Requesting links proving 3.5 unbalance

[Dust]

I'll make this very short. My gaming friend absolutely BOGGLES my mind whenever he defends 3.5, claiming it to be a relatively blanced system. He is a generally logical, insightful fellow, but he generally asserts that any percieved imbalance between, say, casters and noncasters is due to 'munchkinism' as opposed to any real issue.

This is a player who has actually PARTICIPATED IN A GAME where the GM's boyfriend talked her into allowing him to taking the prereqs to become Punpun. Where he often plays a grappling-specialization monk in a party of clerics and druids.

To date, my favorite argument has got to be regarding Monks and flying foes. He swears that all monks should be carrying slings in case of LANTERN ARCHON attacks.

So although my arguments often fall on deaf ears, I'd like to try again. Please link me to any discussions that you can think of that really show the awesome power of spellcasters, challenges such as the Test of Spite (only, you know, slightly more obscure) and so on. A compliation of arcane insanity, if you will.
Besides, he's stated that if I fail to convince him, we'll play a game of 3.5 with me as a caster and him as a Monk once again, and attempt to outperform the other. I am shocked.

Edit: And please ladies and gents, comments such as 'If your friend can't see it by now, nothing we say will convince him.' I know this is likely true - it is not, however, useful advice or information to me. :smallwink:

[Prodan]

Enjoy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFuMpYTyRjw).

Ok, for reals this time (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=80704).

I advise you to skip directly to the game; words never convinced anyone as well as actions.

What level will this game take place at?

[BobVosh]

What level is this at, and what books are open?

My suggestion is to do it the silly way: allow him to use pretty much any book with the requirement he stay a monk. Any feats, items, etc. Then you beat him squarely and easily with Fly, True strike (quicken if you want, its funnier if you don't), and enervation. Repeat the last two. Don't choose any feats other than quicken and improved initiative; don't bother with items beyond stats. Possibly a metamagic rod: maximize if you want. Point out how this will work on most D&D classes, and quite a few monsters. Also how you don't really need more than a third of what you get.

First round basically: Fly, quicken displacement, take to the skies.
Second round: Quicken mirror images, enervation
Third round: Quicken true strike, enervation
Fourth Round: Quicken true strike, enervation

[2xMachina]

He prob defines "munchkinism" as anything other than Wizard intended play style.

Non blaster wizard? MUNCHKIN!
Non heal bot Cleric? MUNCHKIN!
Non tree hugging Druid, who doesn't let his AC come into danger? MUNCHKIN!

[Bosh]

What level is this at, and what books are open?

My suggestion is to do it the silly way: allow him to use pretty much any book with the requirement he stay a monk. Any feats, items, etc. Then you beat him squarely and easily with Fly, True strike (quicken if you want, its funnier if you don't), and enervation. Repeat the last two. Don't choose any feats other than quicken and improved initiative; don't bother with items beyond stats. Possibly a metamagic rod: maximize if you want. Point out how this will work on most D&D classes, and quite a few monsters. Also how you don't really need more than a third of what you get.

First round basically: Fly, quicken displacement, take to the skies.
Second round: Quicken mirror images, enervation
Third round: Quicken true strike, enervation
Fourth Round: Quicken true strike, enervation

But you see, that's MUNCHKIN! Therefore invalid. Therefor 3.*ed is balanced. :smallbiggrin:

[unimaginable]

Everything is always imbalanced. What matters more is roleplay and how much people will abuse the imbalance they're capable of producing if they try hard enough.

Put another way, we wouldn't say that Magic: The Gathering is broken because somebody with a championship deck will almost always beat someone with a starter deck.

[Nero24200]

An easy way might be to tell him/her that contrary to popular belief roleplaying games (and D'n'D is no exception) are not crafted over the course of many, many years with each and every flaw taken out by it's omnipitant designers to acheive perfect balance in a game which cateers to so many differenent styles and games.

They are made by people, which means they aren't going to be perfect. They aren't going to be free of mistakes or oversights. Acting like they are is just simply naive and silly.

[Superglucose]

You know, the Angle Summoner and BMX Bandit thing is pretty appropriate. Also, I lol'd.

[Sir Giacomo]

Hi Dust,

Could you get me into contact with this friend of yours?:smallbiggrin:

- Giacomo

[Worira]

To date, my favorite argument has got to be regarding Monks and flying foes. He swears that all monks should be carrying slings in case of LANTERN ARCHON attacks.


Bwuh.. Uh... So, in case an entity comprised of the purest essence of Law and Good attacks you, you should be carrying a sling? Which does 1d4+STR damage against DR 10/nope?

[JaronK]

D&D 3.5 is quite unbalanced. That's not necessarily bad... it's reasonable for someone to say "I want to play a weaker class, since I want more of a challenge" or something like that. Really, the only problem is that the lack of balance isn't admitted to by the game itself. None of the books say "play a Wizard if you want to be in god mode, play a Monk if you want to have a greater challenge."

Compare it to a game like Shadowrun 3rd edition, where everything actually was pretty darn balanced.

JaronK

[Ravens_cry]

I don't mind playing a world with imbalance as long as people are having fun.
I have fun, others have had fun.
Balance? We don't need no stinkin' balance!

[Psyx]

D&D characters are essentially elements in an symmetric game. All asymmetric games are unbalanced. Buy him a book on Game Theory.

[penbed400]

He prob defines "munchkinism" as anything other than Wizard intended play style.

Non blaster wizard? MUNCHKIN!
Non heal bot Cleric? MUNCHKIN!
Non tree hugging Druid, who doesn't let his AC come into danger? MUNCHKIN!

Yea but thats not hard to get by either though. A few Maximized Empowered Orb of "X" would quell the thought that wizards can't just push through with blasty powers.

[faceroll]

Ranged touch attacks might not work so well against monks, given that almost all their AC is going to be touch AC, and a wizard with 1/2 or less BAB is going to have trouble hitting without dex pumping & boosters from spells.

[Philistine]

Everything is always imbalanced. What matters more is roleplay and how much people will abuse the imbalance they're capable of producing if they try hard enough.

Put another way, we wouldn't say that Magic: The Gathering is broken because somebody with a championship deck will almost always beat someone with a starter deck.
We might say exactly that, though, if the championship and starter decks cost exactly the same amount and used the same packaging, giving no indication that they might as well be playing two completely different games.


Ranged touch attacks might not work so well against monks, given that almost all their AC is going to be touch AC, and a wizard with 1/2 or less BAB is going to have trouble hitting without dex pumping & boosters from spells.
Enervation requires a ranged touch attack too - presumably that's the reason for the Quickened True Strikes.

[Yora]

I don't mind playing a world with imbalance as long as people are having fun.
I have fun, others have had fun.
Balance? We don't need no stinkin' balance!
Balance is boring. If everyone is as good as everyone else at everything, why even go through the trouble of having characters?
I think the game is most fun if you have a number of different characters who work as a team, in which each character contributes something different.
(And I think D&D can do this quite well.)

[Boci]

Balance is boring. If everyone is as good as everyone else at everything, why even go through the trouble of having characters?
I think the game is most fun if you have a number of different characters who work as a team, in which each character contributes something different.
(And I think D&D can do this quite well.)

That word you're using, I'm not sure it means what you think it means. Balance doesn't mean every character is the same, but that every character covers their own role, contributing equally to the party without stepping on the other party members toes.

[Yora]

In that case, what's the problem?
The monk has the really bad design concept of being a mobility centered class that has to stand still in combat, but except for that, the D&D core classes all do their job, and do it well.

[Boci]

In that case, what's the problem?
The monk has the really bad design concept of being a mobility centered class that has to stand still in combat, but except for that, the D&D core classes all do their job, and do it well.

Druids are better tanks than fighters, Melee rogue's need to stand adjacent to a monster with their d6 hitdie, on the oposite side of the party's tank, GOD wizards makes better support characters than bard ect, ect.

[Yora]

That's what I was talking about.
When you make the fighter as good in melee as a druid, give the rogue the AC and hp of a fighter, and bards have the same spells as wizards to make the classes more balanced, they become more similar. And you reach completely balance in ability only at the point where everyone is doing the same. That's the direction 4th Edition went.

I agree that monks have too few, and druids have too much, and that many spells are too powerful when you understand their full potential.
But I think in a good game, the warriors are good at killing things, the priests are good at protecting the party, mages are good at battlefield control and ocasional emergency blasting, and thieves are good at scouting, spying, and other activities that happen off the battlefield. I don't like the idea of a game in which every character has the same chances of defeating an ogre solo as everyone else.

[Boci]

That's what I was talking about.
When you make the fighter as good in melee as a druid, give the rogue the AC and hp of a fighter, and bards have the same spells as wizards to make the classes more balanced, they become more similar. And you reach completely balance in ability only at the point where everyone is doing the same. That's the direction 4th Edition went.

Luckily there are other ways to fix 3.5.



But I think in a good game, the warriors are good at killing things,

Miss chance, fly speed. Quite a few things make warrior's job hard, without the caster buffing him, which means he cannot control the battlefield/debuff.


the priests are good at protecting the party,

And killing things.


mages are good at battlefield control and ocasional emergency blasting,

And a lot more things.


and thieves are good at scouting, spying, and other activities that happen off the battlefield.

Not always. Even with darkstalker they could be found.


I don't like the idea of a game in which every character has the same chances of defeating an ogre solo as everyone else.

Whose is suggesting that?

A party of 4 rogues. A party of 4 warriors. A party of 4 mages. A party of 4 priests.

Who lives, who dies?

[Tequila Sunrise]

Yeah, just skip to the part where your wizard outperforms his monk. Will that be an actual game, or a dueling scenario like others seem to be assuming?

Also, what Nero said.


That's what I was talking about.
When you make the fighter as good in melee as a druid, give the rogue the AC and hp of a fighter, and bards have the same spells as wizards to make the classes more balanced, they become more similar. And you reach completely balance in ability only at the point where everyone is doing the same. That's the direction 4th Edition went.
You've clearly never played 4e.

[2xMachina]

Yea but thats not hard to get by either though. A few Maximized Empowered Orb of "X" would quell the thought that wizards can't just push through with blasty powers.

But the thing is... Maximized Empowered Orb of "X" damage can be matched by melee's with ubercharger or other stuff.

[Starbuck_II]

Besides, he's stated that if I fail to convince him, we'll play a game of 3.5 with me as a caster and him as a Monk once again, and attempt to outperform the other. I am shocked.

Edit: And please ladies and gents, comments such as 'If your friend can't see it by now, nothing we say will convince him.' I know this is likely true - it is not, however, useful advice or information to me. :smallwink:

I suggest you beat him at his own game. Not casting attack spells.
The way to utterly defeat the very being of an opponent is not through weakness, but strengths.
Be a grapple Wizard (Octopus Familiar adds grapple bonus).

You beat him in melee by casting buffing spells (lots of grapple spells almost like WotC knew that Wizards were better). Eventually, he will see you beat him at his own strength and still have more options.

Granted doing this might make him sad so bring a tissue box.

[Draz74]

D&D characters are essentially elements in an symmetric game. All asymmetric games are unbalanced.

StarCraft: Brood War would like a word with you.

[Critical]

I suggest you beat him at his own game. Not casting attack spells.
The way to utterly defeat the very being of an opponent is not through weakness, but strengths.
Be a grapple Wizard (Octopus Familiar adds grapple bonus).

You beat him in melee by casting buffing spells (lots of grapple spells almost like WotC knew that Wizards were better). Eventually, he will see you beat him at his own strength and still have more options.

Granted doing this might make him sad so bring a tissue box.
This, so this. This build (http://dungeons.wikia.com/wiki/Grapplemancer_(3.5e_Optimized_Build)) gets +28 grapple at level 3, outdo the monk like no tommorow.

[Tinydwarfman]

That's what I was talking about.
When you make the fighter as good in melee as a druid, give the rogue the AC and hp of a fighter, and bards have the same spells as wizards to make the classes more balanced, they become more similar. And you reach completely balance in ability only at the point where everyone is doing the same. That's the direction 4th Edition went.

I agree that monks have too few, and druids have too much, and that many spells are too powerful when you understand their full potential.
But I think in a good game, the warriors are good at killing things, the priests are good at protecting the party, mages are good at battlefield control and ocasional emergency blasting, and thieves are good at scouting, spying, and other activities that happen off the battlefield. I don't like the idea of a game in which every character has the same chances of defeating an ogre solo as everyone else.

Okay, this is flat out wrong. Balance does not mean that every is even remotely close to being the same conceptually or mechanically. Take a party of tier 3 characters. Dread Necromancer, Warblade, Factotum, Bard. These characters are not similar at all, and the difference is even moreso with some less well-used books. Beguiler, Totemist, Binder, Wilder/Psychic Warrior. The only thing these classes have in common is they are both good and balanced. Seriously, balance!= similarity.

[Prodan]

Build wise, I strongly suggest turning invisible, grabbing a metamagic rod of silent spell, and summoning things. With Augment Summoning.

Maybe they could be celestial summons?

[Flickerdart]

Before you start proving anything, ask him to define "munchkinism". The possible meaning spectrum for the word ranges all the way from wilful misinterpretation or ignoring of rules to taking a prestige class.

[Dust]

Wow, so many replies. I appreciate it, especially the Grapplemancer build and the ever-amusing Giacomo thread.

The game will indeed take place it seems, as he has stated his beliefs that the 'Monk and other martial characters' are designed to work as part of a team only, and does admit the caster has superiority in a duel situation. I wonder if I can convince him to sign up to these forums.

In the meantime, I'll be searching up further things that are absolutely silly to do with a Wizard/other caster at relatively low levels to completely outshine whatever he feels like building.

[Prodan]

Planar Bind a Nightmare at level 9.

Here's the thing you should ask him; what does he bring to the team? Ask him to quantify his contributions, then ask if a caster could not do it better.

Scouting? Arcane Eye, Diviniations

Combat? Summons. Also, battlefield control.

He will at some point say that a spellcaster eventually runs out of spells. Remind him that he has a finite amount of HP.

[Bosh]

Wow, so many replies. I appreciate it, especially the Grapplemancer build and the ever-amusing Giacomo thread.

The game will indeed take place it seems, as he has stated his beliefs that the 'Monk and other martial characters' are designed to work as part of a team only, and does admit the caster has superiority in a duel situation. I wonder if I can convince him to sign up to these forums.

In the meantime, I'll be searching up further things that are absolutely silly to do with a Wizard/other caster at relatively low levels to completely outshine whatever he feels like building.

For team-based stuff a party with two clerics (or a cleric and a druid) is far better at everything than a party with a fighter and a cleric. Basically appear to the group-based stuff, what does a group with a fighter and a cleric do that a group with two divine casters can't do better?

[Popertop]

I had a couple arguments with my current DM about this. Feel free to sub Monk for fighter, result is always the same.

My argument was that the wizard is the most powerful class, followed by Cleric and Druid.

His reply, "I can roll up a fighter that will rape a wizard."

:\

I was like, yeah right, anything a fighter has access to, a wizard also does and would make better use out of it. But that is beside the point, the point is in whatever situation you are in, the wizard will have more options and have more of an impact on what is happening, and contribute more to the party than the fighter ever will.

"Okay, I'll roll up a group of fighters, you roll up a group of wizards, and then they'll fight and we'll see what happens."

>:(

Basically him saying he's better at D&D than I am (only because he has more experience), and completely dodging the question like before.

Anytime I say anything like "Casting is more powerful than stuff that is not casting." He just changes the subject or says something like "I like roleplaying, roleplaying should be the focus."

And this is from somebody who plays Clerics and Druids most campaigns.

So yeah, I'm pretty sure we all know "that guy".

Edit: Oh yeah I forgot to mention, he thinks Tome of Battle is "Overpowered" and "Way too good". I asked him if he read the whole book, or ever rolled up a Warblade or Swordsage, and if he thought ninth level maneuvers were equivalent to ninth level spells, and he said he hadn't ever played one and that the book was stupid. :/

[Prodan]

"Okay, I'll roll up a group of fighters, you roll up a group of wizards, and then they'll fight and we'll see what happens."
Wonder what he'd think of this. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=129689)

[Flickerdart]

Team Solars are Wizards, aren't they? Just saying.

[Theodoriph]

Alot of the "unbalanced" builds in 3.5 are theoretical exercises that no DM would actually allow.

[Popertop]

No, I haven't even rolled a wizard before,
I don't even know what books are good for them.
I'm not that well versed in metamagic,
and I don't know how to gear them.
If I knew what I was doing,
I would take him up on it,
but as of now, I haven't done enough
research to handle anything like that.
If it came down to it,
it would probably end up
mid level, a certain number of books allowed,
and no custom items, something like that.
But still, it would end up in his favor,
because he would use books he knows best.


If it was like, wizard/rogue, maybe.
I'm not that experienced, tbh.
I joined this group last year,
but we can't meet up that often,
and our campaigns are always slow,
and I can't really roleplay because
I never have the chance.
(the other more experienced players
are the ones always talking)

Anyways, it's not like it would prove anything
if I won, he would probably complain about Wizards being broken,
or give some bull**** excuse.

[Prodan]

Ah, poetry I take it?


Alot of the "unbalanced" builds in 3.5 are theoretical exercises that no DM would actually allow.

How theoretical is a Sorcerer who tosses around battlefield control like candy, or a Wizard who decides to summon legions of creatures and buff them up to monstrous heights, or a Cleric who buys a few CL boosters and casts Holy Word before wading into combat with a few buffs, or a Druid who turns into a bear, has a bear companion, and summons more bears on top of that?

[FMArthur]

Just play a wizard with a high Int and well-chosen, core spells and trivialize encounters. Or be a druid with Natural Spell to directly outshine him in melee. Don't do anything that can be interpreted as a munchkin-esque 'combo'. That means no complex builds - don't even get feats that synergize with each other particularly well. Play the game as WotC made it to be, with simple combat awareness and good spells. WotC may have balanced wizards around blaster-casters, but it was certainly expected and prepared to have battlefield control centric spellcasters from the first - picking spells that appeal to such characters is in no way munchkin-ey. And NO COMBOS. If you so much as pick a strong magic item he will take the excuse to call you a munchkin and assert that the game is balanced when you don't munchkin.

Which is, by the way, incredible flawed logic. Any game's balance is proved by build optimization. You can decide not to take advantage of the powerful options, but that doesn't mean they are not available. If you have to apply a blindfold to this sort of thing at all you are assuredly playing a very unbalanced game.

[Tyndmyr]

Alot of the "unbalanced" builds in 3.5 are theoretical exercises that no DM would actually allow.

Not really. DMs have been known to allow anything up to and including pun pun. They probably shouldn't go that far, but you can't assume that powerful wizard builds don't see play. I know I've had low level wizards doing triple digit aoe damage. They could kill off the rest of the party as a standard action...ok, full round action if the rogue makes the fireball reflex save. That's not particularily hard.

Let's consider the party of fighters vs the party of wizards. You know the wizards have access to much better init boosters. Now, consider the resources necessary for the wizards to learn forcecage. It's core...almost none. Now, how are those fighters going to counter that?

[Prodan]

Rods of Cancellation or Capes of the Moutebanke/Helm of Teleportation?

[Tyndmyr]

Well, the rod of cancellation is an 11,000 gp per use item. So, it'd be a rather painful way to counter the almost nonexistant effort on the part of the mage.

The cape is 1/day, and has a similar cost.

The helm is 3/day, but costs 73k and change.

In all cases, the fighter does not get action advantage as a result of this action/counteraction, and if the wiz has quicken spell, the wizard is actually ahead of the game. Sure, if he happens to be prepared to counter that exact spell, he doesn't lose. Yet. Next turn, the wizard fires off something else. And eventually gets to something he's not specifically prepared for. Game over.

[Prodan]

Not bad, but I favor using PAO to turn the ceiling or floor into aqua regia.

[tyckspoon]

Let's consider the party of fighters vs the party of wizards. You know the wizards have access to much better init boosters. Now, consider the resources necessary for the wizards to learn forcecage. It's core...almost none. Now, how are those fighters going to counter that?

Hilariously unfair tactic, if the levels are high enough to support it:

Wizard(s) round 1: Maze all the fighters.
Wizard(s) round 2: Put Prismatic Walls where the fighters are going to come back.
Round 3-whatever: Have a snack and a pleasant chat while you wait for the Fighters to come back to and then be removed from this plane.