. That's the true heart of this argument, my abilities vs. yours.
Now, for all of you watching...
I have noticed that part of what's been making this debate more difficult is that the two sides' arguements have been strung out through dozens of pages of posts, many vague or sarcastic. I think it would be profoundly useful if each of the two sides (those supporting faction-feats, and Xan who doesn't) could compile a clarified, concise account of their arguments, in as clear and unbiased language as possible. I have recieved an assurance from Xan that he's going to get on this as soon as his book is done (just two more months!) and at that point we'll be able to see all of his lines of reasoning, clearly stated so that we can understand what he's thinking. I'm hoping that the good folks writing official PS3E could do the same, based upon the official discussions on the topic back in the email list days if nothing else. It'd certainly clean up the discussion quite a bit.
;D
Fri, 2005-06-03 16:01
#300
Beating a dead Arcadian Pony
What can I say? I don't take Xan seriously, and I haven't for a long time. When someone insists that they have to be right, about a piddling minor detail that was last considered in an objective sense sometime in January, I consider them a brick wall. When someone is arguing on their lonesome against a solid block of about eight other forum regulars, including two of the forum admins, and still insisting that they have to be right, I consider that a brick wall. When someone drafts Bad Gaming Scenarios as a strawman to try and 'prove' an untenable point, I consider that a brick wall. When someone pulls out six different attempts to change the topic of the argument in an attempt to avoid having to admit they were actually WRONG, I absolutely consider that a brick wall.
I haven't seen another forum in which this sort of thread wouldn't have been locked as useless, aggravating, self-indulgent and wasteful trolling somewhere around twelve pages ago. Ken and the other admins have, for some reason I can't understand, decided to let Xan indulge in his continued pathetic attempt at being a renegade and even gone so far as to take the opposite side of the issue. Me, I'm not so responsible. I just mock the little twit. And have fun doing it.
(And as one long-ranged attempt to actually contribute something serious to the fray - consider one Wiz21 against only 32 levels' worth of characters, namely eight Mnk4 with Improved Grapple. Each monk has a Grapple check of +10, against the wizard's BAB of +11, so at least one grapple's almost guaranteed to succeed. Once it does, the wizard can't cast any spells with somatic components, can't use any magic items which require a spell completion trigger, needs a full round action just to get a material component for a spell, has no Dex bonus to AC, and is likely to be pinned next round which shuts him down completely.
In other words, grappling and the Improved Grapple feat are apparently even more broken than Mage Slayer. The setup for this fight is also as unlikely as Xan's idea for Mage Slayer plus Swarmfighting, and the whole exercise just as irrelevant as to whether the caster level penalty imposed by Mage Slayer is actually a drawback of the feat.)
Fri, 2005-06-03 17:14
#301
Beating a dead Arcadian Pony
I haven't seen another forum in which this sort of thread wouldn't have been locked as useless, aggravating, self-indulgent and wasteful trolling somewhere around twelve pages ago. Ken and the other admins have, for some reason I can't understand, decided to let Xan indulge in his continued pathetic attempt at being a renegade and even gone so far as to take the opposite side of the issue.
The reason is that the ongoing discussion with Xan is about a primary part of PS3E's implementation, and one that's had a great amount of debate in the past. That's not clear at this point because the discussion has gone so in-depth into a particular minitutae as to be unrecognizable. The admins want the issue to be resolved, as Xan has the experience to be a valuable member of PW if only relations could be normalized over this one topic.
Wow, so if I showed you how flawed this feat is to the point of epic mage destruction by a low-level character, what will you think then?