AMIA ARCHIVE • View topic - Helping shit characters

I would like to premise this discussion by saying that I respect the decision and that I will not push upon said request, unless this thread clearly indicates I should. My goal here is only to discuss the general idea of helping bad builds. More onto that in the following thread.

About Saya:

Quote:

Saya is a very gimped character. I know how to powerbuild, but Saya's current build is made of all sort of choices (which I can pin point) that makes her horrible. She has useless feats (spring attack and mobility, for example!), she wields a kama without being monk, she has an ECL race that gives her near 0 bonuses because she's got elf as her starting race, etc. etc. As a result, I have a weak character, and that's all fine to me, because it fits Saya well.

I decided to pick up a shield to cope for Saya's suckiness, but with Hana, being the character she is, -had- to get a blue shield. There are very few blue shields available that looked / fitted right, and so I ended up having to screw myself up once more by opting for a small shield instead of a tower shield!

The Mini Tower Case:

Quote:

Recently, I have decided to try and improve Saya a bit, and thought perhaps I could request a tower shield, but with the same model as the small shield I currently wears!

This would have looked like this:

With the +7 to armor, this would have given the same amount as a tower shield. (+5 tower gives 8, small +7 gives 8 )
With the -9 to skills, this would have given the same armor penalty as a tower shield. (tower has -10 penalty, -9 on a small shield equals -10)
With the weight increase, this would have been 1 more than what a tower shield is. (tower weights 45, this small shield would have been 46)
With the spell penalty increase, this would have the same as a tower shield. (50% spell penalty on a tower shield, 5 + 45 on that shield equals 50% as well)
This would have been requested as an UNTRADABLE ITEM

As far as mechanic goes, this would have been the exact same as the epic elemental tower shield. But with the appearance of a small shield.

So I explained my idea to a dm and a dev, and this is what I was told:

1- No +7 by principle:

Quote:

No +7 to AC items would be approved by principle. Even if, in that case, we are talking about a regular tower shield. Why? I thought that argument was very lacking. While I agree it shouldn't be allowed on regular items to be +7, I don't see why -in that particular case- it would be a problem. That +7 to AC essentially acts as a +5 to AC, which is everywhere on Amia already.

2- Makes no sense:

Quote:

I was also told it wouldn't make sense ICly that the shield this small be this heavy and protective. I agree with that sentiment... to an extend ^^ I think there are many ways this could be approved ICly that a shield like this could exist, especially with such a high magic setting. However, with that being said, I want to be clear here that I was not going to even try to make this approved as an IC item, but rather as an OOC measure to try and improve the mess that is Saya.

3- Breaking the server balance:

Quote:

Someone from the staff told me approving such an item would break the server balance because it would be too powerful..

Helping bad characters:

Quote:

While point 3 clearly doesn't hold water as a theory, it however stemmed a very interesting discussion in pm. That discussion is what I want to share on this section of the forum, to see what other players think of it.

I am in the opinion that if a player makes their character shit on purpose, on the very clear motive for that is to make their character more fitting / real (like going for 16 charisma on a character that doesn't use charisma...... god Saya sucks

), that said player / character should be able to receive some help at some point by the staff. I am not saying that they should be stronger than people who powerbuild, I am only saying that if a request is made to receive something that would -NOT BREAK THE SERVER BALANCE-, that said players should receive some sort of support from the staff for their roleplay decisions. <-- Saya's mini tower shield here would be a perfect example of that, as it does not provide any sort of bonus to the character of Saya, but helps greatly, in that she would not wear something huge like a tower shield or something that isn't blue, meaning she can OOC gain the benefit of a tower shield, without having to RP wielding one.

I am also of the opinion that because some types of weapons / armors are inferior to other types of weapons / armors, that these should have interesting bonuses. For example, the truestrike dagger has more damage bonus than other types of weapons, and there are heavy flails that come with bigger bonuses than other weapons (2d8 for the Twice Over flail as I recall?). Because the core weapon is worse than its equivalent, these small bonuses only help in making them on-par (not stronger!!!) with other types of weapons, which helps in creating potential variety in the weapons people use, instead of everyone spamming scimitar, kukri, rapier, etc... I think it would be perfectly fine if there was a sickle with a unique type of bonus that only a sickle would have, for example.

When I had that discussion about the weapons with that member of the staff, they told if they could they would remove all of those perks to shit weapons, that players have to live with the consequences of their dumb powerbuilding decisions. I disagree with that...

I was however also told that these weapons with special bonuses ruin the server balance because (example) a shifter can get the truestrike dagger and have retarded damage. That is a powerful argument in itself, but isn't the problem more about shifters than it is about that dagger?

Anyway, what do you guys think about this whole thing?

We can't break the balance rules because you artificially gimp your character. Everyone is treated the same, and their requests are viewed in a equal light when it comes to gear.

If you rebuild your character, or give away that shield now someone else has this insanely powerful shield on a powerful build. There are too many factors that we as DMs can't track and don't have the manpower or time to track to make sure it isn't being abused. It is also unfair to everyone else who made a different choice when it came to a build as you, plain and simple.

Maverick00053 wrote:

We can't break the balance rules because you artificially gimp your character. Everyone is treated the same, and their requests are viewed in a equal light when it comes to gear.

If you rebuild your character, or give away that shield now someone else has this insanely powerful shield on a powerful build. There are too many factors that we as DMs can't track and don't have the manpower or time to track to make sure it isn't being abused. It is also unfair to everyone else who made a different choice when it came to a build as you, plain and simple.

It's untradable / requested as a plot item. It cannot be given to anyone else, nor can it be sold. All you gotta do is to check a box when making the item, making it so that the -requested / approved- item isn't breaking the balance or giving something stronger than what is already available, and it will forever be tied to that character, therefore you don't have to keep track of potential problems an item could produce.

In this example here, it also acts the exact same as a tower shield, with the exact same bonuses and negatives of wielding a tower shield, which she can already wear - but with a different appearance. If I were to rebuild into a powerful build (not in the plans, but let's go hypothetically), this would still act as a tower shield... with 1 more weight than a normal tower shield...

The example I provided here would have been a fluff request, nothing else than a fluff request, so I really don't get what you're saying here.

I don't like it.

Just make a 'good' build instead of relying on the item request system to shore up your characters issues.

edit; this is mostly because the dm's sometimes allow insane items on good builds already. I don't want a new avenue for absurdity that's just 'i built bad on purpose give me op shit.'

Are you guys even reading Mushidoz's responses? Without even touching the subject of "should gimped characters be granted prestiges" the shield is simply not OP: it has virtually the same stats a similar tower shield would have, the only difference being a cosmetic one unless I am missing something. I don't know why such a rule must exist that you can't get a cosmetic change for your item, if you include the necessary penalties. The request seems like an emulation of a tower shield. I have no idea why this could not be allowed, if it is important to the player to wield a wee shield without shooting theirself in the foot.

Opustus wrote:

Are you guys even reading Mushidoz's responses? Without even touching the subject of "should gimped characters be granted prestiges" the shield is simply not OP: it has virtually the same stats a similar tower shield would have, the only difference being a cosmetic one unless I am missing something. I don't know why such a rule must exist that you can't get a cosmetic change for your item, if you include the necessary penalties. The request seems like an emulation of a tower shield. I have no idea why this could not be allowed, if it is important to the player to wield a wee shield without shooting theirself in the foot.

give it to a shifter. bam merging 7 ac.

if it's OP to anyone then it's OP to everyone. anything anyone requests has to be requestable by all.

Mushidoz: "It's untradable / requested as a plot item. It cannot be given to anyone else, nor can it be sold. All you gotta do is to check a box when making the item, making it so that the -requested / approved- item isn't breaking the balance or giving something stronger than what is already available, and it will forever be tied to that character, therefore you don't have to keep track of potential problems an item could produce."
Commie: "if it's OP to anyone then it's OP to everyone. anything anyone requests has to be requestable by all."
But it's not OP to everyone, it's bound to this single person. Why should not a "bound item" be allowed? Clearly this is a fluff request as characterised by Mushidoz, I think the line is too strict because it disallows her from using the wee shield effectively.

not to mention rather then amending the entire request process with a 'power level' clause that allows any item to act like any other as long as the stats are arbitrarily adjusted;

you could just use a tower shield.

Quote:

Mushidoz: "It's untradable / requested as a plot item. It cannot be given to anyone else, nor can it be sold. All you gotta do is to check a box when making the item, making it so that the -requested / approved- item isn't breaking the balance or giving something stronger than what is already available, and it will forever be tied to that character, therefore you don't have to keep track of potential problems an item could produce."
Commie: "if it's OP to anyone then it's OP to everyone. anything anyone requests has to be requestable by all."
But it's not OP to everyone, it's bound to this single person. Why should not a "bound item" be allowed? Clearly this is a fluff request as characterised by Mushidoz, I think the line is too strict because it disallows her from using the wee shield effectively.

because if one person gets it approved then everyone can get the same thing. requests forum is basically 'common law.'

so you'd just hand 2 ac to every shifter/dshape druid gated fully by a request and a 20ish DC tax.

Whaat? The request forum has never read as "law"; at the same time there have and have not been requests that have been held as standards, or precedents that have or have not given form to future requests, but there has never been a ruling or whatnot that one request must be applicable for all. This is clearly something up to debate and sounds like something that can be handled on an individual basis involving other circumstances and factors pertinent to the situation being handled.

I have always defended treating the server with respect and possibly giving them a lot of credit and liberty to getting what they want in order for them to roleplay their characters/enjoying their time here as they want. In Mushidoz's example, I think the premise is quite clear: she wants a small shield to emulate a tower shield to make it more viable and to look pretty; that is why she does not use a tower shield and I think makes a good case as is. I am not telling how the DM should have ruled on this, I am saying that clearly the question is not as absolute as you make it out to be. The team can easily rule differently on individual cases depending on circumstances, and in Mushidoz's case and in respect to other requests for similar items, the question of "is the character able to shift or not" could be a premise to the request. If the character is a class that can shapeshift, then the shield would obviously have an application that stretches the power boundaries fixed for the server. If the character cannot shapeshift, then the item is cosmetic and there is no apparent contradiction.

In my humbledore, adhering to absolutes and strict conditions makes for needlessly constrictive policy, which, further, does not communicate trust and respect to the playerbase.

I disagree. There is a lot of insane shit out there because for a long time there was no common balance ground.

Due to the policies of the old crew we had spells that are will vs 400ish electric damage, custom forms that lose all weaknesses of said form, and custom weapons that are +dmg to like 8 things keen +5 enh +2 stat + saves + magic dmg.

It needs to stop, and homogenizing items to a level of agreeable commonality is the way to do that, and allowing individual characters items that are only balanced because the character refuses to use the 'balanced' item out of sheer vanity is a really bad way to go.

Just use a tower shield.

+7 weapons pls

Commie wrote:

I disagree. There is a lot of insane shit out there because for a long time there was no common balance ground.

Due to the policies of the old crew we had spells that are will vs 400ish electric damage, custom forms that lose all weaknesses of said form, and custom weapons that are +dmg to like 8 things keen +5 enh +2 stat + saves + magic dmg.

It needs to stop, and homogenizing items to a level of agreeable commonality is the way to do that, and allowing individual characters items that are only balanced because the character refuses to use the 'balanced' item out of sheer vanity is a really bad way to go.

Just use a tower shield.

It's not vanity, it's a sense of style they wish for their character to represent, which I can fully understand and get behind.

While it is true that previously the server has had a different general policy on requests and it has led to some perceivable problems, it does not mean that the slightest deviation from the yardstick would automatically and inevitably lead to imbalance. What past mistakes have been made that still reflect poorly on the current state of the balance and the discussion stemming thereof, I think it underestimates DMs and players alike to say that no exceptions could be made with good reasons. I think this homogenizing process has already been the name of the game for some time, but as a side product, I fear, it may lead to unsatisfied players who do not get what they want because there is some magical principle to enshrine, which does not involve requester on a practical level except for the restrictions they face in their requests.

I am not trying to "prove you wrong" as it's largely debatable, but I think this is a question that cannot be cast aside without really consulting how the players feel about it, and thus I am disinclined to take a stance as absolute as yours.

Quote:

It's not vanity, it's a sense of style they wish for their character to represent

That's literally vanity.

Let's not talk semantics too much? Vanity as a word bears negative connotations that could be used in a sentence like "people who undergo plastic surgery in the LA are really vain", whereas someone might say "I don't think it's vain, I think it's just a norm or a means to an end that they conform to, no need to be overly moral about it". How we portray our characters is not vanity: it's what we all do all the time, and wanting to use a small shield for one's character to look a certain way without AC penalties is a way for a player to portray one's character. No need to read into it or pass judgment when we don't know the first thing about the player motive.

Commie wrote:

Quote:

It's not vanity, it's a sense of style they wish for their character to represent

That's literally vanity.

No, it's not vanity.
Style is not excessive pride or admiration of self appearance. Walking past a mirror and stopping to see how good you look in your new scarf (shield) is vain, just putting the scarf (shield) on because you like it is style, not vanity.

That shield at first glance is op, yes. But it's also a small shield literally just bumped to be a tower shield. Even then, only by AC standards. Look at the negatives. It completely negates that which a tower shield would. -9 hide, ms, set trap are what you're really looking at in terms of its power. -9 tumble is irrelevant due to the AC coming from ranks. So that alone, it's a bog standard +5 tower. Taking the resists into play, you've got a Ele' Def' Scutum with sonic resist. Hanamori is a monk/Fighter or ranger/WM if I'm not mistaken so casting is again irrelevant.

As far as I can see, there's no real massive bonus this shield has other than a visual and sonic resist. That said, I don't know of any way you can get sonic resist other than silence scrolls for the immunity or a DM request. So again. It's only a Elemental Defence Scutum with sonic resist and with out the weight. It's the same as requesting a tower with these resists + and standard 5 AC.

Last edited by Mushidoz on Sun, Mar 05 2017, 18:26 PM, edited 1 time in total.

Broldi wrote:

That shield at first glance is op, yes. But it's also a small shield literally just bumped to be a tower shield. Even then, only by AC standards. Look at the negatives. It completely negates that which a tower shield would. -9 hide, ms, set trap are what you're really looking at in terms of its power. -9 tumble is irrelevant due to the AC coming from ranks. So that alone, it's a bog standard +5 tower. Taking the resists into play, you've got a Ele' Def' Scutum with sonic resist. Hanamori is a monk/Fighter or ranger/WM if I'm not mistaken so casting is again irrelevant.

As far as I can see, there's no real massive bonus this shield has other than a visual and sonic resist. That said, I don't know of any way you can get sonic resist other than silence scrolls for the immunity or a DM request. So again. It's only a Elemental Defence Scutum with sonic resist and with out the weight. It's the same as requesting a tower with these resists + and standard 5 AC.

Saya is now rogue (13) / ranger (10) / bard (6) <-- Yuck, I know

The elemental tower shield doesn't have sonic resist? Didn't know there was a difference between the two, else I would have removed the sonic resist off it (I currently wield the small shield version and thought they were the same..)

As for the weight, no, it has the exact same weight (actually it's heavier by 1).

---

That request would have had the same amount of penalties to dex rolls, the same spell failure, the same weight, and the same amount of AC as a tower shield. If the elemental tower shield doesn't have sonic resist like the small one does, then it would not have been me trying to get an extra bonus, rather than a mistake on my part assuming they were identical.

If tomorrow the server had a hak update and someone added that blue wingy small shield model to the tower shield models, this entire thing would have been equal to paying 1 DC to have the appearance of a tower shield changed to that one (or just use craft armor..)

---

We're debating the example I gave here, but I was expecting this thread to discuss this sort of situation in general.

1) Do you think if a request does not affect balance in any shape or form, that a character who shot themselves in the foot for the sake of RP should have support from the staff to help cope for penalties they have now but wouldn't if they went powerbuilding and didn't care about their RP representation? (As long as said bonuses do not go above what a powerbuilding decision could give them - as in the example provided here)

2) Do you think it is a good idea to have a certain balance to items with bad core stats that would have higher bonuses added? Like how the truestrike dagger has more damage than other weapons that have stronger bases, or how Twice Over has a 2d8 bonus to damage while other weapons are 2d6? I personally love that weaker type of weapons actually gain bonuses that are different / unique and that may help promoting variety in weapons.

Yes, shifters are a problem. But shifters are the problem, not the bonuses themselves..

I don't think so, could be wrong, I have it but I never look at its stats. If it does that's even less of a difference haha. The ele def' shields are all the same in their resists though so if that's the case then there you have it. It's literally just a Ele Def Scutum. So why is this op? Why are people bitching?

Perfectly reasonable item. The tower shield does have sonic resist on it.

I mean, again, recent dm request policy is that if its approved for one person it gets approved for everyone. If this goes in im going to have two requests up within the hour for both my dragon shape druid and my shifter just so I can have a plus seven bonus (overriding the plus five deflection becuase plus seven is higher) while shifted.

If thats how it is then that's how it is.

Commie wrote:

I mean, again, recent dm request policy is that if its approved for one person it gets approved for everyone. If this goes in im going to have two requests up within the hour for both my dragon shape druid and my shifter just so I can have a plus seven bonus (overriding the plus five deflection becuase plus seven is higher) while shifted.

If thats how it is then that's how it is.

No. They can and do take in your classes to account. Hence sorcerer and wizard having to always get 5 AC on armor and shields.

We have allowed exceptions in the past for builds, classes, etc when it came to gear and spells. Most of which were exactly for cases like this. That was a mistake and it has taken a long time to clean it up. Never again. Sorry.

Yeh but this just seems like a reskin to me. How's that any stronger or any less balanced than a ele' def' scutum?

Well, I would argue that either it has not been cleaned up yet, and that the descision of this rule has a bit of a wavy timeline, since I would like to point out a request made little over three months three and a half months ago.

Pitt's weapons:

This was said about them:

Amarice-Elaraliel wrote:

Yeah with the lack of keen (while being a class that cannot just cast it at whim) this is ok.

This seems like a case of being balanced around a class.

Edit: Math failed me, it was three and a half months ago

I hardly see how adding a rule that emulating a different piece of gear through adding on such in this case, bonus AC at the cost of skill points, weight (and if needed arcane spell failure) is in anyway game breaking if made
A) Plot to prevent transfer
B) Refunded into its appropriate original item if the character ever gets a rebuild that breaks the balance of the item
C) Removed without refund if caught being abused by the player in some manner.

Main reason for this is the limited appearances offered by certain item types. Also, Diety shields

Put a little trust in the community and their unwillingness to have ~20DCs wasted

It is not emulating anything.

It is a small shield, period. A towershield looking like a small shield, is a small shield.

We have a solid cap of +5 AC on items, with potentially +6 for specific races (though this is obviously subject to approval). Your item would be more than fine dropping it from 7 to 5 AC. If you want a tower shield, get one. I'm not comfortable emulating Tower Shield properties on a small shield.

robbi320 wrote:

Well, I would argue that either it has not been cleaned up yet, and that the descision of this rule has a bit of a wavy timeline, since I would like to point out a request made little over three months three and a half months ago.

Pitt's weapons:

This was said about them:

Amarice-Elaraliel wrote:

Yeah with the lack of keen (while being a class that cannot just cast it at whim) this is ok.

This seems like a case of being balanced around a class.

Edit: Math failed me, it was three and a half months ago

The UD has a shop selling CL 17 Keen scrolls that last 17min. Don't understand why not having keen on your weapon allows you to 'up' its power

Maverick00053 wrote:

We have allowed exceptions in the past for builds, classes, etc when it came to gear and spells. Most of which were exactly for cases like this. That was a mistake and it has taken a long time to clean it up. Never again. Sorry.

Yea i remember plenty crazy items , I'm glad that mess finally got cleared up a bit

Keen edge only works on slashing weapons.

Maverick00053 wrote:

Keen edge only works on slashing weapons.

Additionally, you have to apply it to your weapon first.

If you get ambushed or get into PvP where every single buff counts in time, you are at a clear disadvantage.

Same goes for stuff like a mage writing you Blackstaff scrolls. Or you using MS weapon oils/buffs. Or appying weapon poisons or the crawler enzym etc.

robbi320 wrote:

Well, I would argue that either it has not been cleaned up yet, and that the descision of this rule has a bit of a wavy timeline, since I would like to point out a request made little over three months three and a half months ago.

Pitt's weapons:

This was said about them:

Amarice-Elaraliel wrote:

Yeah with the lack of keen (while being a class that cannot just cast it at whim) this is ok.

This seems like a case of being balanced around a class.

Edit: Math failed me, it was three and a half months ago

Anyone could request that weapon though. Amarice's comment about a lack of keen was more about classes that can cast GMW/magic vestment and whatnot need to request those 'buffs' as part of the request and can't just ask for a weapon missing the +5 and getting 4 extra mythal power slots, keen being the same way. feel free to correct me if I am wrong but that's how I read it.

Broldi wrote:

As far as I can see, there's no real massive bonus this shield has other than a visual and sonic resist. That said, I don't know of any way you can get sonic resist other than silence scrolls for the immunity or a DM request.

Guys, sonic resist isn't on the elemental shields (although it should be!), and you can just buy sonic resist stuff from like 6 or so vendors around amia.

Commie wrote:

Broldi wrote:

As far as I can see, there's no real massive bonus this shield has other than a visual and sonic resist. That said, I don't know of any way you can get sonic resist other than silence scrolls for the immunity or a DM request.

Guys, sonic resist isn't on the elemental shields (although it should be!), and you can just buy sonic resist stuff from like 6 or so vendors around amia.

The elemental defense shields do have sonic actually. I have a large on one character and a tower on another. Can confirm they have sonic resist.

Also not for this quote, but keen edge works on more than just slashing weapons. I've had it casted on a warhammer before. Unless there's a transmutation page for it? Unsure.

Terallis wrote:

Commie wrote:

Broldi wrote:

As far as I can see, there's no real massive bonus this shield has other than a visual and sonic resist. That said, I don't know of any way you can get sonic resist other than silence scrolls for the immunity or a DM request.

Guys, sonic resist isn't on the elemental shields (although it should be!), and you can just buy sonic resist stuff from like 6 or so vendors around amia.

The elemental defense shields do have sonic actually. I have a large on one character and a tower on another. Can confirm they have sonic resist.

Also not for this quote, but keen edge works on more than just slashing weapons. I've had it casted on a warhammer before. Unless there's a transmutation page for it? Unsure.

i thought they were cold fire acid electric

Keen edge
Spell level: bard 3; sorcerer/wizard 3

Innate level: 3
School: transmutation
Descriptor: weapon enchantment
Components: verbal, somatic
Range: short touch
Area of effect: creature or slashing weapon

You prolly saw someone cast blade thirst on a hammer, not keen edge.

As I understand it, the matter boils down to the fact that a) the character (due to their vanity) insists that they must have a blue shield, and b) there are no blue tower shields.

If this is correct, then request that blue tower shields be added at the next hak update and wait until then. Otherwise, the options are a) get a non-blue tower shield, b) get a blue non-tower shield, c) do without. If blue-tower-shield vendors don't frequent Amia and/or blue paint doesn't stick to tower shields for some unknown reason, then that's that.

The issue of AC only arises because the character can't find the desired item. If I can't get a keen bow because something about the game doesn't permit it, I don't see that I should be entitled to get a +6 bow or 3d6 massive criticals instead of 2d6 unless I can make the case that the character's training/skill/magical knowledge/connections would actually permit that.

If the extra 2 AC is a must-have mechanically (OOC), then do a rebuild.

Why should you have to rebuild of your build shaped around the characters personality?

We have several blue tower shields.

The shield is made to mechanically be a Tower Shield. Mechanical-wise, it would not be an issue. Principle-wise, we get the whole slippery slope of constantly debating and figuring out what is "equal" in the future. I asked something similar not too long ago(not formally, but through the proper channels) of getting a Small Shield that would function like a Large Shield for the pure fact I don't like how every single Large Shield model clips through a PC's leg in certain ACP's. I was told no then, and while I can disagree somewhat, I can still understand, just like I can now. It's not that it's not mechanically the same, that argument makes itself. It's simply a lot of added trouble for the small task force we have, would require a lot more outlines on what we can and cannot make "equal" for the sake of aesthetics, and honestly not worth the time and effort it would come up. That's the story. +5 is not a glorified, holy number, it's our convention and it saves us all time.

Maverick00053 wrote:

We have allowed exceptions in the past for builds, classes, etc when it came to gear and spells. Most of which were exactly for cases like this. That was a mistake and it has taken a long time to clean it up. Never again. Sorry.

The allowance of past exceptions is true and it's nice to see it verbalized rather than somehow write it off as we have always had the current convention, right or wrong. I wouldn't say it was a mistake, though. It only became a mistake and an issue when we stopped allowing it and others weren't given the opportunity to reach the same heights(this goes for both custom gear and scripting). Or rather, when we wanted to stop dealing with it. It's not a matter of making shit builds less shit, as I and plenty of other people understood it at the time, DC items were where a good honest RP build could level the playing field with let's say a less RP oriented build. You can min-max to your heart's desire, but convincing the DMs to give you something a little extra would be near impossible. If you're an RP server, you want to reward RP. That's not to say balance isn't integral to sustaining our world, but that it's not so black and white.

Or at least then. With the current motto of "if for one, then for all" that avenue doesn't really exist any more. Again, not trying to say what is correct or incorrect. But the idea of making sacrifices for the sake of RP in your build when it's not going to lend you any benefits when requesting things falters in that case. If your 14 INT WIS CHA Fighter gets some sort of leadership ability or roleplay-supported item, then Booger-Eater the 44 STR Half-Orc has to be able to get it too. Now, I don't fully buy that builds do not factor into getting abilities/gear, because I'd like to think that the DMs would have the good common sense to say Booger-Eater doesn't meet whatever theorized mechanical requisites would exist for said ability. And we've clearly seen that, at some point, build does factor into what you can receive(see: any of Cory's requests). While I understand that as well, I also somewhat resent it. I and many other characters benefited from the old view and understand a somewhat equal playing field keeps it fun for us as a whole. All the same, I never knew we would one day discontinue such allowances and certainly never asked for it to be hung over my head in requests under the new paradigm. That, and I don't find it necessary for a (theoretically) RP-driven fantasy world to reflect some OoC notion of fairness; Sauron doesn't magically become weaker because Frodo showed up years later and doesn't have the same opportunities. And were I to join said fantasy realm, I wouldn't want said Big Bads/Good to neuter themselves, their achievements, or their story on some lame gambit to make the world "even" on my behalf. I say that, of course, from my own ivory tower.

This is all just a long rant to say re: DM opinons on this and items in general "I understand, agree in practice, yet somewhat disagree in theory."

Dark Immolation wrote:

The shield is made to mechanically be a Tower Shield. Mechanical-wise, it would not be an issue. Principle-wise, we get the whole slippery slope of constantly debating and figuring out what is "equal" in the future. I asked something similar not too long ago(not formally, but through the proper channels) of getting a Small Shield that would function like a Large Shield for the pure fact I don't like how every single Large Shield model clips through a PC's leg in certain ACP's. I was told no then, and while I can disagree somewhat, I can still understand, just like I can now. It's not that it's not mechanically the same, that argument makes itself. It's simply a lot of added trouble for the small task force we have, would require a lot more outlines on what we can and cannot make "equal" for the sake of aesthetics, and honestly not worth the time and effort it would come up. That's the story. +5 is not a glorified, holy number, it's our convention and it saves us all time.

Maverick00053 wrote:

We have allowed exceptions in the past for builds, classes, etc when it came to gear and spells. Most of which were exactly for cases like this. That was a mistake and it has taken a long time to clean it up. Never again. Sorry.

The allowance of past exceptions is true and it's nice to see it verbalized rather than somehow write it off as we have always had the current convention, right or wrong. I wouldn't say it was a mistake, though. It only became a mistake and an issue when we stopped allowing it and others weren't given the opportunity to reach the same heights(this goes for both custom gear and scripting). Or rather, when we wanted to stop dealing with it. It's not a matter of making shit builds less shit, as I and plenty of other people understood it at the time, DC items were where a good honest RP build could level the playing field with let's say a less RP oriented build. You can min-max to your heart's desire, but convincing the DMs to give you something a little extra would be near impossible. If you're an RP server, you want to reward RP. That's not to say balance isn't integral to sustaining our world, but that it's not so black and white.

Or at least then. With the current motto of "if for one, then for all" that avenue doesn't really exist any more. Again, not trying to say what is correct or incorrect. But the idea of making slight sacrifices for the sake of RP in your build when it's not going to lend you any benefits when requesting things falters in that case. If your 14 INT WIS CHA Fighter gets some sort of leadership ability, then Booger-Eater the 44 STR Half-Orc has to be able to get it too. Now, I don't fully buy that builds do not factor into getting abilities/gear, because I'd like to think that the DMs would have the good common sense to say Booger-Eater doesn't meet whatever theorized mechanical requisites would exist for said ability. And we've clearly seen that, at some point, build does factor into what you can receive(see: any of Cory's requests). While I understand that as well, I also somewhat resent it. I and many other characters benefited from the old view and understand an somewhat equal playing field keeps it fun for us as a whole. All the same, I never knew we would one day discontinue such allowances and certainly never asked for it to be hung over my head in requests under the new paradigm. That, and I don't find it necessary for a (theoretically) RP-driven fantasy world to reflect some OoC notion of fairness; Sauron doesn't magically become weaker because Frodo showed up years later and doesn't have the same opportunities. And were I to join said fantasy realm, I wouldn't want said Big Bads/Good to neuter themselves, their achievements, or their story on some lame gambit to make the world "even" on my behalf. I say that, of course, from my own ivory tower.

This is all just a long rant to say re: DM opinons on this and items in general "I understand, agree in practice, yet somewhat disagree in theory."

Good old Coy requests :lol:

, I still have a few active requests I keep bumping like my helm...ect and I ask for input because by having the builds factor in and because I'm Amia's balance nightmare it seems, I need a lot more DMs to help to know what I can request as what might be ok for someone else wont be ok for me.

But yeah I have to agree like you "I understand, agree in practice, yet somewhat disagree in theory." But have always viewed people who invest time into one person and not a ton of alts, should be more akin to Larloch then generic lich number 1000....ect

Maverick00053 wrote:

We can't break the balance rules because you artificially gimp your character. Everyone is treated the same, and their requests are viewed in a equal light when it comes to gear.

If you rebuild your character, or give away that shield now someone else has this insanely powerful shield on a powerful build. There are too many factors that we as DMs can't track and don't have the manpower or time to track to make sure it isn't being abused. It is also unfair to everyone else who made a different choice when it came to a build as you, plain and simple.

Bingo

Also this breaks anything to do with Polymorph b/c of AC overriding as was stated

Also even +6 things shouldn't have been done except monk gloves, it's just more blatant power creep

Also the Elemental Defense stuff is 5/- fire/cold/acid/elec/sonic

Also sonic resist is piss easy to get everywhere

Also keen edge only works on slashing weapons and nothing else, Blade Thirst does them all

I think that's all the misconceptions ITT cleared up

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If you purposefully make a mechanically less powerful build itis not the responsibility of the DMs to prop you up with overpowered DC items - it's their responsibility to do the opposite.

Pop quiz time: Do all supporters of "mini-towers" also think all one handed weapons should be finessable and also do 1d6 damage with 18-20 crit range? It's mathematically the best in the system, and no one should be punished for their aesthetic choices. All twohanders should be 2d6 19-20/x2, or 2d4 x4, those are the best two damage formulas. Don't punish style (which IS vanity btw). Weapon Finesse should be a free feat and not be a feat tax so as to not punish an aesthetic choice. All armor should be dex uncapped because otherwise cloth is objectively the best.

If you don't agree with the above statements then you agree that you are hypocritical and you are cherry picking arguments based on your own personal character desire rather than the argument base from which you purport to stand.

TormakSaber wrote:

Pop quiz time: Do all supporters of "mini-towers" also think all one handed weapons should be finessable and also do 1d6 damage with 18-20 crit range? It's mathematically the best in the system, and no one should be punished for their aesthetic choices. All twohanders should be 2d6 19-20/x2, or 2d4 x4, those are the best two damage formulas. Don't punish style (which IS vanity btw). Weapon Finesse should be a free feat and not be a feat tax so as to not punish an aesthetic choice. All armor should be dex uncapped because otherwise cloth is objectively the best.

If you don't agree with the above statements then you agree that you are hypocritical and you are cherry picking arguments based on your own personal character desire rather than the argument base from which you purport to stand.

Pretty sure you're better than that Tormak. Despite the sarcasm, the armor and dex cap changes to allow all types to at least get 9 AC proves to go against your argument. Half plate is functionally the same thing as full plate within the confines of Amia. As for weapons, I'd be for averaging out damage based on simple, martial, or exotic proficiency. Wouldn't be that hard honestly.

I think a build that is not preplanned lvl 1 to 30, but shaped by the roleplay. If you has a base idea of going Blackguard eventually but turn of event turns you towards neutral/good, you probably get punished by your build being ruined. To say "It is your fault for hampering your own build because of potentially roleplaying changing your character" will just cater to more pre-planned power builds that will not be changed even if your character should not be evil anymore or good or whatever needed to shape that pre planned power build.

For this shield? I have no opinion, but to throw shit on people who allow events and happenings to shape their build rather than to go all in on your pre planned power house is commendable.

Also, why always so rude and sarcastic, Tormak?

TormakSaber wrote:

Maverick00053 wrote:

We can't break the balance rules because you artificially gimp your character. Everyone is treated the same, and their requests are viewed in a equal light when it comes to gear.

If you rebuild your character, or give away that shield now someone else has this insanely powerful shield on a powerful build. There are too many factors that we as DMs can't track and don't have the manpower or time to track to make sure it isn't being abused. It is also unfair to everyone else who made a different choice when it came to a build as you, plain and simple.

Bingo

Also this breaks anything to do with Polymorph b/c of AC overriding as was stated <-- Saya is a 13 rogue / 10 ranger / 6 bard with 10 base wisdom. Tell me how she can use polymorph effectively again?

Also even +6 things shouldn't have been done except monk gloves, it's just more blatant power creep <-- Except what would have been requested here is the exact same thing as a tower shield +5. Not a tower shield +6 or +7; a +5 tower shield with a different appearance that's not available at the moment, without having to go through hakpack updates.
[/color]
Also the Elemental Defense stuff is 5/- fire/cold/acid/elec/sonic <-- That's what I thought, yes

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If you purposefully make a mechanically less powerful build it is not the responsibility of the DMs to prop you up with overpowered DC items - it's their responsibility to do the opposite. <-- Using the Mini-Tower as an example for this, I think it would break -nothing- balance-wise as the character can already wear a tower shield, but doesn't due to character choice. This would have been an OOC fix to a IC problem, only to help the -player- cope for good RP decisions that leaves the character weaker than people who don't give a **** about RP and just create powerbuilds that oftentimes make no sense classwise and statwise.

In general though, I think that the staff should be willing to help bad builds. Make no mistake here, though, this has been done in the past on Amia, but the problem presented was when things went overboard and items given were stronger than what available to all, pushing characters above what they could have been able to do if they had made powergaming decisions.

Pop quiz time:

Do all supporters of "mini-towers" also think all one handed weapons should be finessable and also do 1d6 damage with 18-20 crit range?

You're not approaching this example right. There are weapon models available (through haks and all) that make your weapons look different than the original nwn models. There is even a model for the rapier that has the exact same appearance as a scimitar's model. Is that really a problem? If so, why did you include this in the hak? I repeat, again, because many don't seem to understand it yet - but that shield is -NOT- stronger than a tower shield. It is the -EXACT SAME- thing as a +5 tower shield, but it has the LOOK of a small shield. If a hak update suddenly came about that included that wing-like option in the tower shield, this entire discussion would not have come to life.

All twohanders should be 2d6 19-20/x2, or 2d4 x4, those are the best two damage formulas. Don't punish style (which IS vanity btw).

Weapons tend to bring something different to the table that are not represented through the dmg / crit only. Some weapons will have damage types that make them more valuable (halberd / heavy flail), some will be possible to wield with a shield (sling + shield), etc. Moreover, there are custum Amia items you can find that were made by people who understood that not all weapon types are equal. That is why you end up with items like the "Twice Over" which has 2d8 bonus damage, or the Truestrike daggers(?) that have higher bonus damage than, say, kukris do.

Weapon Finesse should be a free feat and not be a feat tax so as to not punish an aesthetic choice.

You're pushing it way too far. We're not talking style here, we're talking core game mechanics. That's the same reason there are weapon proficiency feats and that not all classes and races are identical.

All armor should be dex uncapped because otherwise cloth is objectively the best.

Clothes require stat investments and will be affected by flat-foot, etc. In fact, the staff somewhat recently decided to make all armor types as good as the fullplate. You are defeating your very own argument here.

If you don't agree with the above statements then you agree that you are hypocritical and you are cherry picking arguments based on your own personal character desire rather than the argument base from which you purport to stand. <-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

Quote:

Also this breaks anything to do with Polymorph b/c of AC overriding as was stated <-- Saya is a 13 rogue / 10 ranger / 6 bard with 10 base wisdom. Tell me how she can use polymorph effectively again?

Shapechange scroll via UMD. Not picking sides, just being informative.

NAUX wrote:

Quote:

Also this breaks anything to do with Polymorph b/c of AC overriding as was stated <-- Saya is a 13 rogue / 10 ranger / 6 bard with 10 base wisdom. Tell me how she can use polymorph effectively again?

Shapechange scroll via UMD. Not picking sides, just being informative.

Clearly though, it should be clear to anyone reading this thread that it would definately not have been my goal to have to rely on buying 1000000000 scrolls to fight by cheating through a custum request to cope for horrible build and doubtful RP decisions... And I don't even think this would have been better than what I already have, so it'd gimp me to an lower state.

By the way, the only good argument I have seen in favor of not allowing this type of requests was made by Immolation. He brought up that if this request would have been made and approved that other people would have asked for similar ones - and that it would open the flood fates with potentially a crapload of work, thus being hard to handle with the current staff's time. That, that is a valid argument.. and the reason why if I had requested this, this would have been made in private rather than public.

---------

To further represent what was supposed to be requested, here is a montage!..

Reminder: This would have been requested on a character that does not shapeshift, and made into an untradable / plot item.

Dark Immolation pretty much hit the nail on the head. This isn't going to happen but you are welcome to continue debating it.

this is just a cosmetic change end of the day, literally has the same stats as a elemental defiance shield.

Mushidoz wrote:

NAUX wrote:

Quote:

Also this breaks anything to do with Polymorph b/c of AC overriding as was stated <-- Saya is a 13 rogue / 10 ranger / 6 bard with 10 base wisdom. Tell me how she can use polymorph effectively again?

Shapechange scroll via UMD. Not picking sides, just being informative.

Clearly though, it should be clear to anyone reading this thread that it would definately not have been my goal to have to rely on buying 1000000000 scrolls to fight by cheating through a custum request to cope for horrible build and doubtful RP decisions... And I don't even think this would have been better than what I already have, so it'd gimp me to an lower state.

By the way, the only good argument I have seen in favor of not allowing this type of requests was made by Immolation. He brought up that if this request would have been made and approved that other people would have asked for similar ones - and that it would open the flood fates with potentially a crapload of work, thus being hard to handle with the current staff's time. That, that is a valid argument.. and the reason why if I had requested this, this would have been made in private rather than public.

---------

To further represent what was supposed to be requested, here is a montage!..

Reminder: This would have been requested on a character that does not shapeshift, and made into an untradable / plot item.

personally, for me, it's a style choice to use two weapons instead of a shield and one weapon, i gimped my character by picking a 'style' build instead of a powergamed one, so seeing as im down 8 ac because of it, can I get a +13 deflection bonus on my off-hand, to make up for the fact that I can't equip a shield and would need 5 more deflection because now my cloak won't stack?

at the end of the day i'd have the same ac as a dex someone using a single weapon and tower shield so it seems balanced.

Mushidoz wrote:

TormakSaber wrote:

Maverick00053 wrote:

We can't break the balance rules because you artificially gimp your character. Everyone is treated the same, and their requests are viewed in a equal light when it comes to gear.

If you rebuild your character, or give away that shield now someone else has this insanely powerful shield on a powerful build. There are too many factors that we as DMs can't track and don't have the manpower or time to track to make sure it isn't being abused. It is also unfair to everyone else who made a different choice when it came to a build as you, plain and simple.

Bingo

Also this breaks anything to do with Polymorph b/c of AC overriding as was stated <-- Saya is a 13 rogue / 10 ranger / 6 bard with 10 base wisdom. Tell me how she can use polymorph effectively again?

Also even +6 things shouldn't have been done except monk gloves, it's just more blatant power creep <-- Except what would have been requested here is the exact same thing as a tower shield +5. Not a tower shield +6 or +7; a +5 tower shield with a different appearance that's not available at the moment, without having to go through hakpack updates.
[/color]
Also the Elemental Defense stuff is 5/- fire/cold/acid/elec/sonic <-- That's what I thought, yes

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If you purposefully make a mechanically less powerful build it is not the responsibility of the DMs to prop you up with overpowered DC items - it's their responsibility to do the opposite. <-- Using the Mini-Tower as an example for this, I think it would break -nothing- balance-wise as the character can already wear a tower shield, but doesn't due to character choice. This would have been an OOC fix to a IC problem, only to help the -player- cope for good RP decisions that leaves the character weaker than people who don't give a **** about RP and just create powerbuilds that oftentimes make no sense classwise and statwise.

In general though, I think that the staff should be willing to help bad builds. Make no mistake here, though, this has been done in the past on Amia, but the problem presented was when things went overboard and items given were stronger than what available to all, pushing characters above what they could have been able to do if they had made powergaming decisions.

Pop quiz time:

Do all supporters of "mini-towers" also think all one handed weapons should be finessable and also do 1d6 damage with 18-20 crit range?

You're not approaching this example right. There are weapon models available (through haks and all) that make your weapons look different than the original nwn models. There is even a model for the rapier that has the exact same appearance as a scimitar's model. Is that really a problem? If so, why did you include this in the hak? I repeat, again, because many don't seem to understand it yet - but that shield is -NOT- stronger than a tower shield. It is the -EXACT SAME- thing as a +5 tower shield, but it has the LOOK of a small shield. If a hak update suddenly came about that included that wing-like option in the tower shield, this entire discussion would not have come to life.

All twohanders should be 2d6 19-20/x2, or 2d4 x4, those are the best two damage formulas. Don't punish style (which IS vanity btw).

Weapons tend to bring something different to the table that are not represented through the dmg / crit only. Some weapons will have damage types that make them more valuable (halberd / heavy flail), some will be possible to wield with a shield (sling + shield), etc. Moreover, there are custum Amia items you can find that were made by people who understood that not all weapon types are equal. That is why you end up with items like the "Twice Over" which has 2d8 bonus damage, or the Truestrike daggers(?) that have higher bonus damage than, say, kukris do.

Weapon Finesse should be a free feat and not be a feat tax so as to not punish an aesthetic choice.

You're pushing it way too far. We're not talking style here, we're talking core game mechanics. That's the same reason there are weapon proficiency feats and that not all classes and races are identical.

All armor should be dex uncapped because otherwise cloth is objectively the best.

Clothes require stat investments and will be affected by flat-foot, etc. In fact, the staff somewhat recently decided to make all armor types as good as the fullplate. You are defeating your very own argument here.

If you don't agree with the above statements then you agree that you are hypocritical and you are cherry picking arguments based on your own personal character desire rather than the argument base from which you purport to stand. <-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

OK, so you admit you're a hypocrite that's pushing a personal agenda rather than arguing from the point of "aesthetics shouldn't be punished". That's fine, just don't be disingenuous and say you're being benevolent when you're not. You just want stuff no one else can get and yu don't actually want the playing field levelled.

Saying you'd make it a private request to prevent anyone else from knowing about it under the veneer of 'saving the DMS time' is bad, btw, and also absolutely not how the request system works: Things that are approved privately are not somehow looked at on a different balance level than everything else.

You are right that weapons offer damage types, and frankly, I am being punished because I want to use Light Hammers. Why should I be punished because I want my halfing to use the appearance of a light hammer, when scimitars and light flails are simply better? All one handed weapons should do all damage types and do the same damage and crit range, that way no character is punished for how they want their character to look. That is exactly the argument you are making here, but you refuse to acknowledge it and pretend you come from a high horse of "good RP decisions" because you purposefully decided to make apoor build and now expect the DMs to prop you up with items that would, under no circumstances, be approved for anyone else. That's not how the system works.

Helping shit characters - The Mini Tower Story

Who is online