TRPG General Chat

BESW

12:19 AM

Where's the definitive "Why we shouldn't use comments for answers" post?

Miniman

6

Q: How much of an answer/suggestion should be in comments to questions?

Here's a scenario: New user asks question ignorant of the site's format. While some are commenting on their question and their question is/is not getting closed, others "answer" in the comments to the question. New user's problem is solved, question remains closed/unedited and eventually get...

(It doesn't look that definitive, but it's as good as I can find.)

Actually, this is probably better:

rpg.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/comment

(Cos it's official.)

@BESW Where's the offending comment?

BESW

Nothing in particular; I just ran into someone struggling with "but if I don't want to make a full answer, the Stack doesn't want my contribution?"

Miniman

@BESW Ah, yes. The classic "But I want to help!" issue.

BESW

And, well... no, the Stack doesn't want your half-formed crumbs of contribution. If you must make such an answer, use the answer form so people with more time/energy/dedication can edit it.

Thanks for the links.

Shalvenay

12:41 AM

@BESW -- I suspect it also depends on your userbase -- RPG.se tends to have a fairly high ratio of return askers to first-timers

not all STacks are this way though -- DIY and EE tend to be noob question magnets, for instance

BESW

Newer/fluffier Stacks are more lenient about comments--not just answers in comments, but discussion and argument.

Shalvenay

(noob as in "new to SE", mostly, although the "new to what they're doing" aspect is strong as well)

which means that throwing flags and close votes indiscriminately leaves you with well, very little to answer

BESW

I'm particularly bemused by the tendency of "answer in comment is okay" folks to blow up meta with complaints that people are stealing their answers and getting rep for them by using the answer form.

doppelgreener

0

A: How much of an answer/suggestion should be in comments to questions?

Beyond the issue suggested by mxyzplk — we're not using the site correctly, and everyone gets robbed of an answer — I want to highlight a very deep problem with comments in answers: Comments have virtually no quality assurance. When you post an answer, the entire question is bumped for everyone...

BESW

'cause, um, status-by-design.

doppelgreener

12:46 AM

i was considering writing about this for a while, so it's cool to learn there was a question about those.

I wish I could somehow put that "Good job." in GLaDOS's sarcastic voice.

BESW

[♪] Portal - GLaDOS Is To Blame

►

Sandwich

http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/64017/my-players-are-one-hitting-everything-in-the-dragons-demand-how-do-i-toughen-u/64115#64115

My answer is going pretty well there

A lot of people don't even know The Advanced Creature Template doesnt exist

Adeptus

also...

BESW

1:04 AM

Different franchise, similar theme:

doppelgreener

@Adeptus hahaha, i recall this

did glados actually ever say something like "good work, human" in a deeply sarcastic tone? i can't actually find a clip of that happening

BESW

@doppelgreener List of things GLaDOS says.

She says "Good job" four times and "Well done" 13.

There's also a "Nice job breaking it, hero."

Miniman

@BESW Trope Namer!

Adeptus

"Good job on that, by the way. [back to computer voice] Sarcasm sphere self-test complete."

doppelgreener

@BESW wow, that's incredible that someone's compiled this

BESW

1:18 AM

"That's a cute little bug, evolution!"

doppelgreener

@BESW haha, terrible.

Shalvenay

1:30 AM

what's weird is that I promise upvotes to people willing to migrate comments to answers, at least in some cases, but I get very little traction for that

BESW

@Adeptus A common defence of answers-in-comments is that the citizen feels they're nobly sacrificing reputation in order to not clutter up the answers. Gamification isn't usually a useful appeal for this sort of thing. — BESW 34 mins ago

Magician

@BESW Dr Nemesis is the best.

Shalvenay

@BESW -- maybe they need to be introduced to community wiki then?

BESW

Nah, community wiki isn't an answer to the problem they're trying to solve.

Answers in comments have three primary causes.

Miniman

@Shalvenay Also worth pointing out that there are very few reasons to legitimately use community wiki.

BESW

1:35 AM

The first is pure ignorance of the way the Stack works: often a new user gets confused about the difference between answers and comments and uses the wrong form.

Shalvenay

@BESW -- what's worse is when the comment in question gets upvoted >.>

BESW

The second is a desire to give an answer to a closed question: "I can help this person!" is a laudable sentiment, but deliberately subverting the site's quality controls is a bad expression of it.

And the third motive is that the commenter is unable/unwilling to put in the time and energy needed to expand the idea into a full answer, so they post it as a comment in the hope that someone else will come along and do the heavy lifting.

Again, the sentiment is "I have something that will help!" but the action is actually creating more work for others and setting bad precedents.

Shalvenay

should those answer-seeds be planted in answers then?

re: the third motive

BESW

That's a slightly better option, yes.

Shalvenay

also, what do you do when a troubleshooting-question turns out to answer the OP's question?

(it's not a problem we see here, but it's fairly common on DIY for instance)

BESW

1:39 AM

They'll probably get downvoted like nobody's business, but using a comment to avoid getting downvoted is pretty lousy.

@Shalvenay Make it an answer.

Shalvenay

@BESW nods that's what I've done in some cases -- should I CW those when it's someone else's troubleshooting question btw?

BESW

Any time a comment IS a good answer, citizens should feel free to appropriate it as their own and take the credit and rep as due reward for their effort to integrate it into the Stack's quality-control system.

doppelgreener

@BESW meta.rpg.stackexchange.com/a/5624/1204 How's the deconstruction look?

BESW

(You can leave a line about who originally left the comment, but don't use Community Wiki; that's not what CW is for.)

Miniman

@Shalvenay They should, but we often see answers that look like "Here's a skeleton of an answer, I'll flesh it out later." In that scenario, they should be downvoted without mercy.

Shalvenay

1:41 AM

@Miniman -- come to think of it, why does the STack penalize you for downvoting other people's stuff?

doppelgreener

@BESW I think this is a situation that calls for a mix of our diplomacy styles. Yours being distinctly compassionate and distinctly prone to not leaving people disgruntled is pretty valuable in communicating here. ;)

Shalvenay

granted, it's a small penalty, but rep is quite precious for newbies to the STack system

BESW

Handy rule of thumb: If you ever ask yourself "Should I make this post community wiki?" the answer is "No."

3

Miniman

@Shalvenay Because downvoting shouldn't be done without thought.

BESW

@Shalvenay One moment, we have a meta about that.

doppelgreener

1:42 AM

@BESW starring for yes this is excellent

BESW

7

A: Why is there a malus on downvoting?

It's behavioural engineering: the stated purpose of the reputation malus for downvoting is to prevent people from downvoting for frivolous reasons (second paragraph), like "I don't like that game." Putting even a small cost on it means that people are much less likely to downvote for frivolous re...

Shalvenay

I wonder if making that penalty kick in at maybe 2-3x the rep you need to downvote might help newbs not be so downvote adverse while still penalizing folks who downvote regularly for frivolous reasons?

BESW

Changing the rules mid-game is a bad idea.

doppelgreener

@Shalvenay I am a new user with like 250 rep tops. I don't want to lose rep, I don't have much of it. I will create a smurf account and use it to cast unlimited downvotes on everything for no reputation loss.

Shalvenay

@doppelgreener -- a 1rep smurf can't downvote AIUI

doppelgreener

1:44 AM

@Shalvenay yeah, so it'll be a 125 rep smurf.

BESW

Also note: you don't lose rep for downvoting questions.

Shalvenay

@BESW -- aah. that might be part of the thing...

BESW

Because we optimise for pearls, not sand.

Shalvenay

yeah, I'm actually wondering if there are some cases where optimizing for pearls might put you worse off though

very few users in DIY want to at all engage with the STack format, for instance.

but back to this STack

I've noticed that the attitude towards simulationist-minded answers tends to be very mixed. I've gotten rave reviews for some, while getting rather little attention for others

Miniman

@BESW For interest, this gets you all the latest CW-questions. So far I've found one that seems like it really should be CW.

Shalvenay

1:49 AM

(I mean -- I have never played a White Wolf game, and couldn't digest the one text of theirs I tried to read (Mage: the Ascention), but my top answer's to a V:tM question because it's a very well-grounded answer as to the reality of how touchscreens work)

whereas, my 5e answer re: Burning Hands lighting a log inn on fire drew relatively little attention, and a rather acrimonious argument with another member of this Stack who simply didn't want to bother with the data-driven arguments I was making

Miniman

@Shalvenay It's a very system-dependent issue, though.

Shalvenay

@Miniman -- to some extent, I'll agree. I wonder if it's correlated to how frequently rules-as-written gets busted out for a given system?

doppelgreener

@Shalvenay completely unrelated, we can pull out that tag for systems where simulationist answers are universally dumb

BESW

They're both rooted in whether the engine has a history/agenda of prioritising mechanics or narration.

Shalvenay

@doppelgreener -- such as? (I think D&D 4e is the closest to it, but that system is very utterly gamist AFAICT from what I've read mostly here about it)

BESW

1:58 AM

> Lady Blackbird especially is not a game built on system mastery, so it's more about fun action than detailed tactics.

Miniman

@Shalvenay I'd suggest that in general, simulationist answers will prosper where there's nothing else to hang an answer on. (Like the vampire touchscreen question or the burning hands the inn question.) They will fail where the system provides rules. (Like what happened here.)

Your answer to the Burning Hands question probably didn't do well simply because by the time you posted it, there were several other answers saying much the same thing, if in less detail.

doppelgreener

@Shalvenay dungeon world, savage worlds and shadowrun are right on first page, then there's savage worlds and so on. Most of these systems will subvert a real-world simulation answer.

@Miniman they are also more direct and don't make my eyes glaze over in the opening paragraphs

Magician

@doppelgreener ...Shadowrun? This Shadowrun?

Miniman

@doppelgreener Well, I didn't want to get into the whole "writing to your audience" thing.

Although now that I think about it, it's fundamentally the same issue.

Shalvenay

@BESW -- well, I'd say that there's system-simulationism (GURPS), simulation-atop-narrative (FATE -- where the system isn't meant to be necessarily simulationist, but the game philosophy doesn't stand one bit opposed to narrative accuracy either), wild-narrative (Lady Blackbird from how you described it), and tactical-gamist (D&D 4e)

BESW

2:03 AM

The concept doesn't lend itself well to the Kinsey scale format, because within a single engine some elements may be simulationist while others are aggressively otherwise.

doppelgreener

@Magician shadowrun is a science fantasy story (now retrofuturistic?) with literal technowizardry and magical trolls. If you try to be purely simulationist in an answer I'm under the impression it won't jive unless you're extrapolating shadowrun behaviour, at which point you're just answering from the rules and lore, good job.

Shalvenay

SR probably is closer to tactical-gamist -- the rules are well-defined and there's a fair bit of tactical play involved

a computing pun

@doppelgreener I'm not entirely sure I understand. Are you saying that only mundane modern or mundane historical games can be simulationist?

Shalvenay

it is possible to be simulationist in a magic heavy universe -- I'd call it "alternate-world system-simulationism"

Ars Magica is the closest I've seen anything of to a dedicated system of that ilk

BESW

I think there's some cross-purpose talk based on different definitions of "simulationist."

doppelgreener

2:12 AM

Yeah, there's a lot of different definitions of simulationist in use, as I recalled after writing that message.

One of those is: apply real world logic to it, that'll work.

Magician

There is the original definition from GNS, where simulationism values adherence to a particular set of universe rules, be they physics or cartoon physics.

Shalvenay

yeah -- the universe-rules definition works quite nicely when you are in a system-simulationist system like GURPS or Ars Magica

doppelgreener

or, yes, there's that: the system has internal rules (which may not match the real world), apply those rules and you'll get a sensible result. That's fine.

Magician

And there's the bastardization of it that is "how it works in real life".

doppelgreener

@Magician I figure whichever is the proper version depends on who you ask. Some people might consider GNS a bastardisation. :P

Magician

2:14 AM

Of what, the Big Model?

Shalvenay

in FATEs, the players and GM basically collaboratively choose the universe-rules to fit the game they want

doppelgreener

@Magician Just a crap way to look at things.

Shalvenay

if they want real physics, cartoon physics, or a world with no rules, that's up to them

doppelgreener

I'm not invested in any particular model, I don't care about any of them very much. The categorisations I'm aware of only work to a certain extent.

Shalvenay

pure-gamist systems have rules, but their game balance means that you can't extrapolate meaningfully from them

Magician

2:15 AM

Eh, we're talking about the term and its origins, which are traceable and quite recent.

Shalvenay

whereas wild-narrativist systems are the polar opposite of system-simulationism -- they explicitly reject the notion of a universe with a set of well-defined rules

doppelgreener

@Shalvenay I gotta say this "simulation-atop-narrative" categorisation isn't doing much for me, nor do I understand why you've distinguished "wild-narrative" when I'd just call both of these narrative games. Neither do I understand "system-simulation". I understand "tactical-gamist," but I'd just say "that is a game about tactics" rather than invent jargon.

a computing pun

could you give an example of such a system?

Shalvenay

@doppelgreener -- a system-simulationist game is designed so that "anything possibility allowed for by the general rules goes" -- there's no long list of forbidden exceptions, or long list enumerating what's possible

@acomputingpun -- system-simulationist? GURPS and Ars Magica, from what I know about them

a computing pun

i can't think of any game I know of that explicitly rejects the notion of a universe with a set of well-defined rules

doppelgreener

2:17 AM

@acomputingpun might wanna address that request to someone, or to a particular message (by clicking the bendy arrow on the right hand side of a message)

a computing pun

Er, wild-narrative, I meant, sorry.

@doppelgreener (Yeah, my mistake.)

Shalvenay

@acomputingpun -- wild-narrative is the impression I get of Lady Blackbird

doppelgreener

What is "wild-narrative", seriously?

a computing pun

@Shalvenay I'll admit it is a game I have not played.

doppelgreener

we can't tautologically define it as Lady Blackbird being wild narrative, because then you've just classified a game as itself, making the classification unnecessary.

Shalvenay

2:20 AM

@doppelgreener -- wild-narrative is a game that rejects the notion of a universe that's uniformly and firmly governed by regular rules -- instead of trying to make predictions about what should or shouldn't happen based on a ruleset, you base it solely on what makes narrative sense at the time

doppelgreener

@Shalvenay Oh. That's... a lot of narrative games.

Cthulhu Dark, Fate, Roll for Shoes, Lady Blackbird (maybe, since I haven't played that one), etc.

a computing pun

But also no almost narrative games? It depends where you draw the line of "what makes narrative sense"

doppelgreener

None of those have a ruleset for how the universe works internally. None of those necessarily endorse universal guidelines, all of them give you the tools to break it. (And usually it's as simple as saying you do a thing which breaks the usual rules.)

Nyoze

Morning :)

doppelgreener

@Nyoze Morning!

a computing pun

2:22 AM

I mean, it makes narrative sense that in most stories set in something close to the real world, the laws of real-world physics apply in a general sense (e.g, things fall when they're not supported by anything).

Shalvenay

I'd say that RFS and Cthulhu Dark fall into that category -- FATE's a bit different because nothing in that game says you can't have a universe-simulation running on top of it

a computing pun

@Nyoze Good day.

Shalvenay

o/ @Nyoze

Nyoze

@doppelgreener RFS: Do Anything will let you do, well. Anything. The whole system is the tool to break reality. It just depends on how you use it.

a computing pun

The act of telling a story is, inherently, an attempt at universe simulation.

Nyoze

2:24 AM

@a what if the story you are telling is an attempt at living outside of the universe?

Magician

What Shalvenay may be trying to say is, in a "wild-narrative" game, you never say "that's impossible". The universe is malleable. Do you want to do something, anything, in RFS? Roll for it.

a computing pun

Then you're simulating a universe in which people attempt to live outside another, smaller universe. It's turtles all the way down.

Magician

As opposed to Fate where you do have to justify being able to take an action, if leniently.

Nyoze

I really need to actually try roll for shoes one day...

doppelgreener

@Magician That sounds reasonable.

@Nyoze I highly recommend it.

Nyoze

2:32 AM

One day.

Shalvenay

@Magician -- exactly

in FATE -- actions carry a justification. the in-universe justification is distilled down quite heavily to form the mechanics justification (approach or skill), but it's there

doppelgreener

Ok, so there's wild narratives, and then there's narratives that experience some level of in-universe control over what you can and can't do.

Shalvenay

@doppelgreener -- yes, exactly :)

@Magician -- thx

doppelgreener

Doesn't Lady Blackbird experience that based on who your character is?

Shalvenay

not sure. it could very well be that Lady Blackbird has more in-universe control than I think

doppelgreener

2:36 AM

(Not certain. Have not played it, I'll repeat.)

@BESW Sometime you should run me through Lady Blackbird.

BESW

I was actually just thinking that Lady Blackbird would be a good intro game for Greg and Lupe.

doppelgreener

Let's do that.

Hopefully I'll be able to make it and it won't be overwhelming.

Pixie

One of our usual GMs mentioned Lady Blackbird a few times. I've glanced through it before, but I haven't tried it out myself.

BESW

It's got good structure.

Pixie

I was initially not drawn to it because it seemed so tied to one specific narrative, but I've heard the rules are not difficult to apply to whatever else.

Shalvenay

2:42 AM

yeah, it sound either awesome or awful for me, but I don't think I'd know which until I tried it, or a similar game -- I really do need to give RFS a shot sometime in a one-shot sort of thing

BESW

@Pixie The challenge is designing new characters.

Lady Blackbird itself is basically an adventure module hack of Solar System. So you have to go to Solar System and re-hack it for chargen.

Pixie

Ahh, I see.

doppelgreener

@Magician this is making very satisfying lunch-time reading

> Once a game does something like this, it’s hard to take it seriously. You have to read it with an eye for which rules you’re going to use and which ones you’re going to cut out, and that’s not a good rules-set. This is like when Vampire: The Masquerade decided that skills such as Flying and Lip-Reading were as mechanically important as skills like Persuasion and Streetwise in their urban game of dark horror.
What else is useless? Where do I draw the line? Can these rules survive intact if I ignore bits of them? Will I still be playing the game as the designers intended?

This articulates a lot of my bad experiences with D&D 3.x's spread of rules.

(same for Pathfinder)

Nyoze

I've always struggled with D&D 3.5 rules, especially with skills. Pathfinder simplified them, but I've never known or seen anyone to ever use a craft or profession skill. Ever. Maybe we focus too much on actually adventuring, I don't know...

Shalvenay

I've seen profession used, but haven't really seen craft

Miniman

2:53 AM

I hadn't seen Craft till I met a guy who played an Artificer. He basically had the Craft rules memorised and could calculate item prices in his head.

doppelgreener

ok, done

nice breakdown

Pixie

3:21 AM

Craft can be important, it just isn't always. You absolutely can go the entire game without touching it and, in most cases, not be worse for the wear. Profession is usually not useful unless a GM/module makes an effort to include it, which they frequently don't. These skills serve a purpose, but it's one the game gets away with ignoring.

Pixie

3:49 AM

So if I were to try running RFS sometime, would people be interested, and would there be any preference as to starting situation?

Shalvenay

@Pixie -- I'd be willing to give it a shot, and I'm at least somewhat flexible regarding starting situation

doppelgreener

@Pixie Yes, I'd be interested

Nyoze

@Pixie I'd love to :)

doppelgreener

(Depends on availability, but RFS games are pretty flexible in size)

Miniman

I'd be keen to too.

trogdor

3:50 AM

I would be interested in that, depending on my availability at the specific time

BESW

Could be fun!

trogdor

RFS is pretty easy and fun to start up

BESW

Also, it's been my personal experience that the best way to determine the starting situation is to have everyone make their characters and then just figure out what kind of situation could possibly have them all together.

Nyoze

@BESW That assumes that RFS actually has character creation?

BESW

@Nyoze "Okay, go around the table and tell me your character's name and one thing about them."

doppelgreener

3:52 AM

@Nyoze Well, you do pick a name and, if you want, describe your character to the other players a bit

trogdor

@Nyoze technically it does, you don't play it without deciding the flavor of your character

Pixie

That would be fine, if people are into that idea. I tried it with my group, and some of them didn't take to it. I think only one really actually knew what to do with that. xD

doppelgreener

@BESW then again the sales competition had the opposite and didn't work out too badly either

trogdor

they have no skills yet, but it does show the types of things you WANT them to be able to do

and the setting appropriate for them

Pixie

So if people want to get something in mind, I can accommodate it.

BESW

3:54 AM

(Last game, the Queen of All and a robot pimp were imprisoned beneath an alien gladiator pit with a winged woman, an omniphage miner, a cyborg martial artist, and a Russian paparazzo.)

Nyoze

Well... I stand corrected.

Pixie

I can't (or at least... shouldn't) run anything tonight as I have work annoyingly early, but almost any evening/night for the rest of the week is doable.

(For reference, I am EST, and it's midnight here.)

Nyoze

I won't be on till about this time minus an hour tomorrow... But days afterwards would be fine with me?

Shalvenay

I think so :)

Pixie

I'll be working until (my) 9 PM on Wednesday, but after that will likely be doable unless I am exhausted. I'm usually up until at least 2 AM.

Nyoze

4:00 AM

I'm usually up till 2-3 am AEST, but... I don't get online at home. So around this time give or take a few hours is perfect.

Pixie

It's something we could start anytime there's time, I just mention this because ideally it'd be a time that the people who want to play can. :,D

BESW

Don't worry about me, I'll join if I can.

Pixie

Alrighty. So sometime in the coming week, maybe Wednesday, I will run RFS, and hopefully fun will be had.

Miniman

I'm generally available anytime that's not between 9am and 6pm EST (if my maths is right)

Nyoze

@Miniman So you're available anytime non-Australians are basically not at work? :P

trogdor

4:05 AM

I may or may not be able to join, it just depends

if I am not here don't worry about it

if I am I will most likely be happy to join

Miniman

@Nyoze Uh, I think? I'm basically available while I'm awake, and that seems to translate neatly.

Nyoze

Some people have too much time on their hands :P

@Pixie I'm pretty much with trogdor. If I'm here, awesome. If i'm not, next time.

Pixie

Flexible is good. :)

In high school, I could always tell when I'd stayed up too late online when the Australians started appearing. It'd be like "oh, the Australians are coming out, I have messed up."

6

Nyoze

@Pixie I used to go to sleep and wake up earlier just so I could spend time with people on the other side of the world before I went to school. I would literally get home from school, have dinner, and head to bed.

Pixie

@Nyoze Oh, wow. I just had (and have) a terrible sleep schedule. :P

Sandwich

4:14 AM

Currently have the same myself

I'm up at 6PM, awake until Noon

Miniman

@Nyoze It's more that: At work, I'm sitting in front of a computer (with occasional gaps). At home, I'm sitting in front of a computer (with occasional gaps).

Nyoze

Yeah... Computers made us all lazy :)

Miniman

@Nyoze Eh, I was always lazy.

Nyoze

:D

Pixie

I'm on the computer a couple of hours or more a day at work, but I rarely do anything not-work-related on them. I'm not sure how tightly they monitor such things, but if I'm at work, I'm usually working or at least slacking in less noticeable ways. :P

Nyoze

4:20 AM

@Pixie Work recently decided they wanted to give us all 2 screens, because they moved from desktop based to laptop based for some reason... (I have no idea why.) Henceforth, I've always got work up on my primary monitor, and... About 20-30 tabs open on the laptop screen.

Pixie

Heh.

If I'm on a computer for any length during actual work time, it's probably while it's my turn to watch the help desk. :P

That said, sometimes during evening shifts the place is totally empty, and the librarian will be working elsewhere, so I'll have some solitude and nothing at all to do. Under these conditions, I have occasionally browsed Overstock. :P

Nyoze

You rebel you!

Pixie

I know, so edgy.

trogdor

4:48 AM

lol

doppelgreener

5:02 AM

@Pixie This is actually kind of terrible in a way. <_<; The sections of the internet I use are very lively when the Europeans and Americans are here. They have some time-zone overlap. But neither time zone has good overlap with the Australian evening.

So in the Australian evening, the people active on the internet are: Australians, and (almost) all the non-English speaking countries. And Asian sites are basically their own isolated side of the internet.

Pixie

@doppelgreener Heh, yeah. 4-5 AM over here is 6-7 PM in AEST I think...

doppelgreener

Pretty much.

I mostly see my American friends when I'm up very early or I'm soon going to sleep.

I'm interested to see what the difference will be when I'm living in the UK.

Miniman

@doppelgreener Well, it'll rain a lot more...

Nyoze

@Miniman This is one of the only reasons I want to visit London/Seattle.

Pixie

@doppelgreener The offset isn't quite as bad, if I recall correctly. I had a British friend on the same website.

doppelgreener

5:07 AM

@Miniman That's a popular misconception; the UK only rains twice a week.

Once for three days and once for four.

@Pixie Yeah, the British and Americans seem to have much better overlap.

Miniman

@doppelgreener It's still accurate in most parts of Australia.

(I've seen 1 week of rain in the last 2 months or so, sadly.)

Pixie

But my British friend had a tendency to get on early morning for him sometimes, so it was often still evidence that I had stayed up too late. :P

Nyoze

Anyone have any ideas on what the highest DPR dex-based class would be? Trying to buff my damage and survival-ability vs casters.

doppelgreener

@Nyoze You might want to specify a game there and an edition.

Pixie

I was going to say, in what?

Nyoze

5:16 AM

Yeah, that's a point, sorry. Pathfinder.

I'd make a question, but it's more a list/opinion piece, not something stack would like.

doppelgreener

Sounds like a half-decent pathfinder optimization question

You have a criteria and a build goal

actually probably isn't

Pixie

I dunno, more context will change that answer.

doppelgreener

yeah

Pixie

Level, enemy type, book availability, item availability, etc. You could ask it, but you'd need to provide more detail.

Nyoze

All right, let me type up a question then, and hope it doesn't get closed.

doppelgreener

5:24 AM

highest DPR dex-based class is kind of a goal, but works on the assumption that DPR has much to do with survivability vs casters, and we don't know why you're buffing damage. (Damage is one of the slowest ways to defeat anyone, spellcasters are powerful because they have access to all the other ways.)

And DPR is less relevant because spellcasters are good at making your DPR numbers not very relevant.

Oh, you do melee? Here, let me fly away. Oh, you shoot arrows? Here, let me put up an arrow-disintegrating wall.

Miniman

Also, you can say, for example, "Rogues are the highest DPR cos 10d6 Sneak Attack", but that's reliant on them being able to trigger Sneak Attack. (Among other problems.)

trogdor

it sounds like all the thing I left 3.5 for having

Nyoze

Yeah, spellcaster's are a pain... I'm trying to find a viable build that will be able to take on a spellcaster 1v1 without actually relying on spells.

doppelgreener

So, consider: you want DPR... for what? You want survivability against spellcasters... what kinds, what's your actual goals around survivability, is DPR necessary or just your current means to an end?

Okay, great, that's a good goal.

Miniman

@doppelgreener (If an impossible one.)

Pixie

5:27 AM

@Nyoze That is good information, because otherwise I'd probably suggest rather generally that you could look into a magus or summoner. :P

doppelgreener

Do you have specific flavour requirements? Specific intents for the kinds of things you'd like to do? Or do you just want something great that'll beat a wizard?

@Nyoze I'm asking you this stuff to help you flesh out the optimization question you're drafting. It might still need work even after that and get closed, but hopefully the comment reasons explaining why will be helpful.

Nyoze

Well... Let's see what we can do.

Pixie

Yeah. I think there is a viable question in there, if you want to ask it, but it needs much fleshing out.

Sandwich

@Nyoze Build for Spell resistance

BESW

For PF, it's important to note whether third-party content like DSP is viable.

Nyoze

5:30 AM

Flavour wise, I don't want anything to be spell based... I wouldn't mind magic weapons and things along those lines, but if I can avoid actually casting spells... Let me have a look and then hopefully I can come up with a good question.

Sandwich

Classes or races that get SR as a class ability are 10/10 for magekilling

Pixie

@BESW And not just third party content but what Paizo books are viable.

BESW

(DSP has worked hard to provide non-caster options to even out the caster/non-caster power divide.)

Sandwich

There are only a handful of spells that deal damage but aren't subject to SR

Pixie

@Nyoze Also, what classes do you consider dex-based, or is that part of what you're asking?

doppelgreener

5:32 AM

@Nyoze I would hope you won't mind magic equipment, I'm under the impression they're going to be a necessity.

Sandwich

Oh yeah if you wanna kill a mage you're gonna need it

doppelgreener

Like, PF assumes you're probably getting magic items along the way.

Sandwich

Evasion and Spell resistance are invaluable

Nyoze

@Pixie I have no idea... The only thing I can think of off my head that will let me dump Str completely is a Dervish Dancer, but I'd like to avoid pumping anything except Dex to buff my TAC as high as possible. Spell Resistance may be possible, but I want to be viable vs melee characters as well.

doppelgreener

@Nyoze Why are you focusing on Dex?

Sandwich

5:33 AM

Well Armor class or Damage resistance makes you viable against Melee

Nyoze

@doppelgreener TAC. I want to try and focus one stat over any others for build simplicity, and thought that Dex would be the best option for offense and defense together.

doppelgreener

@Nyoze What is TAC? Touch armor class?

Nyoze

@doppelgreener Yeah, exactly.

doppelgreener

Ok, cool. It'll be worth stating in your question that you think this is one part of the solution, because of reasons like TAC and might as well use it as your main stat at that point - as opposed to, say, providing "it must be dex based" as something that appears to be an absolute requirement ('cause what if the best solution is actually CON based?)

Sandwich

A High save barbarian with the ability to fly would merc a wizard early game

Miniman

5:37 AM

@Sandwich I think you're assuming incredibly poor optimisation and play by the wizard.

Sandwich

Yeah

BESW

@Miniman Most d20 scenarios where a non-caster can reliably defeat a caster have to make that assumption, though.

Pixie

If you're steering clear of spells, that probably puts alchemist (who is not technically a caster but might as well be), magus, and summoner out of the picture, so most of the ideas that came to mind immediately. :P Hmm...

Sandwich

But a well optimized meatshield is pretty scary, and they have the hitdice to do it

Wizard would need to survive a few rounds to drop ennervate a few times that would drop them

BESW

HD have very little to do with survival vs a primary caster.

Sandwich

5:39 AM

I did say High saves with the ability to fly

Miniman

@Sandwich Yeah, but assuming by some miracle you manage to have all saves high, heaps of health, massive TAC, SR - the wizard can still just walk away.

And there's nothing you can do to prevent that.

Nyoze

@Sandwich One of the top players at the moment is a wiz who has a habit of dropping 1-200 damage in scorching rays in a single round. And he somehow mixes them from scorching to cold scorching (Something to do with an admixture?) so fire resistance isn't an option either.

Sandwich

Are you playing in a Mythic Adventures game?

Nyoze

Nope.

0

Q: Optimized Dex-Based Character vs Spellcasters

I am trying to develop a character who will be able to compete on even footing with Spell-casters by focusing on a high TAC (And possibly Damage-Per-Round) to compete in an arena setting, while not being useless vs melee-characters. All fights will be vs other player characters, and the two curr...

pathfinder optimization

Sandwich

200 damage would be 35d6 with max results, how is he managing that?

Nyoze

5:43 AM

If anyone has any suggestions on how to make the question better, I'd love to hear that.

Sandwich

Is it a high level game?

Nyoze

Okay, sorry. 200 was a bit of an exageration. I just checked and he's getting 3 rays at 4d6 each, so 12d6, empowered so +50%.

Pixie

Ah, level 5. That's not so high that your options are ridiculously narrow. Too bad you only have 10k gold, though. Otherwise, Celestial Armor.

Miniman

@Nyoze I know Pathfinder is a little less strong on optimization, but that still sounds like a really weak build.

Sandwich

So That's an average of 42 damage if he hits with all three rays

doppelgreener

5:48 AM

@Nyoze [accidentally buries it under a pile of larp edits]

Sandwich

Just with the dice

With that empowered that's another 21 damage, for around 63 a round

Nyoze

Huh... Maybe he doesn't have the pure damage output that I thought he did... Every time I see him though, he seems to be putting out at least 70 damage :\

Sandwich

Scorching ray empowered is also a level 4 spell.. and you said you guys were level 5?

Also Scorching ray is a bonus ray for ever four levels beyond third

How is he getting three rays at level 5?

He'd need to be level 7 to even get a second ray

This doesn't add up at all

Magician

Ah, victory through the reading of the rules, the best kind.

Nyoze

I'm starting at level 5, he's at level... 9 I think?

Sandwich

5:52 AM

This sounds like cheese, huge huge cheese

doppelgreener

@Sandwich well he is using cold, so he is probably using frost cheese, which i hear is pretty good cheese

best served on wheat crackers on the way to the hospital

Sandwich

So that's two rays at 9, he'd get 3 rays at 11

Nyoze

@Sandwich Yeah, he's level 9 at the moment, and is buffing his caster level for 3 rays which I'm not sure how.

Unfortunately, I don't have access to everyone elses char sheets, or I could know exactly whats happening.

Sandwich

Hold on there seabiscuit

Scorching rays rays aren't based on caster level they are based on character level

BESW

This seems... tangential.

Sandwich

5:54 AM

You may fire one ray, plus one additional ray for every four levels beyond 3rd (to a maximum of three rays at 11th level)

BESW

It doesn't really matter how a given caster is cheesing his damage, or whether he's doing it strictly within the RAW.

Sandwich

Those aren't caster levels, those are character levels

BESW

The guy's trying to figure out a general solution, not a specific one.

(And frankly, a d20 System caster who's focused on damage output isn't optimising his potential fully anyway.)

Nyoze

It doesn't specify caster or character level... I thought it was default caster. Either or, the specifics aside, I would like to survive against casters pummelling me with rays, and melee trying to trip me up and stomp on me.

Magician

@BESW Well, figuring out the caster should only be doing half the damage they do would help, though.

BESW

5:56 AM

@Magician In that particular case, yeah.

Sandwich

Yeah your caster at most should be doing 8d6 empowered

Pixie

@Nyoze To clarify though, the wiz is level 9 and you're level 5 -- will you be fighting higher level characters?

Nyoze

@Pixie There are a good mix of characters between 5 to 11 at the moment. Fighter higher level characters will let me advance faster, but will be harder at the same time.

Sandwich

Which is a much more manageable 28+14 average damage per round

Magician

In general, though, bringing a level 5 non-caster character to fight a level 9 caster is a bit suicidal.

Sandwich

5:57 AM

And that's whether or not he can hit with both rays

Miniman

@Magician Normally, yeah. In this case, where the caster is using a specific (and highly suboptimal) strategy, it's probably fine.

Nyoze

Okay, that's an extreme case. Let's look at a lower level.

BESW

Mmm. "Fight higher level stuff to join the party's average level" is d20speak for "Get your friends to keep you from dying so that you can slowly become moderately useful."

Magician

@Miniman All it needs is flight to trump pretty much anything a low-level character can do.

Sandwich

Yeah Flight is pretty important in the grand scheme of things

Nyoze

5:59 AM

I currently have a level 5 druid who is built around buffing up his animal companion and battlefield control. While my tiger does great if I can actually get into range, I typically die in the first few rounds before I have any buffs applied.

Transcript for