Best minion for "Tanking"?

So, a bit of trivia for everyone, sort of a contest without a real 'prize'.

I have traveled far and wide and managed to have in my party at some point or other just about every type of wacked-out crazy minion you can possibly get in your party. Now, I am sure I haven't had every possible minion, of course.... but like I said, just about.

I know what I, myself, consider to be the best "minion" for 'tanking'. Truly, there are hordes of options.

The question is, for holding back the enemy while taking a hellacious beating, what is the best minion to have? Specifically, it must be a minion that is possible to obtain, shows in your party, does not require DM involvement/intervention to get in your party, and is capable of attacking (even if it isn't very good at it).

I am curious to hear what is everyone's "Go-to 'tank' minion"?

If anybody guesses the one that I found and consider the best, I will be impressed, and might even arrange a little something. If somebody manages to convince me of a better one, I guess that would have to be worthy of something nice. For the record, the one I have in mind is not a Troll or a Black Blade of Disaster.

Phyllick Delucian?

trolls. Fire/regular/ice, depending on area you're in.

Trolls are very solid, no doubt.... though I think if I could summon Phyllick 1/day, I would prefer the raging ball of dwarven fury

Black Blades of Disaster being indestructible are also quite wonderful, but the limited duration and inability to act on your own without them unsummoning 50% of the time does nerf it.

Dragons are good, tough, etc... Vorshlag is quite good if you can get him to fail the will save on Control undead.

Used to be the Quillin's archers were an invulnerable distraction. I don't mind so much them no longer being indestructibe.... but the trade off was supposed to be useful attacks from them, and they still cant hit the broad side of a barn at point-blank range for the round or two they end up surviving now

I've still got one in mind that I feel trumps everything mentioned so far....

The elder bee perhaps? I've seen ya wander around with him a few times if I remember correctly

For RP, the best may be Summon Ally; another PC willing to aid you in times of distress, or simply fill the session with banter.

On the flip side, the BBoD is always getting my attention.

I'm going to guess at one of the "proper" liches.. (the demi-lich, floaty head thingi)... you know the ones that only get hurt by divine damage... if you can find and get one to be a minion that is.... ...

If not.. maybe one of the golems.. like the adamantine one from the deathwater isle cave ... ??

Or maybe Gron/ An Orc destroyer ..... ....


Of course knowing the power of Crideas Bane.. I'd joke at the Nemesis / Hoxrana under the power of some epic domination ... .... ...

A fire troll can tank the nemesis. You're simply not gonna find any other summoned minion that can do that hold the nemesis for you for an extended time other than the blackblade (which as mentioned, has limited duration).

Wall of Force ?

MannyJabrielle wrote:A fire troll can tank the nemesis. You're simply not gonna find any other summoned minion that can do that hold the nemesis for you for an extended time other than the blackblade (which as mentioned, has limited duration).

I have indeed found a minion that can hold the nemesis near indefinitely. Or any other enemy

The minion I have in mind also does not have a specific vulnerability so it could be used in just about any situation.

Some things PCs must face are both deadly and impassable without the right tactic, and if the enemy can't duplicate that tactic, well, you've got yourself a Grade A tanker.

eeriegeek wrote:Wall of Force ?

Walls of force cannot attack.

The question is, for holding back the enemy while taking a hellacious beating, what is the best minion to have? Specifically, it must be a minion that is possible to obtain, shows in your party, does not require DM involvement/intervention to get in your party, and is capable of attacking (even if it isn't very good at it).

The golems on the top floor of the ice tower.. the one before the frosty dragon frostinercus (or somewhat)...

The ones that can't be hurt until you ...

Spoiler:

If anyone can think of a better tank, I am all ears

And yes, Rusty, you got it. I knew that last clue was too much

How do get them as a minion without dm help? As far as I remember they are mind spell immune and should not be obtainable by MoTMs at all unless removed the capture restrictions on them

Those particular golems are supposed to be immune to capture by a MotM. If you can grab one or more of them, then it's definitely a bug/oversight.

Bug squashed!

They certainly are immune to capture when they are at full hitpoints. You do have to "weaken" them before it becomes possible. Even then, the rolls must be made.

I dont think they should be flatly immune to capture though. The things are ungodly powerful against most PCs, and ice storms are no joke, especially when they drop 3 at a time on you. If a PC can survive long enough to weaken one and then make the rolls, they should be able to capture it. Its not like the things are unlimited use. You only get to release it once.

If the nerf bat will be swung in response to these sorts of "trivia" sessions, then I won't bother wasting my time in the future... not interested in killjoy rubbish.

Those particular golems are a special case. Using the MotM's "capture" ability on those three specific golems (each is actually a uniquely-tagged/resrefed creature) means that the golem's "respawning" code never fires (it's part of the creature's unique onDeath script, which never fires during the capture), and the captured golem is taken from that location in the game until the next server reset.

Each of those ice golems is a placed creature (rather than an encounter or trigger spawned creature) in order to tie them individually to their specific weakness and to prevent more than one of each specific golem from appearing in their area at the same time (so you don't end up with, say, 6 golems at a time, 3 of which would remain immune to everything even if the "weaknesses" were all unlocked).

Most other powerful creatures, even "unique" ones like Vorshlag the dracolich, are still open to being captured, since they are spawned from encounters or spawn systems rather than requiring the use of scripting that fires on the creature's death to handle repopulation/respawning.

The only other one's that I can think of that have this limitation are Gron and that one demonic spirit that's needed for a certain quest.

It's not so much a "nerf bat" as it is a "keeping the golems there for other players". In 99% of cases, I'd see using the unique things in the game in ways I didn't foresee as smart use of the gameworld. It's just this particular one interferes with the respawning of those specific golems...which most people wouldn't realize since after beating them, PCs would likely be off to other locations for adventure and wouldn't notice that only two (or one, or none) is there later during the same server session.

Sorry, I have seen them respawn just fine after capture. No server reset in between. If thats the only reason you have to "nerf" capturing them, then please leave it alone.

daveyeisley wrote:Sorry, I have seen them respawn just fine after capture. No server reset in between. If thats the only reason you have to "nerf" capturing them, then please leave it alone.

... do you not really understand the reasons why this blatant exploit should be corrected, or am I missing something here....?

Actually, I thought the wondrous, 'save the world' meatshield could be the best tanker since he/she would volunteer to take the bashing. This would kind of promote teamwork as well. I find it unique that you would wish to keep an exploit as opposed to other tactics to accomplish your goal.

Hrmmm...

Ingenuity = Blatant exploit.

I will have to remember that the next time anyone else comes up with a powerful combination of mechanics. Apparently we need to crack down on such things, because they ruin the game for everyone....

Wait, no they don't.

Whether or not the combination of the mechanics was originally intended is not the end-all be-all of determining an exploit, contrary to what appears to be the line of thought by some who have shared their opinions here.

One mechanic's limitations (motm capturing) allow the utilization of the other (capture of a weakened ice guardian).

That results in the PC gaining access to the guardian and its unique capabilities temporarily. This is the whole foundation of the MotM capturing mechanic. Its what it was designed to do.

Some captured minions will be more effective than others, this particular minion is excellent defensively because it will inevitably be used in an area where its "weakness" cannot be used against it.

If trolls are fine to use, and gain their power from the same combination of mechanics, then the argument that use of the guardian is an exploit is a contradiction.

daveyeisley wrote:Hrmmm...

Ingenuity = Blatant exploit.

I will have to remember that the next time anyone else comes up with a powerful combination of mechanics. Apparently we need to crack down on such things, because they ruin the game for everyone....

Wait, no they don't.

I literally lol'd when I read your attempt to mischaracterize the discussion. I don't feel the need to defend the straw man you've erected.

To be clear, what might be ingenious may also be an exploit, but no one is saying that one label is equatable to the other. This just happens to be both.

daveyeisley wrote:Whether or not the combination of the mechanics was originally intended is not the end-all be-all of determining an exploit, contrary to what appears to be the line of thought by some who have shared their opinions here.

Who is arguing that? No one I see here... It's not the original intent (or lack thereof) that's being argued, it's the end result.

daveyeisley wrote:One mechanic's limitations (motm capturing) allow the utilization of the other (capture of a weakened ice guardian).

That results in the PC gaining access to the guardian and its unique capabilities temporarily. This is the whole foundation of the MotM capturing mechanic. Its what it was designed to do.

Let me make sure I understand this correctly... It comes across as "Because I currently can, I should be able to continue to do so", hardly a universally compelling argument. Is that correct?

If you could capture PCs, using MotM mechanics, should you be able to continue this practice? Of course not.

daveyeisley wrote:Some captured minions will be more effective than others, this particular minion is excellent defensively because it will inevitably be used in an area where its "weakness" cannot be used against it.

Heh... "Inevitably"? "Inevitably"? You mean to say "In any other room, it's invincible." :-)

daveyeisley wrote:If trolls are fine to use, and gain their power from the same combination of mechanics, then the argument that use of the guardian is an exploit is a contradiction.

The differences between trolls and the golems is significant, so significant that a direct comparison is the whole apples/oranges thing. One's invincible and slings Ice Storms.

Dave, it was a good find, and quite ingenious. I just don't understand how you can not recognize this for what it is.

The difference between trolls and the ice golems is the trolls *can* be killed by enemy NPCs and friendly fire from PCs. The golems can't. Just my two-cents, but that makes a huge difference and crosses the line from ingenuity into exploit.

We will have to agree to disagree on whether this is an exploit, then. Regardless, it is not a straw man argument just because you want to call it an exploit.

Please don't bother with the condescending usage of debate terminology. This isn't a debate class and that snobbery is not going to conceal incorrect usage of the terms. It is completely superfluous.

You are currently arguing that it is an exploit, and if your premise is not that it was not originally intended, then you have failed to support your statement that it is an exploit.

Your arguments are off-target here. As stated, there are limitations to what can be captured. PCs cannot be captured for example. This is by design.

To capture a creature, there are several requirements:
- Target creature must be wounded to 25% or less of its maximum health (near death).
- Target creature cannot be a summoned creature, familiar, henchman, PC, or DM.

The golems fall within the confines of what a level 4 MotM can capture. Again this is by design:

The racial types of creatures that can be captured increase with the Master of the Menagerie's level. Later levels include the possibilities from the previous levels.

Level 1:
Animal, Beast, Ooze, Vermin

Level 2:
Magical Beast, Giant, Humanoid (goblinoid, monstrous, orc, reptilian)

Level 3:
Elemental, Shapechanger, Fey, Outsider

Level 4:
Aberration, Construct, Undead

Level 5:
Dragon

The differences between trolls and golems is significant, they are different creatures after all. Those differences are not at all relevant to whether or not capturing the golems is an exploit.

A troll used against enemies who cannot exploit its weakness is invincible. No one is arguing that to be an exploit. The same logic applies to the golem. Call one an exploit based on invincibility, and the other is too.

As to Manny's comments, Black Blades of Disaster, walls of force, spiritual weapons, and even tenser's floating discs must also be exploitative. They are both invincible and not vulnerable to enemy NPCs or friendly fire.

There is no gain to removing all invulnerability from the game. If PCs are made to come up against invulnerable enemies (which they do in at least 2 places), then they should be able to turn the tables with the right tactics.

I am recognizing simply that the word exploit is being flung around rather lightly here, and it is both personally insulting and aggravating to have people attempting to characterize something I have found and used as such. Crideas may be a "cheater", Dave is not.

BBoD's are short term summons, the caster must maintain concentration to keep it. Walls of force can be zapped by two different spells, and a class ability, they do not 'distract' enemies or engage them.. They "block" enemies, but that's not a minion tanking or drawing enemy fire. Enemy spellcasters and archers will still shoot at you no matter how many walls you got around you.

Spirit weapons are short term like the BBoD. The MotM summons last 12? 24 game hours and require no concentration? That's not a short term distraction, that's a minion that will last through an entire dungeon crawl.

To be honest here, yes, using the discs in that manner shies towards exploitive as well. The disc was not intended to be used as such in PnP, nor in NWN.

A troll is not invincible.

Because NPC X doesn't have fire/acid/frost damage and can't kill it easily doesn't mean it's invincible against NPC Y who does have those damage capabilities.

The golems are immune to -everything-. The trolls are not. That is not a sidenote, that is a significant difference when a dm just has to add x damage type to an enemy, while with the other... the DM has to use the kill button to deal with the minion. There's not even an attempt to hide the metagaming in that.

And no, the golems are *not* meant to be captured.

What's not listed on the info page is that plot creatures are not supposed to be capture creatures for PCs.

Changes coming soon to MotM capture function (Saturday):

1. If creature has more HD than MotM, capture fails.
2. If creature is flagged "plot" (or invulnerable), capture fails.
3. If creature beats 1st capture attempt by a MotM, that creature cannot be captured by the same MotM on later attempts before the next reset...It's already beaten the willpower of that MotM and is bolstered by that knowledge. Other PCs could possibly succeed though.

And that's why I originally asked how they could be captured without DM assistance. They are not supposed to be captured by the intent and implementation of the system as stated.

daveyeisley wrote:We will have to agree to disagree on whether this is an exploit, then. Regardless, it is not a straw man argument just because you want to call it an exploit.

It was a classic example of a straw man. You misrepresented the argument leveled and then addressed the misrepresentation as an attempt at refutation. I'm quite comfortable allowing your own hyperbole serve as record.

Hee hee - "We will have to agree to disagree..." he says, but keeps on arguing.

daveyeisley wrote:Please don't bother with the condescending usage of debate terminology. This isn't a debate class and that snobbery is not going to conceal incorrect usage of the terms. It is completely superfluous.

As I did not bother to condescend to you, may I presume this is simply projection on your part? As your accusations don't advance your argument (there's "debate terminology" for that as well), I consider them superfluous (see what I did there ).

daveyeisley wrote:You are currently arguing that it is an exploit, and if your premise is not that it was not originally intended, then you have failed to support your statement that it is an exploit.

Think about how you sound right now. I think the onus is upon you to defend your assertion that invincible spell-lobbing allies is not an exploit. "Original Intent" be damned.

daveyeisley wrote:Your arguments are off-target here. As stated, there are limitations to what can be captured. PCs cannot be captured for example. This is by design.

My argument was spot on. It was addressing the "As Designed" argument as sufficient defense of not correcting the exploit. You just failed to answer it is all.

1. You said that capturing Ice Golems was "As Designed".
2. I asked that if MotM could capture PCs, would not that be ok as it would be "As Designed"?
3. Your response essentially, missing the point, is that "PCs cannot be captured" therefore I was off-target.

Do you not understand your own reasoning? "As Designed" is not an argument in of itself unless usually arguing preference (Blue vs Green, etc) - it's why "Design" is generally a living entity. Simply slapping "As Designed/As Intended" on an exploit, bug, poor or unintended design does not make the issue magically correct itself.

daveyeisley wrote:

To capture a creature, there are several requirements:
- Target creature must be wounded to 25% or less of its maximum health (near death).
- Target creature cannot be a summoned creature, familiar, henchman, PC, or DM.

The golems fall within the confines of what a level 4 MotM can capture. Again this is by design:

The racial types of creatures that can be captured increase with the Master of the Menagerie's level. Later levels include the possibilities from the previous levels.

Level 1:
Animal, Beast, Ooze, Vermin

Level 2:
Magical Beast, Giant, Humanoid (goblinoid, monstrous, orc, reptilian)

Level 3:
Elemental, Shapechanger, Fey, Outsider

Level 4:
Aberration, Construct, Undead

Level 5:
Dragon

I've already addressed the "As Designed" argument above.

daveyeisley wrote:The differences between trolls and golems is significant, they are different creatures after all. Those differences are not at all relevant to whether or not capturing the golems is an exploit.

Dave, you said that

If trolls are fine to use, and gain their power from the same combination of mechanics, then the argument that use of the guardian is an exploit is a contradiction.

Now you say

"The differences between trolls and golems is significant, they are different creatures after all. Those differences are not at all relevant to whether or not capturing the golems is an exploit"

.

There is some tension (how's that for snobbery ) between these two statements. One emphasizes mechanical similarities between trolls and the golems and contradiction in allowing one but not the other, and the other dismisses those same similarities in favor of a separate argument (ie MotM mechanics and their applicability).

The former was already addressed before this post, the latter addressed by the "As Designed" rebuttal.

I understand what you are saying Dave, and I'm not saying that there isn't some measure of worth in it. I simply disagree, am trying to communicate why.

daveyeisley wrote:A troll used against enemies who cannot exploit its weakness is invincible. No one is arguing that to be an exploit. The same logic applies to the golem. Call one an exploit based on invincibility, and the other is too.

As I reload this thread, I see that MannyJabrielle has already addressed and so I'll continue.

[quote="daveyeisley"]As to Manny's comments, Black Blades of Disaster, walls of force, spiritual weapons, and even tenser's floating discs must also be exploitative. They are both invincible and not vulnerable to enemy NPCs or friendly fire./[quote]

All these things (except perhaps TFDiscs, I don't know...) have counters. The golems do not.

daveyeisley wrote:There is no gain to removing all invulnerability from the game. If PCs are made to come up against invulnerable enemies (which they do in at least 2 places), then they should be able to turn the tables with the right tactics.

Where do PCs encounter invulnerable enemies? The Ice Golems are not invulnerable except when out of context.

daveyeisley wrote:I am recognizing simply that the word exploit is being flung around rather lightly here, and it is both personally insulting and aggravating to have people attempting to characterize something I have found and used as such. Crideas may be a "cheater", Dave is not.

Dave, this clues me into why you might be responding the way you are. "Exploit" is not a dirty word, and that you find it personally insulting is not something I'm responsible for (though I can sensitive to that and use a different word). I leverage many things for advantage in DnD, NWNights, and Aenea specifically, but it's the unanswerable measure/scale of the golems that is inappropriate. No one is accusing you of cheating.

The Amethyst Dragon wrote:Those particular golems are supposed to be immune to capture by a MotM. If you can grab one or more of them, then it's definitely a bug/oversight.

.. erm... by design.. capture of those golems has been caused by either a bug or (more likely) an oversight .... even can't predict how each ability is going to be used by everybody that plays here ... ... ...


Although, I think I have to agree with dave that the idea and implementation of capturing one of them is genius... and he states a little later it has no impact on if others spawn.... it doesn't break the game in any noticeable way and in my opinion is an ingenious use of the MotM classes abilities....

If it can be proven that it's breaking that particular encounter for any other player then I'd vote to change it... if not, then leave it how it is.. there are plenty of other things that need fixing/attention... Refer here...

The real question would be that if a MotM that summoned one of these and you went to the ice castle and destroyed the walls, would the MotM one become destroyable too ??.. if so ... instead of just dis-allowing (or nerfing) this, why not change the OnPercieve of many NPC/Enemy to recognise this and fire a "they teleported away to destroy the wall and came back " script.. many NPC's will have travelled the world and know of these creatures.. even the lowly bandit mage might have a tp scroll on them.... ....

Maybe those golems (when summoned by a MotM) could have a little timer that makes them vulnerable after an hour or two in the world (the magic that sustains them weakens if they are removed from the castle for any length of time).... this could be checked by their OnSpawn script (ie Get faction type thing.. if faction = pc/summoned minion, delay command~ approx 2/3/4 in game hours, remove plot flag type-of-thing ??)

Given time, and thought, there are other ways to solve this "exploit/problem" then banning an ingenious thinker from doing in the first place .... ... .. ..

Using an exploit is cheating.

People are calling something I have been using an exploit.

That does indeed mean that people are saying I have been cheating. I would like people to quit that rubbish because it is very insulting.

If you want to say that the golems are an exploit because there is no way to kill them, thats fine. It means that other effects/summons that cannot be killed also share that trait and distinction.

If you want to try and qualify that they are an exploit because they have invincibility and special attacks, or because they have a long duration, then you are no longer discussing just invincibility, or an exploit for that matter.

At that point you are discussing a balance concern, but not an exploit.

Trolls are perfectly relevant to the discussion, because when they are used in a situation that they cannot be killed it is not a problem for anyone here. So the idea of an invincible minion is not the issue. The only difference is that the golems can be used in pretty much any situation, where one might have to find the correct type of trolls.

Invincible or not, the golems are do not also make their master invincible. They are not an "I win" button.

They last longer than some spells, sure, but they also require a the PC to have the right semi-class, and to have gone to a certain place and survive the threat before being able to capture one - every single time they are used. The spells dont require anything other than access to the spells, and they can be memorized more than once with no danger to the caster to replenish them.

The duration point, while significant, doesnt make it an exploit anymore than a PC who gets a bunch of spiritual weapon scrolls, or BBoD scrolls.

The golems may last a good while (12 hours), but they can be used only once, and then the PC has to go risk life and limb to capture more. Add to this that while the golem is out, the PC cannot use many other types of 'summoned' minions.

The BBoD unsumming itself 50% of the time is a bug (flaw in implementation, as there is supposed to be a concentration check, but the concentration skill is never used), and not valid as a reason to point accusations at the captured golems as exploitative.

The golems are immune to capture while invulnerable. In this case your argument fails because they are not, unlike the certain demon spirit mentioned previously, permanently invulnerable (until the death event is triggered). If the PC uses the right tactic, that status is removed and they can be damaged and captured.

Svair, how is the onus on me to prove that I am innocent of using an exploit?

You make an accusation, you are the one who assumes the burden of proof. You havent proven it *IS* an exploit. Why dont you start there, and then you can actually have something worthwhile to discuss...

Wait, dont bother. Your whole argument is based on your opinion, rather than a fact. Its not an exploit, at best it is a balance concern, and I dont even think its that.

If you are going to keep attempting to make mock of me, and be indirectly insulting, I am going to ask once, nicely, that you stop now. We disagree. Your disagreement doesn't make you correct, nor does it make any of your applications of debate terminology correct (and as I stated they are uneccesary and starting to come across as goading).

If it was a fact that the point of discussion were an exploit, they might.... but that is an opinion, not a fact.

You may be enjoying this, I am not. Please knock it off.

I started this thread as a way to engage people in a fun session of "trivia" about Aenea, and now find myself ganged up on by multiple people rudely accusing me of using an exploit and making mock of me for defending it as a valid tactic.

This is obviously no longer about anybody having fun, or even the golems being an exploit, its now apparently about "lets gang up on dave until he gives up."

I may stop wasting my time with this thread, but believe me, no amount of this debate is going to make me agree with you.

It amazes me that you would pat yourself on the back for your ingenuity to use an exploit and yet you didn't hold to that same ingenuity to overcome the bandit chiefs like several of other players had. There just seems to be an agenda to either correct things your way or allow them to continue when they benefit you. My $.02 and it is hilarious that when others oppose your view you begin the 'agree to disagree' dialogue.

I apologize to the Amethyst Dragon and others but I just get a 'bad' feel for your motivations.

One final thing on this.... something that I think those who have been overreacting to the idea of an invincible minion need to actually take into accoumt, or better yet... make a MotM, capture one of the afore mentioned golems and test...

It doesnt matter if your BBoD, spiritual weapon, troll, or Ice Golem minion can be killed or not if the enemy decides to ignore it and attack you instead.

That is exactly what will happen more than 75% of the time if you are doing damage to the enemy. The AI might not be brilliant, but why dont you go and face off against Gron or the Nemesis with your invulnerable minion and tell us all about how exploitative it was...

They may be an invulnerable distraction, but they arent going to allow you to kill things you couldn't already kill without them.

Drgnwlkr wrote:It amazes me that you would pat yourself on the back for your ingenuity to use an exploit and yet you didn't hold to that same ingenuity to overcome the bandit chiefs like several of other players had. There just seems to be an agenda to either correct things your way or allow them to continue when they benefit you. My $.02 and it is hilarious that when others oppose your view you begin the 'agree to disagree' dialogue.

I apologize to the Amethyst Dragon and others but I just get a 'bad' feel for your motivations.

This is getting pretty personal.... I don't appreciate your calling my intent or my character into question. Its totally uncalled for, and invites the same kind of commentary in relation to yourself.

In answer to you comment, though, it was about one situation being fun, and other not being fun at all.

Anyone may call my character into question as they wish. My skin isn't made of wet paper. I am not throwing punches even if you feel I am but I do wonder why a player would expose an exploit and get upset when called on it.

Drgnwlkr wrote:Anyone may call my character into question as they wish. My skin isn't made of wet paper. I am not throwing punches even if you feel I am but I do wonder why a player would expose an exploit and get upset when called on it.

My problem is that you are insisting it is an exploit, and refusing to admit that is merely your opinion. And by extension, it is asserting that I am cheating. I have explained why this is offensive, and you must realize it is. Indeed, if the same were targeted at you, are you saying it would not bother you or upset you?

If it wouldn't, that would raise other questions regarding why you don't care about such things being said of you.

If it would, then you are being a hypocrite by continuing to throw it in my face.

First off, this is merely a computer game and no matter what anyone claims, we all have some form of cheating tactics. To award your banter of what someone, somewhere in the world, who does not know me says about me... I have lived on this Earth for nearly half a century and have found that in reality, it doesn't matter what someone thinks or says about me.

Now for this...your use of those golems is an exploit in the game mechanics and you know it. Does that imply you cheat? Well yes but I have seen you express just such a fact in conversation ingame with me. So...what is the issue about that? You've admittedly told me so and I will say the same about me and most anyone else I know who play computer games.

Lastly, I think its dishonoring to the server and for players and DMs to bemoan things like this. With this said, I am through with my part in this and again, apologize to others.

Now for this...your use of those golems is an exploit in the game mechanics and you know it.

See, now this is what I wanted you to come out and say...

If your above statement were true (it is not), then all my post above stating that I disagree with the assessment of an exploit would be bold-faced lies.

I would now like you be plainly accuse me of lying if that is what you are getting at. Realize that unless you have some concrete reason for doing so (I can't even fathom what it would be), that would be crossing quite a few lines of presumption and libeling me without cause.

Otherwise, please accept that I honestly do not believe in the assessment, and have also honestly put forth a good amount of information and reasoning to support it, which has not been countered thus far.... and people continuing to insist that it is an exploit is honestly offensive and truly bothers me... and I would like people to be sensitive to that, and not attempt to goad me with it, as were the situation reversed, they would likely not wish to have the same done to themself.

Does that imply you cheat? Well yes but I have seen you express just such a fact in conversation ingame with me. So...what is the issue about that? You've admittedly told me so and I will say the same about me and most anyone else I know who play computer games.

As Crideas, in-character, yes.... and even in my signature line on these forum posts, I reference that he is a professional cheater. It is an in-character joke by Crideas (not Dave), meant to be humorous and not at all an out-of-character literal commentary on me as a person.

If you didn't realize the distinction, no harm no foul. Please take it into account for future, thank you.

I am not a cheater, and I have, on many occaisions brought information to regarding things which could be exploited, or used to gain unfair advantage. Indeed, I was the one who started this thread. If I were cheating, why in the hell would I want to announce on the forums how smart I was for coming up with a way to cheat?

Lastly, I think its dishonoring to the server and for players and DMs to bemoan things like this. With this said, I am through with my part in this and again, apologize to others.

Well, if that is what you believe.... you certainly haven't contributed anything positive to the situation, of that I assure you.

Hey, all ... Let's not get too carried away with this discussion and let it sink to personal levels. I have no problem with dave ... he is a fine player and a fine person. Debate the facts if you will, but let's leave the personal stuff out of it. No one deserves to be ganged up on like this.

daveyeisley wrote:Using an exploit is cheating.

Not necessarily. Words have meaning and you don't get to redefine them as you wish. Seriously, even in the context of this game, how the word is being used is closer to "...to imploy to the greatest possible advantage."

daveyeisley wrote:People are calling something I have been using an exploit.

That does indeed mean that people are saying I have been cheating. I would like people to quit that rubbish because it is very insulting.

At some point you are going to have to take responsibility for how you perceive and react to contrary opinion. Take ownership, stop imagining personal slights, and stick to the topic. Nobody is trying to hurt your feelings or attack you personally.

daveyeisley wrote:If you want to say that the golems are an exploit because there is no way to kill them, thats fine. It means that other effects/summons that cannot be killed also share that trait and distinction.

This has already been addressed above. If you are going to simply repeat yourself and pretend that people haven't already answered you, why bother replying? Other effects/summons can be answered in a variety of ways, the golems cannot.

daveyeisley wrote:If you want to try and qualify that they are an exploit because they have invincibility and special attacks, or because they have a long duration, then you are no longer discussing just invincibility, or an exploit for that matter.

At that point you are discussing a balance concern, but not an exploit.

It's an easy enough thing for you to type, but why not make an argument for the reasons why you believe this?

FYI, "balance" and "exploits" are not mutually exclusive concepts and I reject your attempt to dichotomize them. Something that is unbalanced can be an exploit as well.

Being able to obtain invincible spell-lobbing uber pets that cannot be addressed by game mechanics would be a common definition of an exploit. It's just that simple.

daveyeisley wrote:Trolls are perfectly relevant to the discussion, because when they are used in a situation that they cannot be killed it is not a problem for anyone here. So the idea of an invincible minion is not the issue. The only difference is that the golems can be used in pretty much any situation, where one might have to find the correct type of trolls.

Ah, thank you for taking a stand on the troll issue. :-)

Something does not have to be "...a problem for anyone here..." to not be an exploit. The idea of an invincible minion (which trolls, black blades, Nemesis are not), despite your protestation to the contrary, IS an issue. It is a degenerate strategy that maximizes success while prohibiting the game being experienced as intended by the game designer.

daveyeisley wrote:Invincible or not, the golems are do not also make their master invincible. They are not an "I win" button.

As no one actually argued either of these things, I'm puzzled as to why you brought it up. Moving on to the next item then...

daveyeisley wrote:They last longer than some spells, sure, but they also require a the PC to have the right semi-class, and to have gone to a certain place and survive the threat before being able to capture one - every single time they are used. The spells dont require anything other than access to the spells, and they can be memorized more than once with no danger to the caster to replenish them.

Are you saying that the above does not make capturing those golems exploitive? Why? They are invincible, hard-hitting, spell-lobbing pets that differ in significant ways from other capturable entities regardless as to how they are acquired.

daveyeisley wrote:The duration point, while significant, doesnt make it an exploit anymore than a PC who gets a bunch of spiritual weapon scrolls, or BBoD scrolls.

This has already been addressed. You're simply repeating yourself without answering the response above.

daveyeisley wrote:The golems may last a good while (12 hours), but they can be used only once, and then the PC has to go risk life and limb to capture more. Add to this that while the golem is out, the PC cannot use many other types of 'summoned' minions.

Duly noted. But are the golems still invincible, hard-hitting spell-lobbing minions that are being exploited in manner contrary how the designer desires the game to be experienced? Yep.

daveyeisley wrote:The BBoD unsumming itself 50% of the time is a bug (flaw in implementation, as there is supposed to be a concentration check, but the concentration skill is never used), and not valid as a reason to point accusations at the captured golems as exploitative...

No, the valid "reason to point accusations at the captured golems as exploitive" is because they are. Gold Five: "Stay on Target!"

daveyeisley wrote:....Svair, how is the onus on me to prove that I am innocent of using an exploit?

For the same reason why if you believe world is flat it's upon you to argue the point - what we know about the world suggests that it is (mostly) spherical. For the reason that invincible spell-lobbing pets is recognizable as an exploit in of itself.

daveyeisley wrote:You make an accusation, you are the one who assumes the burden of proof. You havent proven it *IS* an exploit. Why dont you start there, and then you can actually have something worthwhile to discuss...

See above. You are the one asserting that an uber pet, used contrary to intent because of oversight, is not an exploit. You, sir, bear the onus.

daveyeisley wrote:Wait, dont bother. Your whole argument is based on your opinion, rather than a fact. Its not an exploit, at best it is a balance concern, and I dont even think its that.

You're the one flouting opinion conflated as fact (and at least named instance of fallacy of reasoning).

daveyeisley wrote:If you are going to keep attempting to make mock of me, and be indirectly insulting, I am going to ask once, nicely, that you stop now. We disagree. Your disagreement doesn't make you correct, nor does it make any of your applications of debate terminology correct (and as I stated they are uneccesary and starting to come across as goading).

I'm not mocking you, and the perceived insult is imaginary (unless you believe being corrected is equivalent to being insulted). It's not my disagreement that makes me correct. And the strawman accusation is still correct, and if you misrepresent me again I will once more highlight your error. This, of course, leads to the question of why do you insist on putting words into others mouths, and projecting intent that isn't present? Bah, forget about it...

daveyeisley wrote:If it was a fact that the point of discussion were an exploit, they might.... but that is an opinion, not a fact.

"Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion man" - The Dude

daveyeisley wrote:You may be enjoying this, I am not. Please knock it off.

What? You take difference of opinion as personal insult, mischaracterize responses made to you, refuse ownership of your fallacy, and then ask others to "knock it off"? You owe me another Irony Meter 3000™ as you just made my last one esplody.

daveyeisley wrote:I started this thread as a way to engage people in a fun session of "trivia" about Aenea, and now find myself ganged up on by multiple people rudely accusing me of using an exploit and making mock of me for defending it as a valid tactic.

I hate to be "that guy", but you started it. Seriously, when pointed out that the golems were exploitive you became defensive and personalized the disagreements.

daveyeisley wrote:This is obviously no longer about anybody having fun, or even the golems being an exploit, its now apparently about "lets gang up on dave until he gives up."

You're pretty good at this projection thing, but you need to work on the prosecution complex :-)* . But seriously no, it's still about the golems.

daveyeisley wrote:I may stop wasting my time with this thread, but believe me, no amount of this debate is going to make me agree with you.

A pity. As for myself, had you provided a cogent argument I might be persuaded. Cause, you know, being able to change your mind is a good thing...


* Ok, ok, I got one dig in... :-)

Eric of Atrophy wrote:Hey, all ... Let's not get too carried away with this discussion and let it sink to personal levels. I have no problem with dave ... he is a fine player and a fine person. Debate the facts if you will, but let's leave the personal stuff out of it. No one deserves to be ganged up on like this.

Dave's a great guy. We have each others personal #'s and have talked outside of Aenea. Shoot, before some unforeseeable circumstances, we discussed him coming out to the PWN and staying with me for a while.

But if having multiple people voice disagreement with Dave is ganging up on him, I don't know what to do. Choose a Point Man to communicate everyone's disagreement with him?

No, dude. I was just interposing because I am outsider to this conversation, and some of the posts struck me as being on a more personal level. Just don't want to see this get out of hand, as other threads have done in the past.

Hope ya feel better bro, truly.

You still didn't prove your point, but you proved mine for me.

Eric of Atrophy wrote:No, dude. I was just interposing because I am outsider to this conversation, and some of the posts struck me as being on a more personal level. Just don't want to see this get out of hand, as other threads have done in the past.

I understand. I'm also glad you recognize that this "tone" in discussions has occurred several times in the past. :-)

I must say, I was surprised when I saw that it was you and dave going at it ... a change from the norm of dave vs. manny!

Me and manny haven't retraced those steps in a looooong time, and I have to say it has been quite nice.

daveyeisley wrote:Hope ya feel better bro, truly.

You still didn't prove your point, but you proved mine for me.

I'm pretty comfortable with how the public record of our discussion stands. If you're good, then so am I. :-)

manny has been too busy for that lately

plus no stable net connection yet, and as of today, no working shift keys on the computer either hence why i am typing like a 12 year old who doesn't know punctuation.

as for the thread itself, i do not consider exploit and cheat interchangable, so when i say i think it's an exploit, i am certainly not calling anyone, in general or specific, a cheater or attacking their character.

the only other point i'll respond to before my battery runs dead, another issue i got lately.... yes, the trolls are situational. the golem isn't. that's a significant point.

i do have multiple motms, and i know the risks/challenges of running the class. i also am aware that a situational decision such as 'which troll to use' is a good tactic, and one that can turn bad as well... could be facing a bunch of baddies who do a mix of damages so no type of troll will work well... or i could choose the right one and they'd not be able to exploit it's weakness. notice exploit used here not as 'cheat', but as 'exploit', take advantage of.

that the golem is universally invulerable.... that's just... sorry, i think that just borders on total cheese.

not to mention that no, as stated before, the golems were not intended to be capture targets by design. they are plot creatures, and thus should not be able to be captured.

i don't consider that a 'nerf', or killing fun. there was fun before there were motms, and there is still fun for pcs who can capture trolls, which are similar, but must be employed carefully and/or have their weaknesses shored up to survive.

again... not insulting anyone's character or making it personal. those are simply the facts i've stated about the subject. no personal issues at all in any part.

hey, opinions are fine. Oinions that dont agree are fine.

Calling it cheating, an exploit, or total cheese are what I have an issue with, and I resent those statements. Some people dont seem to care, however, so I will just have to remember that.

I have answered each and every one of the arguments made against it. If you don't think so I encourage you to read back. Even didnt mention having a problem with the mechanics of the combo. All he said was that it was a spawn issue, and it actually isnt.

Invulnerable minions were part of the game already before this discussion. They still will be afterwards. Taking this combo out of the mix would just remove one more fun option for creative players, and that takes a little slice of fun out of the game, and that sucks. Plus, besides everything else, as was mentioned previously, there are much bigger and more pressing fish to fry.

I have certainly learned my lesson about sharing fun information with people here. No incentive to continue doing so whatsoever...

Not being confrontational here... honest question... which is it? Opinions are fine or you resent it?

I honestly cannot see what else to do other that people censoring themselves because you take offense at the words 'exploit" or if you cannot separate "exploit" from 'cheat'.

I've made my arguments and counter arguments. I have not made any personal attacks against any individual, you or anyone.

I'm being completely honest with my opinion about the game mechanics. I'm not saying you, or anyone else is a 'cheater", nor do i really appreciate the character assassinations saying I or anyone else 'doesn't care' because they have and express a different viewpoint.

I'm bowing out of this thread now however because i simply have zero patience for these kind of histrionics. Thank you.

/facepalm

Good ol' Manny.

No, bud, thank you.

you are welcome.

please do not call me bud. that right is reserved for friends. thank you.