[3.P] We know core is broken, but what breaks it, when, and how?

[Endarire]

By "broken" I mean that if you run a game from levels 1 to 20 using only the core rules, you'll encounter such a balance disparity that someone needs to fudge their abilities just so eveyrone can contribute. In short, classes and abilities are nowhere close to being balanced over 20 levels, since what non-magical abilities can compete with level 6+ spells?

Some believe the very inclusion of magic breaks the game. Others say the game is fine or mostly fine until level X (usually between 6 and 12).

What are your thoughts on this?

[Sir Giacomo]

Core is not broken.

Mostly just many of the rules interpretations out there are.

And some broken RAW loopholes exist in theory, but could normally never happen in practice (e.g. Gate/inifinite wishes), simply because they would require massive metagaming and/or be prevented by npc behaviour.

- Giacomo

[Endarire]

I'm not talking loops here. I DMed a game where the players had L9 spells. I know of no extraordinary abilities that stand up to time stop + gate/summon bigger fish/high level Wizard tactic.

Even at lower levels, Evard's black tentacles can rip apart fights. A DM got so frustrated that we trivialized his encounter by one casting of this spell that he gave his enemies antimagic field as a (Su) ability.

This post is partly inspired by one I made yesterday (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=9664.0) regarding the game's paradigm shift at level 7.

[Xefas]

I know most posters will go for the obvious "Well, balance this, and spellcasting that, and quadratic spellcaster with linear fighter, etc, etc", but I'll go in an entirely different route which I believe is even more valid.

3.5 D&D is focused incredibly heavily on combat. 99% of the mechanics in the game have to deal with combat, and using the system as-is, there is no way to make a character that isn't composed primarily of statistics dealing with combat.

That premise is fine. A game focused on combat is fine. Even the premise of a roleplaying game focused on combat is fine.

The problem is that D&D combat is boring, painfully slow, and for half the classes in the core game, very tedious.

So, D&D is broken because the primary thing that it focuses on doing well, it does badly.

[WinWin]

resource disparity becomes noticable at high levels. Melee classes require significant resources in the form of arms, armour and trinkets to keep up with challenging opponents.

Where the spoils of an adventure is distributed equally, this means that magic based classes have less demands and can afford to cherry-pick or create optimal gear and still have cash left over. Creation may put you behind slightly in xp, but who cares when you can spam your best abilities all day.

I have other concerns, but many are situational and do not apply to every game. Such as flying mongols and incorporeal singularities. Treasure and magical items though, are almost always a constant feature in every game.

[Mastikator]

Magic breaks it past level 6.
Remove all magic and make it E6 and it will never break.

Problem is that this makes it also boring, since D&D doesn't have any fleshed out implemented rules for other activities than combat and magic.
Economics, crafting, farming, hunting and social interaction implementations are absurd at best, and at worse counter-intuitive (which they absolutely shouldn't be, magic is the only thing that may be counter-intuitive imo).

[Eldariel]

It should be around level 7-8. The one purely Core-only game we played from level 1 up though we didn't really realize how bad it was until level ~13 when the non-casters in the party started wondering why they were even being brought around; they killed trash but nothing truly dangerous and whenever something had to be done, be it gathering information, searching the environment, moving or resurrecting people, we mostly sat around and twiddled our thumbs.

The reason it took us so long was because our casters didn't really pay attention to the options the spell lists presented back then. We only had one PHB and we didn't know of the SRD so outside sessions, it was circling through the playgroup of 7-9 people (some joined and dropped throughout the campaign) and thus it took us all a while to get to know everything; as such, it was hard to actually scan through such things since people didn't want to waste session time on that.

Polymorph, Black Tentacles, Solid Fog, Slow, Glitterdust or even Web saw basically no use in the campaign. It was only once crap like Hold Monster, Forcecage, Planar Binding and company started showing up that we kinda got to think "what do we get?" and realize the answer was simply "+1 to hit". We had that one hilarious part of the adventure where a Glabrezu was bound to assist us on some task and it effortlessly, while being its usual demonic unhelpful self, did more than our frontliners. Mostly by snatching things and snapping them in half. Occasionally teleporting somewhere and feasting on something. Oh, and it used Reverse Gravity a few times, mostly to amuse itself, I guess.

[Mystic Muse]

Core is not broken.

Mostly just many of the rules interpretations out there are.

And some broken RAW loopholes exist in theory, but could normally never happen in practice (e.g. Gate/inifinite wishes), simply because they would require massive metagaming and/or be prevented by npc behaviour.

- Giacomo

Giacomo, there are dozens of threads here explaining why core is broken. If you're going to claim that it isn't please bring proof.

EDIT: Forgot to address the OP.:smallredface: There are a myriad of problems in core. There's no easy way to balance it but there are plenty of good fixes for classes on this site and you can always just ban the most abuse prone spells.

[awa]

id say 7th level for wizards and clerics. differing degrees of optimization will change this but 4th level you start getting spells better than entire classes. like greater invisibility and poly morph self.

now not all dnd games break if you stay away from tier one and two the game is much less likely to break than if you have a wizard and a monk in the same party.

edit
please don't turn this into a thread about how the monk is the equal to a wizard cant we just start with the conclusion that not all classes are created equal?

[WinWin]

I made the mistake of ending a campaign with a battle against a single opponent.

8 hours later the combat was still not resolved. Epic campaigns are extremely difficult to end with a climax. I understand why the ELH is referred to as the Joke Book by some people. For example, action economy busting in addistion to summoning spam may be entertaining the first time you do it. It is just becomes tedious after that. I had players walking out during the summoners turn and coming back half an hour later. The douche had still not completed his action.

Prior to that, combat was relatively fast. Rarely more than a few rounds/15 mins. Resolving accounting after the fact took longer in some cases. The game had high player fatalities, but rez was fairly common. Most of the fun past level 13 was about suverting the system and taking on opponents that could also subvert the system. A great campaign except for that one player taking a dump over the finale.

[Aran Banks]

WHEN: Magic breaks the game.... at around... level 1.

WHAT: I assume you're playing a game where the bard and the rogue are balance points.

Which means that color spray, sleep, and wall of smoke totally rain on everybody's parade. EBT, SoS/D/L spells, and stuff like freezing fog can wreak havoc at later levels, but level 1 is just bad like every other level. This (http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=31962) is a fantastic list of spells that win. Give it a look.

HOW: The best spells are the disabling ones. Sleep is stronger than wail of the banshee for weak monsters; it's literally an "I win" button. Non-casting classes (that aren't ToB or psionics) usually don't have disabling abilities. They just hit stuff hard. So when the Duskblade and Bard need to stab and blast and sing to kill baddies, the wizard can drop a color spray and walk off when the monster fails its save... or coup de grace it.

[JonestheSpy]

Even at lower levels, Evard's black tentacles can rip apart fights. A DM got so frustrated that we trivialized his encounter by one casting of this spell that he gave his enemies antimagic field as a (Su) ability.


See, to me this is just an illustration of Giacomo's point. There are TONS of monsters at CR7+ to whom a +15 grapple check is no big deal, not to mention flying monsters, incorporeal, etc. A DM doesn't need to throw in Anti-Magic fields, just do a bit of intelligent planning to create encounters that actually challenge a party.

Flying is similar. I see lots of posts that seem to contend that Flight= "spellcaster gets to avoid every encounter they want", conveniently forgetting all the flying monsters there are out there, which can now easily swarm a single flier and fill all 26 spaces around said caster.


stuff

Edit: Yeah, that's totally true when your DM never throws more than one or two encounters at you a day and the monsters always fail their savings throws. That must be a pretty sweet world to adventure in. (http://www.goblinscomic.com/01062006/)

[Xefas]

See, to me this is just an illustration of Giacomo's point. There are TONS of monsters at CR7+ to whom a +15 grapple check is no big deal, not to mention flying monsters, incorporeal, etc. A DM doesn't need to throw in Anti-Magic fields, just do a bit of intelligent planning to create encounters that actually challenge a party.

Flying is similar. I see lots of posts that seem to contend that Flight= "spellcaster gets to avoid every encounter they want", conveniently forgetting all the flying monsters there are out there, which can now easily swarm a single flier and fill all 26 spaces around said caster.

I think the typical rebut is that if you fill your encounters with flying, incorporeal monsters that balk at grapple checks to protect them against the casters' tricks, you've also mostly excluded all the non-casters from the equation as well.

So, sure, a caster always has Overland Flight on. To counter, the DM sends a bunch of flying enemies at the caster. Well, the fighter, rogue, and barbarian don't have any way to make themselves fly, so they're screwed too.

Just being the Devil's Advocate, here. I don't find any of this to be a problem, really.

[olentu]

I think the typical rebut is that if you fill your encounters with flying, incorporeal monsters that balk at grapple checks to protect them against the casters' tricks, you've also mostly excluded all the non-casters from the equation as well.

So, sure, a caster always has Overland Flight on. To counter, the DM sends a bunch of flying enemies at the caster. Well, the fighter, rogue, and barbarian don't have any way to make themselves fly, so they're screwed too.

Just being the Devil's Advocate, here. I don't find any of this to be a problem, really.

Not to mention that having to specifically and constantly counter a character or type of character to make the game work sort of means it does not really work.

[JonestheSpy]

I think the typical rebut is that if you fill your encounters with flying, incorporeal monsters that balk at grapple checks to protect them against the casters' tricks, you've also mostly excluded all the non-casters from the equation as well.

So, sure, a caster always has Overland Flight on. To counter, the DM sends a bunch of flying enemies at the caster. Well, the fighter, rogue, and barbarian don't have any way to make themselves fly, so they're screwed too.

Just being the Devil's Advocate, here. I don't find any of this to be a problem, really.

No, the point is not to design every encounter to go after the wizard, but to vary the types of encounters so the characters don't know what to expect and just say "I'll just cast web/Tentacles/glitterdust WIN" every time. And they have to carefully wiegh whether it's a better to cast a spell now or save it, because they don't know what's coming.

And actually, the fighter, rogue, and barbarian are in a much better defensive position on the ground than a flying character when that flock of gargoyles shows up. Yes, the flier can land - I'm just pointing out that flying does not=untouchable, which seems to be an awfully common opinion.

[Eldariel]

Edit: Yeah, that's totally true when your DM never throws more than one or two encounters at you a day and the monsters always fail their savings throws. That must be a pretty sweet world to adventure in. (http://www.goblinscomic.com/01062006/)

Well, I agree with this to a degree but it's more than two encounters a caster can roll on first level. After all, if you're facing lots of enemies and fighting them, chances are the ones that do make the saving throw can still just be gunned down with plain ol' bow.

But level 1 is certainly "even" in that everyone (including monsters) can one-shot everyone. If you're equipping for a long day, caster's 4 spells per level limitation is very real and this side of Abrupt Jaunt, they're quite squishy if not spending one of the 4 slots on defense.


It's "balance" but very much a rocket launcher taggy balance. Level 3 is still fairly balanced; sure, Web, Glitterdust, Pyrotechnics, Grease, etc. put the casters tactically ahead but generally damage is still a relatively solid contribution and area control provided by e.g. Trippers is very efficient. Indeed, I found one of the easiest ways to kill higher (5+) CR monsters on level 1 in a Coreish environment without gimping yourself for the future is a team of Barbarian (or Orc Fighter, but Barbarian's speed bonus + light armor is v. key for kiting some enemy types like Tendriculous) + Wizard with Enlarge Person and Ray of Enfeeblement and a focused tripper Barbarian. Two of each for good measure.

[Eloel]

We know core is broken
True,

but what breaks it, when, and how?
Wizard & Sorcerers. Starting level 1. With encounter-ending spells.
Druids. Starting level 1. With a companion better than an average fighter out of the box.
Clerics. Gradually, starting level 1. Being better (eventually way better) than fighters at their on shtick.
Monks. Starting level 3. Not getting any useful abilities.
Druids. Starting level 6. Being a casting bear.

Edit:
Premise:

A DM doesn't need to throw in Anti-Magic fields, just do a bit of intelligent planning to create encounters that actually challenge a party.
True

See, to me this is just an illustration of Giacomo's point. There are TONS of monsters at CR7+ to whom a +15 grapple check is no big deal, not to mention flying monsters, incorporeal, etc.

Monsters with over a good +20 grapple (to have a good chance at dodging +15). Flying monsters. Incorporeal monsters.
Sure, they might challenge a Wizard. Guess what they do to a fighter?

[Tvtyrant]

First let me make a statement:

A flying creature is the MOST obvious target in sight. If the DM has the enemies archers/mages ignored the guy who can fly to attack the relatively normal guy on the ground he isn't playing the enemy realistically. No one in history has seen an attack helicopter and ignored it to keep working on the guys trying to charge them on the ground. Sure one or two guys might continue suppressing fire, but flying things are incredibly visible and obvious targets.

That having been said, given two people who both know the rules they can play any two classes equally well until around level 3 (even bard! Did you know they can get improved trip with a 15 foot reach at level 1?), when the casters start their take off. Sure you can cast color spray before then, but 3-4 encounters is supposed to be the usual amount, meaning your supposed to have more encounters then spell slots at that point. At level 3 the spell slots exceed the encounters, but not the amount of enemies. So while you can shape the battle, you still are limited to only taking out so many enemies. Casters at this level excel at group versus 1 enemy, but they simply don't have the spell slots to deal with several mixed enemy groups (like two ogres and some goblin archers).

Personally I think the game only shatters into little tiny pieces at around level 8, when the full casters have a LOT of spell slots, Druids begin their march to T-rex shape, and the cleric becomes the most melee dominant armor wearer. Look upon the CoDzilla and Batman and weep yea muggles!

[JonestheSpy]

Monsters with over a good +20 grapple (to have a good chance at dodging +15). Flying monsters. Incorporeal monsters.
Sure, they might challenge a Wizard. Guess what they do to a fighter?

Um, get blood on their armor as they get chopped down?

[Xefas]

No, the point is not to design every encounter to go after the wizard, but to vary the types of encounters so the characters don't know what to expect and just say "I'll just cast web/Tentacles/glitterdust WIN" every time. And they have to carefully wiegh whether it's a better to cast a spell now or save it, because they don't know what's coming.

And actually, the fighter, rogue, and barbarian are in a much better defensive position on the ground than a flying character when that flock of gargoyles shows up. Yes, the flier can land - I'm just pointing out that flying does not=untouchable, which seems to be an awfully common opinion.

The problem is that anything that catches the casters off guard has a high chance of catching the non-casters off guard as well. Casters don't really have to weigh the opportunity cost of casting a spell now or saving it, because any encounter that is sufficiently threatening to give them pause, is going to be threatening enough that it's a decision of "Dead now, or possibly dead later".

And I wouldn't call the ground a safe place when fighting flying enemies. The best you can hope for is that they don't have ranged attacks, and instead leave to go get stuff to drop on you while you shake your fist angrily at them.

[Eloel]

Um, get blood on their armor as they get chopped down?

Wrong. They fly out of fighter's reach and pepper with arrows while the fighters sits there with his trip/grapple/charge feats. Or pop in and out of ground and laugh at the fighter's pathetic touch AC as they damage his Str so he gets even more useless.

[Pyre_Born]

Let me start out by saying that I do think core is broken big time.

But...it all comes down to the players and the DM, while the rules are easy to break, it is up to the people involved in the game to make it fun, and core allows you to do that somewhat. I'm not saying the fighter won't be left out quite often, which brings me back to core IS broken.

However, in my personal opinion it is the *edit*Power Gamers/Munchkins*/edit* that like to make everything about their one man army and the DM who refuses to say no when he realizes something is wrong that truly breaks the game.

As to when, who, etc:
If someone in the party wants to be the star then it comes down to the tier 1 and 2 classes, these allow too much damage to the fun for lower tier players. This can honestly start as early as 1st level.

In my experience though, when players seek to use each others abilities to make a PARTY, with each class filling in for the others weaknesses, then their is no reason for rampant brokenness.

Just my view,
Pyre

[Xefas]

But...it all comes down to the players and the DM, while the rules are easy to break, it is up to the people involved in the game to make it fun, and core allows you to do that somewhat.

I would argue that a system that is so fundamentally broken that it requires effort just to keep it from breaking is a bad system. There are other systems that actually do function on their own, and the players and DM get to expend their effort enhancing the game from enjoyable to highly enjoyable, rather than expending their effort trying not to look at the gaping holes and scurrying cockroaches and forcing the system to work even a little.

Ironically, I don't find the whole "Casters trivialize everyone else" to really be one of the fundamental problems of D&D as a roleplaying game. The above paragraph doesn't take that into account even a little. D&D has other issues that don't get much attention on these boards.

[Mystic Muse]

Let me start out by saying that I do think core is broken big time.

But...it all comes down to the players and the DM, while the rules are easy to break, it is up to the people involved in the game to make it fun, and core allows you to do that somewhat. I'm not saying the fighter won't be left out quite often, which brings me back to core IS broken.

However, in my personal opinion it is the Powergamers or munchkins that like to make everything about their one man army and the DM who refuses to say no when he realizes something is wrong that truly breaks the game.

As to when, who, etc:
If someone in the party wants to be the star then it comes down to the tier 1 and 2 classes, these allow too much damage to the fun for lower tier players. This can honestly start as early as 1st level.

In my experience though, when players seek to use each others abilities to make a PARTY, with each class filling in for the others weaknesses, then their is no reason for rampant brokenness.

Just my view,
Pyre

Just before anybody else, does, I'd like to say "Fixed it for you". The above depends on your definition of the two terms (Powergamer and Munckin) but optimization itself is not a bad thing. It's when you go to extremes and don't care about the other people in your party and want it to be all about you that it becomes a bad thing. optimization is just taking a concept and making your character be good at that. Before anybody says anything, there is a world of difference between "good" and "gamebreaking"

[Pyre_Born]

Just before anybody else, does, I'd like to say "Fixed it for you". The above depends on your definition of the two terms (Powergamer and Munckin) but optimization itself is not a bad thing. It's when you go to extremes and don't care about the other people in your party and want it to be all about you that it becomes a bad thing. optimization is just taking a concept and making your character be good at that. Before anybody says anything, there is a world of difference between "good" and "gamebreaking"

True enough, optimizer was a bad term to use, you corrected it perfectly, thank you :smallsmile:

[Pyre_Born]

I would argue that a system that is so fundamentally broken that it requires effort just to keep it from breaking is a bad system. There are other systems that actually do function on their own, and the players and DM get to expend their effort enhancing the game from enjoyable to highly enjoyable, rather than expending their effort trying not to look at the gaping holes and scurrying cockroaches and forcing the system to work even a little.

Ironically, I don't find the whole "Casters trivialize everyone else" to really be one of the fundamental problems of D&D as a roleplaying game. The above paragraph doesn't take that into account even a little. D&D has other issues that don't get much attention on these boards.

I'll agree with you here, d&d is not my game of choice for these reasons. I think that it's been long enough since these holes in the system have become common(enough) knowledge that it now falls to the players and dm to even out the party if they choose to use the system.

And as to spellcasting being the game breaker, I agree 100% on this too, their are far to many areas that need fixing to believe nerfing spellcasting will make it a fixed system

[Endarire]

Remember, optimization is using a screwdriver to put in screws instead of a hammer. If you go for a +2 to your main thing instead of a +1, that's optimizing.

Mind you, these are rudimentary examples. The example of "I get world-shattering power this level!" versus "I get +1 to hit" exemplifies the great disparity between casters and non-casters.

[oxybe]

out of the starting gates really. i've spoken far more then i have to about my issues with 3.5, mostly due to how non-casters are far too limited in their options.

my problems with non-casters:

-not enough viable options built-in. with so few non-combat abilities gained through class features, non-casters are forced to rely on feats, items and skills to get viability out of combat.

-most of a non-caster's feats will be used to make it a better combatant. with 10 feats on average (6 from levels, 1 from level 1, and a few from class/crossclassing), very few characters take their first few feats to get extra non-combat options, especially if they're going for a particular style of combat. this leaves us with skills an items

-there are 45 skills listed in 3.5 phb. only 3 out of 11 classes get 6+int or more skill points per level. only one of the 8 classes that get 4 or less actually use Int to power class abilities (wizard). this means the average int (10-11) character knows less then a 10th of the skill list, and of what little he can learn a large part is cross-classed, which makes it far harder to be properly trained in it

-so items. a non-caster eventually becomes VERY reliant on their items to be successful. the main problem is that items may or may not be accessible. while the game assumes they generally are, these items REQUIRE a caster to create them. effectively telling a non-caster: "to gain options you must emulate the caster, which has options". which kinda sucks.

-the last problem is since the non-casters have so little built-in support for anything that isn't "i hit it with my [weapon of choice]" or "i hit it REALLY hard", non-casters rely almost entirely on the GM's adjudication of player skill and metagame information when it comes to options. that might be ok for some people, but it really grinds my gears that Edward the Headsman's ability to bypass a traps is reliant on Oxybe the Player's ability to creatively use a crowbar, a pully, several dozen yards of rope, a handful of pitons and a log.
------------------------------------------------------
problems with casters:
-too many options. most of the early casters were built to be catch-all archetypes. the wizard is meant to be Gandalf, Elminister, Tim the Enchanter, Dumbledore, etc... while many of the non-casters were built around very specific archetypes, like the savage Barbarian or the wuxia-influenced Monk.

the problem with this is the your wizard, cleric, druid or whatnot could change each day if he wanted to if he was Gandalf, Elminister, Tim the Enchanter, Dumbledore, John the Horrible Necromancer from down the lane, etc... or worse, in one day simply amalgam the stronger aspects of these and wreck havoc as flying, invisible, huge-sized, man-eating millipede that has a furnace for a stomach.

-too many "i win" or Win/Lose binary spells. a lot of spells simply did stuff... and a lot of this stuff was quicker or more reliable then what the non-casters could do.

want to go over the chasm? polymorph into a bird/fly/teleport/etc...
want information from the NPC? change his attitude via magic/force him to give you information via dominate or kill+speak with dead.
want to know what is in store for you/what could help? divination. divination. divination.

a lot of these types of spells could be gained quickly enough and scribing a scroll or two of situational spells is a drop in the bucket money-wise. a bit later on, you can easily craft wands / staves for these spells and with splats runestaves that let you convert prepared spells into those on the staff.

-many spells were simply better then the non-spellcaster options. a slightly less then 500 GP collection per PC (assuming a 5 person group) would allow a 5th level wizard to create a wand of Open Lock that has a 100% success rate per lock (50 in total) and can be used at a safe distance to open the locks on most doors without fear of getting hit by the trap. note that is effectively paying 10GP per lock picked, per group member, magical lock or otherwise.

an unseen servant can be used to open the doors. and a wand thereof is quite cheap to make 75GP a PC if you don't feel like risking a PC opening it.

and this is if you're worried about the locks+doors. there are several dungeon bypass spells at later levels that simply allow you to obliterate the door from a safe distance, or just go through the wall adjacent to the door.

a flight spells is in almost all situations better then the jumping or climbing option, and alter self (10 minutes per level) into a creature with a swim speed (lilke a locatah) is far safer then swimming.

i think you can see my point.

and this is simply based on non-combat options alone. in combat a decent spellcaster can usually debuff or cause enough issues to the enemy side in one or two turns that the non-casters are effectively the mop-up crew.

---------------------------------------

outside of the spellcaster/non-caster thing there are several issues i do have:
-low level HP is FAR too low for a heroic character. at level 1, a 16 con fighter has 13 HP. a 14 str enemy one-handing a longsword deals 1d8+2 damage, so 6.5 damage on an average hit. in 2 hits he can down the fighter. in one he can down a wizard with 14 con, or any d6 class with the human average con, 10.

it's only at around level 3-5 your lower HD PCs start being able to take a few hits without dying, and even then as one of my last PF sessions has proven, taking 34 damage as a level 5 wizard can kill quite easily. especially when you seem to be unable to hit the broad side of a barn with a ranged touch attack and misjudge a creature's range.

-high level combats are too swingy. even with a low level of optimization it's VERY easy to have PCs that deal hundreds of damage per round. a Lion Totem Barbarian (complete champion) with shock trooper (complete warrior) can full attack on a charge for a pretty decent amount of damage without taking a hit to his attack. add in some actual power attack optimization or simply taking a level into frenzied berserker and you turn the dial to "ludicrous damage". casters can easily enough drop powerfull debuffs to transform enemies into a state of near vegetation, turning a potential brute into a blind, helpless 20-ft tall kitten with cleaver-like claws it can't even lift.

on the flipside, a single bad roll of the dice can kill a PC with ease unless he stocked up on the right protective wards that morning. Woe to the PC who didn't prep anti-death effects that one morning and gets jumped with a finger of death (and happens to have a low Fort save to boot).

many combats seem to rely on who can get initiative first and launch the first big attack.

the downside is if each side is prepared against a series of potential effects, things can really drag on as each side flails ineffectively at one another. see this comic for an idea of what can happen (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0456.html), except replace a few "made my saving throw" for "i've got a buff that makes me immune to X"

-several subsystems are bit too more unwieldy then they need to be. grappling, tripping, turning undead, disarming, ect... are made a bit too complicated for my liking. they're usable but rely on a non-standard method of conflict resolution that will easily require some pageflipping if it's not one that you use often.

-speaking of some subsystems, many like grappling/tripping usually have penalties (sometimes very hefty ones) attached to them unless you're trained and even then quickly become useless against non-humanoids unless you're focused in that combat style above all else (which can easily be 2+ sizes larger then you with several legs and a strength score that doubles yours, or simply don't use anything but natural weapons).

-multiclassing. among casters, multi-classing simply isn't done unless you have a VERY specific build you're going for the loss of extra spells and caster level hurts too much that not increasing your caster potential is something you just won't do. for non-casters, multi-classing is a VERY easy way to gain extra abilities and with the right tinkering and mix and matching (due to many classes being front-loaded with their good stuff early on) you can be much stronger then the individual parts.

honestly i much prefer the way all editions barring 3rd handled classes & multiclassing. you picked your archetype/class that fits best and you stuck to it (or reworked / reflavored the class who's mechanics fit best). the ease of multi-classing in 3.5 diluted the point of classes to a point where it sometimes seemed like it was trying to be a very awkward point-based game. now this could be good or bad depending on your point of view, but i much rather like how 2nd ed's handled multiclassing and when 4th ed introduced hybrid classes (though i still use multiclassing as means of dabbling rather then a core part of the PC).

-generally speaking the use of skills in all editions of D&D. i generally don't like how skill have been handled in all editions. 4th ed is close to how i like it, but still not quite there. to build on my previous point, it sometimes feels like an awkward point-based game, and when it comes to skill it's in my opinion (and from what i hear, a common one) that overall, you don't get enough points to fully flesh out your character with a wide array of skills, especially if you hope to succeed at several level equivalent challenges (usually opposed ones, like bluff VS sense motive, but several static ones can require a high point value that isn't possible for low level PCs or even high level ones due to how cross-class skills work).

------------------------------------------------------
side note:
-the social contract thing. i'm all for playing nice with your buddies, but while you chose to play the wizard, you buddy chose to play the fighter. if your concept is that of a warmage, a veteran of combat who marches onto the field not in armor, but wearing the skin of a monster, transforming himself into a beastial war machine as he wades into combat armed with the flight and talons of a Roc, the mouth and furnace-like stomach of a Remorhaz, the brutal and destructive strenght of a Treant, etc...

why are you in the wrong when the fighter complains that your flying, invisble giant millipede is devouring enemies left & right?

why is the cleric of Kord in the wrong when he wades into combat fully buffed as a giant avatar of destruction, preaching the teachings of his god as he strikes down his foes, reveling in the ecstasy of the adrenaline rush? why should you tone down your concept for the fighter?

what of the cleric of olidamara hoping to strike it rich in the next lost city? or the tomb-raiding and treasure-hunting wizard who both dream of excavating lost heirlooms of a bygone era and have chosen their spell list to help them navigate subterranean areas & bypass traps? should they tone it down so the rogue can go into harm's way and try to pick the locks and check for traps himself?

i agree that that there should be some give & take within a group, but telling those who are playing the casters to willingly hold back so the fighter can pretend he's needed is just as insulting to the casters as they are being to the fighter by doing his job and more.

[Pyre_Born]

Remember, optimization is using a screwdriver to put in screws instead of a hammer. If you go for a +2 to your main thing instead of a +1, that's optimizing.

Mind you, these are rudimentary examples. The example of "I get world-shattering power this level!" versus "I get +1 to hit" exemplifies the great disparity between casters and non-casters.

You're right about this, no argument here. The system "as-is" has a major gap in this area. To be honest, "fixing" 3.x would really need a brand new system based on the d20 chasis, starting from ground up. At this point in time their is so that doesn't fit well together.

Peace,
Pyre

[Morph Bark]

he gave his enemies antimagic field as a (Su) ability.

PARADOX!

IT HAS TO BE!

[Otodetu]

Most issues can be fixed by adding enough splat books... really.

3.5 is broken indeed, but the tier list helps ALOT, if you have equal tier characters in the party things becomes sweet.

[Runestar]

Action economy disparity between casters and fighters. In other words, melee is too reliant on the full-attack action for the bulk of their damage, which casters get to do the same amount, if not more as a standard action.

At higher lvs, a wizard can move, cast a spell that easily deals 100+ damage and still fire off another quickened spell.

Conversely, if a fighter moves, he is entitled to just 1 melee attack at what...a paltry 2d6+20 damage? They also lack viable swift action abilities in core.

[dsmiles]

3.5 D&D is focused incredibly heavily on combat. 99% of the mechanics in the game have to deal with combat, and using the system as-is, there is no way to make a character that isn't composed primarily of statistics dealing with combat.

That premise is fine. A game focused on combat is fine. Even the premise of a roleplaying game focused on combat is fine.

The problem is that D&D combat is boring, painfully slow, and for half the classes in the core game, very tedious.

So, D&D is broken because the primary thing that it focuses on doing well, it does badly.

Well played, but that's not the only reason it's broken, just the primary reason it's broken. I'm glad I play with sensible people who won't break the game.

[Thrantar]

Metamagic Rods - Cost reducers in core. Starting from just 3k. Need range, silence, or duration?

[The Big Dice]

-the social contract thing. i'm all for playing nice with your buddies, but while you chose to play the wizard, you buddy chose to play the fighter. if your concept is that of a warmage, a veteran of combat who marches onto the field not in armor, but wearing the skin of a monster, transforming himself into a beastial war machine as he wades into combat armed with the flight and talons of a Roc, the mouth and furnace-like stomach of a Remorhaz, the brutal and destructive strenght of a Treant, etc...

why are you in the wrong when the fighter complains that your flying, invisble giant millipede is devouring enemies left & right?

why is the cleric of Kord in the wrong when he wades into combat fully buffed as a giant avatar of destruction, preaching the teachings of his god as he strikes down his foes, reveling in the ecstasy of the adrenaline rush? why should you tone down your concept for the fighter?

what of the cleric of olidamara hoping to strike it rich in the next lost city? or the tomb-raiding and treasure-hunting wizard who both dream of excavating lost heirlooms of a bygone era and have chosen their spell list to help them navigate subterranean areas & bypass traps? should they tone it down so the rogue can go into harm's way and try to pick the locks and check for traps himself?

i agree that that there should be some give & take within a group, but telling those who are playing the casters to willingly hold back so the fighter can pretend he's needed is just as insulting to the casters as they are being to the fighter by doing his job and more.
I guess the concept of Thou Shalt Not Steal Another Player's Thunder isn't one that people go for these days. If your idea is going to step on the toes of someone else in the group's idea, your idea needs to be modified to find it's own niche instead of trying to occupy the niche that has an entire class dedicated to it.

If you're going to out do another player, very likely friend at that, in the area they want their character to specialise in, what does that say about you?

Also the idea of a caster as usually being a somewhat academic class seems to have gone out the window in favour of driving your enemies before them and hearing the lamentation of the women.

[arrowhen]

I think what makes 3.x so breakable is that the designers *expected* players to play it just like AD&D. A lot of problems go away when you limit yourself to blasty wizards, heal-y clerics, and direct-damage fighters.

[Tyndmyr]

Core is not broken.

Mostly just many of the rules interpretations out there are.

And some broken RAW loopholes exist in theory, but could normally never happen in practice (e.g. Gate/inifinite wishes), simply because they would require massive metagaming and/or be prevented by npc behaviour.

- Giacomo

Wishing for more wishes is an obvious strategy. So much so that even small children can think of it, and movies and such ban it(ie, Aladdin, etc).

So, if you have the knowledge check to know of a Genie, and that they grant wishes, and have a candle of invocation, and know what it does, the rest is pretty easy to put together. No metagaming is required, and NPC behavior is set by gate.

[TheGeckoKing]

It breaks because either people break it on purpose, or accidently because the DM isn't watching their players properly. If DM's would be more wary and inflict Epic Book Damage on Munchkins, the problems would be reduced by a fair bit. Core isn't perfect, and what I say won't fix it, but it'll fix more glaring errors.

[BeholderSlayer]

Core is not broken.

Mostly just many of the rules interpretations out there are.

And some broken RAW loopholes exist in theory, but could normally never happen in practice (e.g. Gate/inifinite wishes), simply because they would require massive metagaming and/or be prevented by npc behaviour.

- Giacomo

I'm going to assume that by "not broken" you mean "the single most broken portion of the entire 3.5 ruleset."

[Psyren]

By "broken" I mean that if you run a game from levels 1 to 20 using only the core rules, you'll encounter such a balance disparity that someone needs to fudge their abilities just so eveyrone can contribute. In short, classes and abilities are nowhere close to being balanced over 20 levels, since what non-magical abilities can compete with level 6+ spells?

Some believe the very inclusion of magic breaks the game. Others say the game is fine or mostly fine until level X (usually between 6 and 12).

What are your thoughts on this?

Basically, your challenges advance quadratically (monsters gain increased health/damage, but ALSO gain magic, magic-esque abilities, or special qualities like flight/incorporeality, not to mention non-combat challenges like diplomacy or detective-work.) In core, casters are able to keep up because they also advance quadratically for the same reasons. But the mundane classes in core do not.

The mundane classes in core can approximate these abilities via their WBL... but while they are gaining the necessary abilities to keep up with casters through coin, the casters are gaining those abilities as class features AND gaining the same amount of coin. The mundanes cannot catch up.

The end result - your DM either has to scale down encounters to keep the weak-tier classes "in the game"; keep them scaled normally and risk the casters hogging the limelight; or balance the casters by denying them some of their more egregious abilities. Or keep the party from mixing drastically different tiers altogether.

[Saph]

The general rule of thumb I use is:

Levels 1-4: Melee dominates over casters.
Levels 5-10: Melee and casters are roughly balanced.
Levels 11-14: Casters dominate over melee.
Levels 15-20: Casters dominate over everything.
Levels 21+: Divide by Cucumber Error. Please reinstall universe and reboot.

You can run a Level 1-10 core game without much trouble and only minimal adjustment - okay, you'll have to deal with the blatant stuff like Candle of Invocation, but that's not exactly difficult. At low levels full casters (except druids) are fairly weak, but the melee characters can take up the slack. By levels 9-10 the balance is starting to tip the other way, but the power disparity isn't enough to wreck the game.

The exact point at which the problems do start to wreck the game is arguable. Some people put it as early as level 7 (which I think is way too low) and some put it as high as 17 (which I think is way too high). I'd personally say somewhere between levels 11-13. By this point it's just too difficult for meleers to contribute, and the casters have enough spells that they can fire off high-level magic in every encounter without running out.

Epic isn't even worth talking about. 3.5's balance is already creaking and groaning under the strain by levels 17+. Once you get Epic Spellcasting there's no point even trying to balance the game anymore.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Action Economy.

This is really at the heart of what makes 3.x break down everywhere - but Core in particular. Certain classes and abilities allow some individuals to count as 2 or more "characters" within the framework of the rules. This results in odd interactions with the rules that govern combat encounters generally and as a result disrupt the core of the system.
As a thought experiment, let's consider "Fighter" as the default character that the designers were working with when creating the game. He has a Standard and a Move action; he can make 1 "good" attack at low levels and 2-3 at higher levels if he doesn't move; he only can deal with one opponent at a time; it takes him more than one round to dispatch a "challenging" enemy.

Using the "Fighter" as a standard, the designers then try to build monsters to challenge him, and construct the combat rules to work for "Fighters." However, in practice every caster class counts for at least 2 Fighters on an increasingly consistent basis; druids, for example, count as 2 Fighters starting at Level 1 thanks to their animal companion. These classes can make take on multiple opponents at a time, dispatch hard opponents in less than a round, and otherwise act as parties unto themselves.

To compensate, DMs throw out the CR guidelines and start using tougher enemies or enemies that act like the "multiple Fighter" PCs (i.e. Casters); but these enemies are constructed not to minimize actions (for the designers did not contemplate the issue) but to hit Fighters harder. This will certainly challenge "multiple Fighter" classes by eliminating their notional Fighters, but any class that only counts as a single Fighter is suddenly facing a challenge far above his ability to survive. Worse, enemies that mimic Casters now produce the same Action Economy issues as the PC Casters did - but this time aimed at the PCs that are merely a single notional Fighter.
Unfortunately, the Action Economy issues are endemic to the system as a whole so there's no quick fix for them. In order to fix it you'd have to get rid of any feature that allows a character of a particular class-level to consistently break the base Standard-Move paradigm. These include:

- Summoning Magic (grants +1 Standard-Move)
- Companions (e.g. Leadership Cohorts, Animal Companions, etc.)

but more broadly include anything that allows an individual character to reasonably eliminate one or more undamaged "challenging" opponents with a Standard Action.

EDIT: I'll largely agree with Saph although I find the wheels started coming off more in the 5-8 range.
3rd Level spells are really good, and it is around this point that melee really begins to feel the hurt of the Action Economy. In particular, Summoning Casters now have enough Spell Slots that they can afford to extend good Summon I choices for an entire Encounter and the Summon II and III selections are sufficiently good that they "count" for about 2 Fighters on their own.

Plus, at this power level the DM has to start throwing around more Caster-like enemies to check Casters, which can result in melee getting removed from a fight quickly if the Caster-Monsters happen to swing at them.

N.B. this is largely from the experience of myself (an experienced player) watching our completely n00b Cleric replace my Rogue-Fighter in combat with Celestial Bison. I may not have been optimizing hard, but she didn't even have to try - not to mention that our enemies were increasingly immune to Sneak Attack :smallsigh:

[Cainen]

I guess the concept of Thou Shalt Not Steal Another Player's Thunder isn't one that people go for these days. If your idea is going to step on the toes of someone else in the group's idea, your idea needs to be modified to find it's own niche instead of trying to occupy the niche that has an entire class dedicated to it.

If you're going to out do another player, very likely friend at that, in the area they want their character to specialise in, what does that say about you?
You're making the assumption that he's doing this JUST to steal someone else's thunder, not to play a concept out. For all you know, he could've made his character first, making the *other* player the one who's trying to do that. Trying and failing, that is.


Also the idea of a caster as usually being a somewhat academic class seems to have gone out the window in favour of driving your enemies before them and hearing the lamentation of the women.
Archetypes do not particularly matter when the class itself supports a different mode of play. This is like complaining about somebody playing a brutish thug with the Rogue class because the class is slanted towards finesse.

[awa]

one problem is that by say 7th or 8th level its incredible easy to "step on another classes toes" poly morph is better than being a fight.

another aspect is by the time you have 4th level spells you have a wide array of nearly unbeatable abilities sure the dm can make sure that every monster has very high spell resistance fly is immune to grapples ect but then the wizard will feel like you are picking on them and they will be justified if the dm has to handpick every monster to be able to fight the wizard and then find ways to make the fighter seem useful then the system is broken and you are just trying to work around the problem.

every time you say that the dm needs to ban something or casters need to voluntarily limit them selves to make the rest of the party think they are their equals then you are admitting the system is broken because you as a player, or a dm, are trying to work around it.

edit
not that i agree with them but some people argue wizards are broken at level 1 due to spells like sleep am color spray

[Sir Giacomo]

Wishing for more wishes is an obvious strategy. So much so that even small children can think of it, and movies and such ban it(ie, Aladdin, etc).

So, if you have the knowledge check to know of a Genie, and that they grant wishes, and have a candle of invocation, and know what it does, the rest is pretty easy to put together. No metagaming is required, and NPC behavior is set by gate.

Those are quite a lot of ifs, in particular when it is nigh impossible by the RAW to find out about one particular ability of a creature with just a knowledge check (the DM decided what you know and what not).

- Giacomo

[Psyren]

Those are quite a lot of ifs, in particular when it is nigh impossible by the RAW to find out about one particular ability of a creature with just a knowledge check (the DM decided what you know and what not).

- Giacomo

I would say knowing that genies grant wishes falls under "common knowledge."
The solution therefore is to keep the players away from one. But needing to restrict certain avenues to power via rule zero does not disprove Core being broken.

[Gametime]

I guess the concept of Thou Shalt Not Steal Another Player's Thunder isn't one that people go for these days. If your idea is going to step on the toes of someone else in the group's idea, your idea needs to be modified to find it's own niche instead of trying to occupy the niche that has an entire class dedicated to it.



I don't think the point is to outdo another player, but to fully realize a character concept. The problem here is systemic; if the fighter isn't a badass, I can't be a badass warpriest without showing up the fighter.

A lot of this will be game-dependent, since "badass" is relative to what you face, and a good DM should be able to accommodate classes of theoretically different power levels. But when single class features start to tread on the fighter's toes without even trying, there's an issue.


Those are quite a lot of ifs, in particular when it is nigh impossible by the RAW to find out about one particular ability of a creature with just a knowledge check (the DM decided what you know and what not).

- Giacomo

The knowledge check is 10 + HD for one piece of information about "special powers or vulnerabilities," +5 for each additional piece of information.

Noble djinn (the kind that give wishes) have 10 HD, so that's a base 20 DC. Assuming that air mastery and darkvision don't count as "special powers" (since they're fairly mundane) and that each spell-like ability is a separate power, they have 11 special powers or vulnerabilities. That's a DC 70 check to absolutely, positively know that noble djinn grant wishes, even if the DM is specifically trying to withhold information. Hard to reach, definitely, but easy to determine the DC.

You'd have to be pretty obviously trying to prevent the character from knowing that noble djinn grant wishes, though, since it's easily their most notable feature and it's what they're known for in modern culture. Whether this sort of blatant metagaming on the DM's part is justified to prevent metagaming on the player's part is something best decided by individual groups.

[Tvtyrant]

For the people who don't care about social contracts, I completely agree! (Cleric, now is the time to ignore the dieing wizard and keep slaughtering those enemies.) After all, its not like D&D was designed as a social game which stresses teamwork. Or one where the DM is allowing your characters to live on a whim or anything, and only his desire to play a game with friends keeps the party alive. Nope, no D&D campaign was ever like that. Honestly.

Seriously though, if the fighter let the monsters through to the wizard to gallivant off, or the cleric decided saving party members was a waste of spell slots, it would cause major complaints. Once the social contract is off the table the wizard with his fifty hit points is dead; tier ones use the argument that the never signed a social contract and it isn't part of the game, but if the rest of the party agreed they would be entirely screwed.

[The Big Dice]

You're making the assumption that he's doing this JUST to steal someone else's thunder, not to play a concept out. For all you know, he could've made his character first, making the *other* player the one who's trying to do that. Trying and failing, that is.

Archetypes do not particularly matter when the class itself supports a different mode of play. This is like complaining about somebody playing a brutish thug with the Rogue class because the class is slanted towards finesse.
All I can say to this is, if you want to play a Rogue, why are you playing a Wizard? Why are you playing a Wizard if you want to play a melee tank?

Is the problem the player or the system?

The answer lies somewhere in between, like it usually does with these kind of things.

The mode of play is being forced by the player, not by the class. But this is a systemic problem with D&D. It's one of the reasons I've come to despise the game. It really did set roleplaying games back by twenty years. Next time i play D&D, it's going to be a heavily house ruled version of BECMI.


I don't think the point is to outdo another player, but to fully realize a character concept. The problem here is systemic; if the fighter isn't a badass, I can't be a badass warpriest without showing up the fighter.

A lot of this will be game-dependent, since "badass" is relative to what you face, and a good DM should be able to accommodate classes of theoretically different power levels. But when single class features start to tread on the fighter's toes without even trying, there's an issue.
Badass is as badass does if you ask me.

That said, a major part of the problem wth D&D is, it doesn't allow the classes that should be badass to be badass. So you end up with the depressingly dull Fighter, the one trick Barbarian, the Paladin that sucks if you're not fighting Evil Outsiders and the Monk who doesn't really know who he is or what he's about.

[Psyren]

That said, a major part of the problem wth D&D is, it doesn't allow the classes that should be badass to be badass. So you end up with the depressingly dull Fighter, the one trick Barbarian, the Paladin that sucks if you're not fighting Evil Outsiders and the Monk who doesn't really know who he is or what he's about.

What's wrong with cracking open Tome of Battle and simply changing the class names? Clearly the system works, you just have to get out of core.

[The Big Dice]

What's wrong with cracking open Tome of Battle and simply changing the class names? Clearly the system works, you just have to get out of core.

If you have to buy a splatbook to make a gme work, you may as well buy a different game. Preferably one that comes in a self contained starter book, rather than having to buy three hefty tomes plus a splat just to be able to play the game.

Seriously, D&D ain't all that.

[Tyndmyr]

Those are quite a lot of ifs, in particular when it is nigh impossible by the RAW to find out about one particular ability of a creature with just a knowledge check (the DM decided what you know and what not).

- Giacomo

It is not nigh-impossible. Knowledge(Planes) is not a ridiculous skill to pick up, especially for wizards, who with int have a nice bonus to them. It's a mere DC 20 to get info off an Efreet.

The fact that Genies grant wishes is a pretty well known piece of folklore. In fact, it probably qualifies for "basic questions" given that, as mentioned before, even very small children can normally know that genies grant wishes. So, DC 15. That's doable without cheese at level 1.

If you have a candle of invocation, and you identify it, you know what it does.

Bam, that's all you need. Your character suddenly has in game knowledge of all the important stuff.


Next broken item from core: Leadership. I eagerly await your explanation of how this is a balanced feat.

[Dusk Eclipse]

What's wrong with cracking open Tome of Battle and simply changing the class names? Clearly the system works, you just have to get out of core.

While normally I would agree, I feel inclined to say that for the purpose of this thread, we are debating Core only.+

:Trying not to sound offensive or condecendent, If I do, I apologixe in advance:

Edit:
[QUOTE]
Next broken item from core: Leadership. I eagerly await your explanation of how this is a balanced feat.[/QOUTE]

Well DUHthe fighter takes it to get a Wizard Cohort, now he too have access to magic:smalltongue:

[Psyren]

If you have to buy a splatbook to make a gme work, you may as well buy a different game. Preferably one that comes in a self contained starter book, rather than having to buy three hefty tomes plus a splat just to be able to play the game.

Seriously, D&D ain't all that.

"Play something else" isn't always an option. People usually play what their friends play, and D&D's ubiquity is a powerful point in its favor.

Besides, it's a wash. Sure I have to buy a splatbook to make D&D better (or at least be prepared to houserule heavily), but the core game is free. (http://www.d20srd.org/index.htm) With another system, I may not have to buy splats, but I do have to buy their core books.

Even better - I can use a free system that doesn't need many splats (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/) to work well.

Finally, swapping Fighter for Warblade isn't that hard... isn't the latter (and all its maneuvers) free as well?

[Cainen]

All I can say to this is, if you want to play a Rogue, why are you playing a Wizard? Why are you playing a Wizard if you want to play a melee tank?

Because A) There's support for those kind of characters in-class and even unnecessary prestige classes to further aid those concepts, and B) It's ridiculously foolish to pigeonhole classes into exactly one role with no variance in them. Even AD&D never did that.

I do not sit down and roll up a Wizard to play exactly the Wizard that my friend across the table played last campaign with only name and personality changes. Same goes for any other class. I don't even understand why you'd want me to expect that - that runs counter to every RPG I've seen.

[Mystic Muse]

" isn't the latter (and all its maneuvers) free as well?

Yes. Just not legally.

[Psyren]

Yes. Just not legally.

But they're both on the Wizards' site.

Warblade (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060802a&page=2)
Maneuvers (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20061225a)

[Mystic Muse]

But they're both on the Wizards' site.

Warblade (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060802a&page=2)
Maneuvers (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20061225a)

Huh. Never noticed those. I also thought you meant TOB as a whole for some reason.

[Psyren]

Huh. Never noticed those. I also thought you meant TOB as a whole for some reason.

Then you probably missed this too! :smallsmile:

The Guide to Free D&D (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=1109.0;topicseen)

Everything here is legal

[Amphetryon]

The ability to pump skill checks to absurd levels and thereby produce game-breaking results should at least be mentioned. Fourteen different flavors of bonuses to your Diplomacy check to turn the dragon flying in to incinerate you into your BFF, the silly Seduction rules that can force your enemy to disarm and remove armor, the Jumplomancer.... the list goes on.

[Mystic Muse]

Then you probably missed this too! :smallsmile:

The Guide to Free D&D (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=1109.0;topicseen)

Everything here is legal

That's uh....That's a lot of links.:smalleek:

[oxybe]

For the people who don't care about social contracts, I completely agree! (Cleric, now is the time to ignore the dieing wizard and keep slaughtering those enemies.) After all, its not like D&D was designed as a social game which stresses teamwork. Or one where the DM is allowing your characters to live on a whim or anything, and only his desire to play a game with friends keeps the party alive. Nope, no D&D campaign was ever like that. Honestly.

Seriously though, if the fighter let the monsters through to the wizard to gallivant off, or the cleric decided saving party members was a waste of spell slots, it would cause major complaints. Once the social contract is off the table the wizard with his fifty hit points is dead; tier ones use the argument that the never signed a social contract and it isn't part of the game, but if the rest of the party agreed they would be entirely screwed.

dude, if you're still waiting for the point, you missed it a long time ago. hopefully you'll pay attention the next time it comes around.

if part of my character's concept is "warpreist" it should be as within my right to be able to create a priest that wades into combat fully buffed and raises some righteous wrath on his enemies rather then be delegated as the group's band-aid, as it is the fighter's right to be a beatstick rather then a glorified pack mule.

no one here is advocating stepping on each others' toes for the sake of being a jerk. we're just saying that a given player's concept might not be the traditional healbot role assigned to the cleric by default or the wizard might not want to be a throwing a Macross Missile Salvo, and just because you chose a to play the fighter doesn't mean you get an automatic free pass when it comes to being the group's no.1 beatstick.

it means that there are 2 supposed beatsicks in the group. because this is a conscious decision made by the group's individual players, and for all those who say it's selfish of the cleric/wizard to play the beatstick role, i reply that it's selfish of the fighter to deny them the option. or does the social contract of "don't be a jerk" only apply when it benefits the fighter types?

[Sir Giacomo]

That candle/gate thing:
Common myths, spell description of gate, item knowledge all do not provide knowledge of the wishing ability of a certain creature type. Given the potential power it can even be assumed that such knowledge is extremely hard to find out. RAW, it is clear: the DM decided what you know via knowledge check. There are many useful bits of information that a wizard can get, not just the special abilities, but also AC, usual combat tactics, speed, strength, intelligence, languages spoken, etc. The DC for knowing wish SLA goes easily into the 100s

Ditto leadership. It is the DM who designs the attracted npc(s), not the player. This prevents any kind of brokenness.

For the OP:
How does casting gate mean encounters are solved easily?
Say at the level gate is available, most CR 17 monsters and npcs have the capacity to a) recognize the spell/threat and b) evade it (coming back when the spell expires).
Meanwhile, noncaster pcs at level 17 have similarly powerful attacks available against such foes.
There is no need to just compare ex special abilities to the gate spell, but just what kind of stuff npcs, monsters and pcs in TOTAL are able to do at those levels.

It's not easy to play at such high levels, but it is certainly not broken.

- Giacomo

[Tvtyrant]

dude, if you're still waiting for the point, you missed it a long time ago. hopefully you'll pay attention the next time it comes around.

if part of my character's concept is "warpreist" it should be as within my right to be able to create a priest that wades into combat fully buffed and raises some righteous wrath on his enemies rather then be delegated as the group's band-aid, as it is the fighter's right to be a beatstick rather then a glorified pack mule.

no one here is advocating stepping on each others' toes for the sake of being a jerk. we're just saying that a given player's concept might not be the traditional healbot role assigned to the cleric by default or the wizard might not want to be a throwing a Macross Missile Salvo, and just because you chose a to play the fighter doesn't mean you get an automatic free pass when it comes to being the group's no.1 beatstick.

it means that there are 2 supposed beatsicks in the group. because this is a conscious decision made by the group's individual players, and for all those who say it's selfish of the cleric/wizard to play the beatstick role, i reply that it's selfish of the fighter to deny them the option. or does the social contract of "don't be a jerk" only apply when it benefits the fighter types?

Lets put this in perspective, yeah? Say a party starts out at level 1. At level 1 the fighter spends a lot of his time rescuing his team members, and is usually playing a fighter because the party needs a tank. We get to level 9 and the cleric and the wizard, who are capable of doing a tremendous amount of things with their powers, decided instead to become the parties fighters. This leaves the guy who just spent his time defending them in the dust, and the argument given for this being okay is that the cleric and wizard shouldn't get shafted despite having other options available to them, where the fighter does not.

Your right, you shouldn't be a jerk. This includes not trumping someone who protected you for multiple levels in order for you to get where you are today. If we start at mid-high levels I would agree with you more, but a tremendous amount of campaigns start near the bottom when the casters need protection, and someone has to play that role.

[Psyren]

That's uh....That's a lot of links.:smalleek:

There's more too: Paizo added the Pathfinder Advanced classes to their SRD since that list was compiled, so that's even more free D&D fun.

Witch (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/witch)
Alchemist (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/alchemist)
Summoner (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/summoner)
Oracle (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/oracle)
Inquisitor (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/inquisitor)

Don't really care for the rest, but they're all here (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/). There are new PrCs there too.

Also, there are the psionic classes, PrCs and substitution levels from Untapped Potential at yet another SRD - Dreamscarred Press (http://dsp-d20-srd.wikidot.com/)

You're welcome :smallwink:

[Mystic Muse]

There's more too: Paizo added the Pathfinder Advanced classes to their SRD since that list was compiled, so that's even more free D&D fun.

Witch (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/witch)
Alchemist (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/alchemist)
Summoner (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/summoner)
Oracle (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/oracle)
Inquisitor (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/inquisitor)

Don't really care for the rest, but they're all here (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/). There are new PrCs there too.

Also, there are the psionic classes, PrCs and substitution levels from Untapped Potential at yet another SRD - Dreamscarred Press (http://dsp-d20-srd.wikidot.com/)

You're welcome :smallwink:

*Head asplodes*

[Doug Lampert]

since what non-magical abilities can compete with level 6+ spells?
Diplomacy by RAW.

[SurlySeraph]

A big part of it is that melee classes aren't nearly as good at protecting casters as the casters are at protecting themselves.

Warning: rambling.
There are a few ways to make sure that enemies attack the fighter instead of the wizard: standing in front of them (fails against incorporeal monsters, anything with area attacks, Tumble, bows...), tripping (much the same problems as the above), charging into them and leaving the caster behind (bad if something sneaks up on the caster, terrible for you own life expectancy), or casting Shield Other, Sanctuary, Fly, or another spell that either makes the caster inaccessible or transfers damage done to the caster to the fighter. The problem's already obvious: the only things a fighter can do on his own aren't very effective, and some of the better strategies are entirely the caster's doing, not the meleers. And that's before considering spells that actually *protect* the caster instead of making him less convenient to attack. I don't think I even have to go into that. By 3rd level, Blur and Mirror Image are just plain better than armor when they're up.

As for melee's unique defenses? Well, there's the mighty tower shield that only Fighters get, has a -10 ACP, weighs more than an alchemist's lab, gives you -2 to your attack rolls, and only gives +4 AC. But wait, it can give you full cover as well! Except against targeted spells! At the cost of your attacks! Yeah, maybe protection only against other fighters at the cost of your ability to fight isn't worth it. Now, full plate is better, but Fighters and Paladins are the only non-casters proficient with it, and it still slows you down and imposes major skill penalties. Of course, magical gear like a Minor Cloak of Displacement is much better than full plate and tower shields, but I'm looking at defenses that are supposed to be unique to non-full-casters. The Monk's WIS to AC is OK, the paladin's CHA to saves is nice, and other than that melee doesn't get much.

This is as a subset of the larger problem that casters can emulate everything the other classes can do without much trouble, and often do it better than those classes can. Greater Invisibility + spells is just plain better than trying to fight while staying hidden because of the sniping rules, the advantages of a wand of Knock over Open Lock have already been brought up, scenarios like "You're in prison" and "The lock is an an antimagic field" may not come up often enough to justify the skill point cost of Open Lock. Same with Summon Monster I and Search, or Fly/ Spider Climb/ Disintegrate/ [insert means of destroying or bypassing traps here] instead of Disable Device. Also Silence and Invisibility for Hide and Move Silently. And True Seeing for Spot. And so on.

Fighters have it worse off than skillmonkeys, because there are just so many ways that casters can make them redundant. Summoning, polymorphing themselves, polymorphing other things, Divine Power and other buffs, or just plain blasting. Hell, look at Fireball. In one standard action, it can kill a crowd that a fighter would take several rounds to hack through even with Great Cleave. It's usually easier for melee types to do more single-target damage than casters can, but save or dies are about as reliable at removing an enemy from the fight as a full attack. Battlefield control via AoOs and tripping is a decent niche for the Fighter, but it requires a lot of out-of-core material to make it shine; the caster's battlefield control tends to be be more effective and require much less effort, while letting the caster do plenty else.

Debuffing? Heh. Stunning Fist and Intimidate only work for a round, and Intimidate's not good even in theory (in core, at least). Tripping works decently, against things that can be tripped, but giant monsters, flying things, swarms, etc. shut it down. Disarm works... on humanoids that are armed, don't cast, aren't big, won't just take a move action to pull out another weapon, etc. Bull Rush, Feint, Grapple, Overrun, Sundering, and throwing splash weapons are usually pointless and require feat investments to be at all useful.

All in all, the only thing non-casters can do in a high-level party that casters an't do better is cost control. Buying enough Pearls of Power, scrolls, and wands to makesure you can be better at everything than the classes that specialize in it at any time is expensive, and re-casting Find Traps every so often is much more tedious and than having a dedicated searcher.

But back to defense. I think this is an important point because fighters protecting vulnerable casters is such an iconic image, and such an obvious example of teamwork in a game that's supposed to be based around teamwork.

You don't need a rogue to scout, Invisibility and Silence mean no failed checks. You don't need a ranger to track, if for some reason you can't use divination you can summon a deinonychus, or a bunch of wolves and have them Aid Another, or use Planar Binding for a Hell Hound or Blink Dog. But if you don't need protection - you can take everything down with little risk of death, and the Fighter's just there to coup de grace things or speed up the process - that does a lot more damage to the sense of collaborative effort and shared heroism than anything else could.

[oxybe]

Lets put this in perspective, yeah? Say a party starts out at level 1. At level 1 the fighter spends a lot of his time rescuing his team members, and is usually playing a fighter because the party needs a tank. We get to level 9 and the cleric and the wizard, who are capable of doing a tremendous amount of things with their powers, decided instead to become the parties fighters. This leaves the guy who just spent his time defending them in the dust, and the argument given for this being okay is that the cleric and wizard shouldn't get shafted despite having other options available to them, where the fighter does not.

Your right, you shouldn't be a jerk. This includes not trumping someone who protected you for multiple levels in order for you to get where you are today. If we start at mid-high levels I would agree with you more, but a tremendous amount of campaigns start near the bottom when the casters need protection, and someone has to play that role.

you just keep missing the point.

that the differences between a combat cleric and a fighter in the lower levels is a few negligible HP at best due to how low everyone's HP is (though they both can use the same armor/sheilds in general, a cleric's healing makes him just a viable a tank as a fighter is if not slightly better overall) an the attack bonus can be easily enough made up through spell selection/domain power a few levels in.

as for the wizard, if he makes it clear strait from the get-go that his goal (IE: his character concept, one aspect that is VERY core to how the character functions in-game) is to be a combat wizard who wades in as an invisible remorhaz, the fighter can't complain since this was made clear from the start that that is what the wizard had in mind.

you know what, i'll hit closer to base. if a Fighter & a Barbarian both want to be the group's big 2-handed weapon big damage guy. the fighter is a mediocre charger while the barbarian is relatively optimized power attacker. who's in the "right"? who has to give? just like how the fighter/caster, both have the same overall archetype (main physical powerhouse) but different methodology (casters use spells while the barbarian uses a more thorough & synergistic feat/class abilities combo).

to put it into perspective (to steal a phrase) if X & Y both want to do [thing], and make this clear from the outset, why should X get a free pass as opposed to Y, simply because Y is using a non-traditional method to achieve [thing] and somehow manages to do [thing] better then X?

[nyarlathotep]

That candle/gate thing:
Common myths, spell description of gate, item knowledge all do not provide knowledge of the wishing ability of a certain creature type. Given the potential power it can even be assumed that such knowledge is extremely hard to find out. RAW, it is clear: the DM decided what you know via knowledge check. There are many useful bits of information that a wizard can get, not just the special abilities, but also AC, usual combat tactics, speed, strength, intelligence, languages spoken, etc. The DC for knowing wish SLA goes easily into the 100s

Ditto leadership. It is the DM who designs the attracted npc(s), not the player. This prevents any kind of brokenness.

For the OP:
How does casting gate mean encounters are solved easily?
Say at the level gate is available, most CR 17 monsters and npcs have the capacity to a) recognize the spell/threat and b) evade it (coming back when the spell expires).
Meanwhile, noncaster pcs at level 17 have similarly powerful attacks available against such foes.
There is no need to just compare ex special abilities to the gate spell, but just what kind of stuff npcs, monsters and pcs in TOTAL are able to do at those levels.

It's not easy to play at such high levels, but it is certainly not broken.

- Giacomo

Giacomo would you at least be willing to concede that the game would be more balanced if all of the classes were tier three: tome of battle classes, tome of magic classes, and the specialized casters (dread necro etc.)

[Tyndmyr]

That candle/gate thing:
Common myths, spell description of gate, item knowledge all do not provide knowledge of the wishing ability of a certain creature type. Given the potential power it can even be assumed that such knowledge is extremely hard to find out. RAW, it is clear: the DM decided what you know via knowledge check. There are many useful bits of information that a wizard can get, not just the special abilities, but also AC, usual combat tactics, speed, strength, intelligence, languages spoken, etc. The DC for knowing wish SLA goes easily into the 100s

No. By RAW, potential power is not what determines the DC for knowledge. Rather, the commonality of that knowledge is.

Common Knowledge is DC 10, for instance, on any topic. This is sufficient to tell you that say, hell is filled with powerful evil beings, in most settings. The fact that they are powerful does not make this less known.

The only time power plays into it is the HD modifier for identifying a creature. As we are not concerned with identifying a creature, merely with asking questions about the nature of such creatures(wish granting creatures), it falls under a general question about outsiders, and thus is a Knowledge:Planes check. In core, those cap out at DC 30.


Ditto leadership. It is the DM who designs the attracted npc(s), not the player. This prevents any kind of brokenness.

That is not specified. In fact, the feat explicitly says that you can try to attract a cohort of a given race, class, and alignment. Furthermore, he must already be equipped with gear appropriate to his level. These serve only to limit the GM, not the player, and ensure that the resulting cohort will be fairly useful.

Please show how this feat is comparable with other feats found in core. If it is not, it is broken. I submit that there is no feat in core that provides such a strong boost in power, and that this is far above the average power provided by feats. In core or out. Therefore, it is broken.


For the OP:
How does casting gate mean encounters are solved easily?
Say at the level gate is available, most CR 17 monsters and npcs have the capacity to a) recognize the spell/threat and b) evade it (coming back when the spell expires).
Meanwhile, noncaster pcs at level 17 have similarly powerful attacks available against such foes.
There is no need to just compare ex special abilities to the gate spell, but just what kind of stuff npcs, monsters and pcs in TOTAL are able to do at those levels.

It's not easy to play at such high levels, but it is certainly not broken.

- Giacomo

Gate is available at earlier levels via scrolls, candle of invocation, etc.

Of the seven CR 17 monsters, only the Marilith has a teleport. Granted, the dragons and the formian queen also have casting, but all are sorcerer-based, limiting the available spells. Plus, the formian queen has her list pre-picked out, and is explicitly specified as being unable to move.

I would assume only fullcaster opponents are typically able to teleport. They comprise less than half the possibilities.

And there are a multitude of ways to prevent spells from being identified. IE, stand out of LOS and cast silently.

[Sir Giacomo]

Giacomo would you at least be willing to concede that the game would be more balanced if all of the classes were tier three: tome of battle classes, tome of magic classes, and the specialized casters (dread necro etc.)

No, I would not. The tier system is a highly interesting and useful empirical observation, but you cannot deduct from it that the core rules are unbalanced or broken, since the experience is based on largely non-core experiences.


No. By RAW, potential power is not what determines the DC for knowledge. Rather, the commonality of that knowledge is.

Exactly what I said. I only meant that potentail power could give a clue for the DM on what kind of useful information to give to a player succeding in a knowledge check and what not. Since, you know, the knowledge of unlimited wishes is not "useful information" but rather "broken information".:smallsmile:


Common Knowledge is DC 10, for instance, on any topic. This is sufficient to tell you that say, hell is filled with powerful evil beings, in most settings. The fact that they are powerful does not make this less known.

Yup. But that is all DC 10 does - it does not reveal any details on creatures power's. The rules for that are detailed elsewhere in the knowledge skill. It certainly does not tell the pc that "genies can grant wishes" only because the player has watched a few hollywood movies on this subject.:smallwink:


The only time power plays into it is the HD modifier for identifying a creature. As we are not concerned with identifying a creature, merely with asking questions about the nature of such creatures(wish granting creatures), it falls under a general question about outsiders, and thus is a Knowledge:Planes check. In core, those cap out at DC 30.

They do not cap out at DC 30. The general table specifies DC 40 as "virtually impossible", and the konwledge DC for even identifying a 34 HD creature that you wish to gate in (and knowing only one bit of information about it btw!) is 44.


That is not specified. In fact, the feat explicitly says that you can try to attract a cohort of a given race, class, and alignment. Furthermore, he must already be equipped with gear appropriate to his level. These serve only to limit the GM, not the player, and ensure that the resulting cohort will be fairly useful.

Yes, exactly, it is not specified! And why should it then mean to go for the most broken interpretation possible of the leadership feat? In particular when it is the DM who decides exactly what kind of npc gets attracted? I just don't understand the problem here.


Please show how this feat is comparable with other feats found in core. If it is not, it is broken. I submit that there is no feat in core that provides such a strong boost in power, and that this is far above the average power provided by feats. In core or out. Therefore, it is broken.

Leadership provides for the cost of a feat a companion similar to an animal companion, familiar or paladin's mount (scaling with the level of the pc). It is highly useful, it can be argued that it is more powerful than other feats (not in all situations, though!), but it is hardly broken. The main issue for a DM is extra paperwork and play, but not the power of that npc.
Feats follow different power patterns than spells or BAB. They only indirectly scale with level. Some are most useful only at lower levels. Some get highly powerful only through synergies with other elements of the game. But yes, leadership, is among the third category, the stand-alone-powerful-feats.
This makes the more challenging to optimise than spells.


Gate is available at earlier levels via scrolls, candle of invocation, etc.

As are a lot of other high-level things that could counter low-level use of gate (polymorph any object, anyone? Costs a mere 1,200 gp npc casting). Plus, it requires quite a bit of relevant knowledge skills to use it powerfully - not exactly a hallmark of low-level play.


Of the seven CR 17 monsters, only the Marilith has a teleport. Granted, the dragons and the formian queen also have casting, but all are sorcerer-based, limiting the available spells. Plus, the formian queen has her list pre-picked out, and is explicitly specified as being unable to move.

I would assume only fullcaster opponents are typically able to teleport. They comprise less than half the possibilities.

Teleport is not the only method to evade 17rounds+ of combat (the formian queen btw has it on its spell list). You can use burrow speed (brass/white dragon), move around a corner and hide, dimension door (sorcerer ability of lvl 8 upwards grants it), and probably much more that resourceful DMs can come up with.


And there are a multitude of ways to prevent spells from being identified. IE, stand out of LOS and cast silently.

That is highly situational. Standing out of LOS and casting can mean the gated creature arrives, you cough up the XP and the creature tells you: but there is no-one there...:smallbiggrin:

Whereever I look, there is nothing broken unless a DM allows it to get broken against the mechanisms of the core game.

- Giacomo

[Tyndmyr]

Exactly what I said. I only meant that potentail power could give a clue for the DM on what kind of useful information to give to a player succeding in a knowledge check and what not. Since, you know, the knowledge of unlimited wishes is not "useful information" but rather "broken information".:smallsmile:

So, because it's broken, the DM should set the DC very high.
And because of that, it's not broken.

This seems, entirely apart from the lack of RAW justification for this, rather problematic logically.


Yes, exactly, it is not specified! And why should it then mean to go for the most broken interpretation possible of the leadership feat? In particular when it is the DM who decides exactly what kind of npc gets attracted? I just don't understand the problem here.

You missed the point. Unspecified means it could be legally ruled either way. Or some sort of in-between option. None of those are wrong. Assuming the most broken way is no more RAW correct than assuming the least broken way.

However, the fact that such major details are unspecified is a shortcoming.


Leadership provides for the cost of a feat a companion similar to an animal companion, familiar or paladin's mount (scaling with the level of the pc). It is highly useful, it can be argued that it is more powerful than other feats (not in all situations, though!), but it is hardly broken. The main issue for a DM is extra paperwork and play, but not the power of that npc.
Feats follow different power patterns than spells or BAB. They only indirectly scale with level. Some are most useful only at lower levels. Some get highly powerful only through synergies with other elements of the game. But yes, leadership, is among the third category, the stand-alone-powerful-feats.
This makes the more challenging to optimise than spells.

So, I specify "I want a grey elf wizard with the same alignment as me". Bam. One shows up, and my wizard now has an apprentice. Oh, sure, the DM gets to build him. Whatever. I'm going to let him copy my spellbook anyhow, as a good master should. Incidentally, he has a familiar too. A cohort with a familiar is obviously more powerful than a familiar.

But, more importantly, a pet wizard is more powerful than a core animal companion, or familiar, or mount. Ludicrously more powerful.


As are a lot of other high-level things that could counter low-level use of gate (polymorph any object, anyone? Costs a mere 1,200 gp npc casting). Plus, it requires quite a bit of relevant knowledge skills to use it powerfully - not exactly a hallmark of low-level play.

If the adversary can counter my candle of invocation gated creature with PaO, a couple of things are obvious.
1. Without the baddie I gated in, I would have taken the PaO instead, and been screwed.
2. PaO is not typically faced by low level parties. The DM is trying to kill me.


Teleport is not the only method to evade 17rounds+ of combat (the formian queen btw has it on its spell list). You can use burrow speed (brass/white dragon), move around a corner and hide, dimension door (sorcerer ability of lvl 8 upwards grants it), and probably much more that resourceful DMs can come up with.

If I gate in a solar, I do not care in the slightest if you can move around a corner and hide.


That is highly situational. Standing out of LOS and casting can mean the gated creature arrives, you cough up the XP and the creature tells you: but there is no-one there...:smallbiggrin:

Whereever I look, there is nothing broken unless a DM allows it to get broken against the mechanisms of the core game.

- Giacomo

Gate...
Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level) ...
The gate itself is a circular hoop or disk from 5 to 20 feet in diameter (caster’s choice), oriented in the direction you desire when it comes into existence...

So, stepping out of LOS, then taking a standard action to cast in no way makes my gated creature unable to arrive, see the enemy, and act.

[Bayar]

No, I would not. The tier system is a highly interesting and useful empirical observation, but you cannot deduct from it that the core rules are unbalanced or broken, since the experience is based on largely non-core experiences.

*smirk*hehheheheBWHAHalrighty then.

Let me quote the Tier System with the apropriate core classes then.


Tier 1: Capable of doing absolutely everything, often better than classes that specialize in that thing. Often capable of solving encounters with a single mechanical ability and little thought from the player. Has world changing powers at high levels. These guys, if played with skill, can easily break a campaign and can be very hard to challenge without extreme DM fiat or plenty of house rules, especially if Tier 3s and below are in the party.

Examples: Wizard, Cleric, Druid


Tier 2: Has as much raw power as the Tier 1 classes, but can't pull off nearly as many tricks, and while the class itself is capable of anything, no one build can actually do nearly as much as the Tier 1 classes. Still potentially campaign smashers by using the right abilities, but at the same time are more predictable and can't always have the right tool for the job. If the Tier 1 classes are countries with 10,000 nuclear weapons in their arsenal, these guys are countries with 10 nukes. Still dangerous and easily world shattering, but not in quite so many ways. Note that the Tier 2 classes are often less flexible than Tier 3 classes... it's just that their incredible potential power overwhelms their lack in flexibility.

Examples: Sorcerer


Tier 3: Capable of doing one thing quite well, while still being useful when that one thing is inappropriate, or capable of doing all things, but not as well as classes that specialize in that area. Occasionally has a mechanical ability that can solve an encounter, but this is relatively rare and easy to deal with. Can be game breaking only with specific intent to do so. Challenging such a character takes some thought from the DM, but isn't too difficult. Will outshine any Tier 5s in the party much of the time.

Examples: Bard


Tier 4: Capable of doing one thing quite well, but often useless when encounters require other areas of expertise, or capable of doing many things to a reasonable degree of competance without truly shining. Rarely has any abilities that can outright handle an encounter unless that encounter plays directly to the class's main strength. DMs may sometimes need to work to make sure Tier 4s can contribute to an encounter, as their abilities may sometimes leave them useless. Won't outshine anyone except Tier 6s except in specific circumstances that play to their strengths. Cannot compete effectively with Tier 1s that are played well.

Examples: Rogue, Barbarian, Ranger, Adept


Tier 5: Capable of doing only one thing, and not necessarily all that well, or so unfocused that they have trouble mastering anything, and in many types of encounters the character cannot contribute. In some cases, can do one thing very well, but that one thing is very often not needed. Has trouble shining in any encounter unless the encounter matches their strengths. DMs may have to work to avoid the player feeling that their character is worthless unless the entire party is Tier 4 and below. Characters in this tier will often feel like one trick ponies if they do well, or just feel like they have no tricks at all if they build the class poorly.

Examples: Fighter, Monk, Expert, Paladin


Tier 6: Not even capable of shining in their own area of expertise. DMs will need to work hard to make encounters that this sort of character can contribute in with their mechanical abilities. Will often feel worthless unless the character is seriously powergamed beyond belief, and even then won't be terribly impressive. Needs to fight enemies of lower than normal CR. Class is often completely unsynergized or with almost no abilities of merit. Avoid allowing PCs to play these characters.

Examples: Aristocrat, Warrior, Commoner

Now let's take a look at this from a core only point of view.

Wizards: Have acces to the core-only sorcerer/wizard spell list. Arguably the best spells are found in this list. They have versatility in changing their spells after 8 hours of rest, can theoretically collect every spell from that list in spellbooks (barring spells from banned schools if they have specialised of course). The lsit includes buff spells, debuff spells, battlefield controls, direct damage spells, utility spells, creation spells, summonings...you name it. It lacks healing spells though. But that is no problem if you can play it smart. With the right tactic, you won't even get hit during combat. But this is a problem as it is too strong for a normal campaign (making it rather pointless to play after a certain point). And apart from spells, wizards get Scribe scroll at level 1 for free, and a bonus feat at every 5 levels for creation feats or metamagic feats.

Clerics: Have acces to the cleric spell list. Things like healing spells, damage spells, ressurection, summoning, buffing and debuffing are found within. Has the ability to spontaneously convert prepared spells into cure/inflict spells of the apropriate level. Basically, the guy helps you not die in case you take damage.He also gets turn/rebuke undead which is a situational ability in core only (unless you are a neutral or evil cleric who is using undead minions). He also gets 2 domains that can grat him spells that are not found on the cleric list (depending on the domain), domain powers which vary in usefulness, a bonus domain spell per spell level... . Oh and 2 good saves, medium BAB, Heavy armor proficiency, several weapon proficiencies...so no problem for a cleric to pretend he is a paladin or a holy fighter or something.

Druids: It's spell list has summoning spells, healing spells, ressurection, sirect damage, battlefield control, buffs. While not as great as the sorcerer/wizard or the cleric spell list, it does have some druid only spells that are simply brilliant. Medium BAB, 2 good saves, some situationally useful class abilities, animal companion, proficient in Medium armor (but it must be natural, not metal), several weapon proficiencies, proficient with all natural attacks, WILDSHAPE. The ability to make your own physical stats irrelevant (except for CON if you are using the eratta), acces to some monster goodies...just WOW. And to top it off, you can cast spells while wildshape by just using ONE feat. Isn't that something ?

Sorcerers: Wizard light. Has a delayed caster progression and is limited in the amounts of spells it can learn from the sorcerer/wizard spell list. But built right, it can do any trick a wizard can, but not every trick (as opposed to the wizard who can just plan what tricks he will be using this particular day). Still preety strong in the hands of someone that knows what he is doing.

Bards: Limited spells known from a limited spell list, the bard is a jack of all trades. Gets several divine spells as arcane (including healing spells). Has a good skill list and the skill points to spend them all on. Medium BAB, 2 good saves, proficiency in some weapons and the only arcane class in core that can cast in light armor without penalties (not to mention the only arcane class that gets proficiency in armor). Has the bardic music class feature that gives him some new options, some more useful than others. Also has the bardic knowledge class feature that helps out with all kinds of random information about stuff the party might want to know. Also gets suggestion and mass suggestion as class features, and due to their high CHA score, makes them a good chice for party faces.

Rogues: Skillmonkies, glass cannons, party faces. They get the highest number of skill points out of any class in core, and the most skills as class skills. Medium BAB, only reflex as a good save, proficiency in light armor and some weapons, rogues rely on Sneak Attack to deal damage. Although it is situational, it's not really an issue to qualify (flanking with the other melee in the party, shooting the flat-footed enemies during surprise round etc.). They are the only class in core that can find difficult traps. They get evasion and uncanny dodge to help their defense. Plus a number of special abilities, all of them useful.

Barbarians

Rangers

Adepts

Fighters

Monks

Experts

Paladins

Aristocrats

Warriors

Commoners

Will finish off tomorrow. Tired ATM.

[Sir Giacomo]

So, because it's broken, the DM should set the DC very high.
And because of that, it's not broken.

This seems, entirely apart from the lack of RAW justification for this, rather problematic logically.

OK, I'll try to put it differently.
Imagine a DM lets all his npcs react obediently to a pc who knows how to use 10 different martial weapons properly (martial weapons proficiency). This would make a first level fighter broken.
It is all about what the DM allows and what not, without using rule 0. The rules state that you can only access key campaign-dominating information through the DM. There is nothing broken with that.
Turning back to the knowledge thing: you gain one bit of useful information concerning a creature. A stat block of a creature contains around a hundred useful bits of information. Even if the DM uses random chance, it is sheer coincidence that a pc will receive the particular wish-giving information - at very high levels, that is.


You missed the point. Unspecified means it could be legally ruled either way. Or some sort of in-between option. None of those are wrong. Assuming the most broken way is no more RAW correct than assuming the least broken way.
However, the fact that such major details are unspecified is a shortcoming.

No, you miss the point entirely. Unspecified does not mean "player can choose whatever he likes" but the DM provides the ruling when in doubt. No roleplaying game ever is able to cover every aspect that could ever come up in play with a rule. And in this case it is even specified rather well.


So, I specify "I want a grey elf wizard with the same alignment as me". Bam. One shows up, and my wizard now has an apprentice. Oh, sure, the DM gets to build him. Whatever. I'm going to let him copy my spellbook anyhow, as a good master should. Incidentally, he has a familiar too. A cohort with a familiar is obviously more powerful than a familiar.

Nope, you again deviate from the rules. The leadership feat says: ". A character can try to attract a cohort of a particular race, class, and alignment."
This does not mean a DM is forced to provide the player with whatever he wishes.
And a lower-level cohort with a familar is obviously not necessarily more powerful than a familiar, since the pc wizard's familiar has better abilities and can share better spells etc. Plus, a cohort does not have the same kind of devotion to the pc as a familiar.


But, more importantly, a pet wizard is more powerful than a core animal companion, or familiar, or mount. Ludicrously more powerful..

No, it is not. Because the wizard is not your "pet", but an npc with varying loyalty, depending on your behaviour and other factors. It also lacks the special features of the familiar/mount or companion. They are similar in power, overall


If the adversary can counter my candle of invocation gated creature with PaO, a couple of things are obvious.
1. Without the baddie I gated in, I would have taken the PaO instead, and been screwed.

Not necessarily. Against PaO at lower levels, you can dispel, use PaO yourself, use polymorph, hide, evade, poison, ranged fighting, enlarge your fighter, sneak, touch attack etc., etc.


2. PaO is not typically faced by low level parties. The DM is trying to kill me.

pcs getting candle of invocation means following 50% of wbl going to single item a party of 7th level is what we talk about. Polymorph effects should not shock them, since their arcane spellcasters have access to them and everyone can do a lot against a polymorphed creature/foe.


If I gate in a solar, I do not care in the slightest if you can move around a corner and hide.

But the opponent does not move around a corner and hide, your wizard did it to avoid being seen. Remember?:smallsmile:


Gate...
Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level) ...
The gate itself is a circular hoop or disk from 5 to 20 feet in diameter (caster’s choice), oriented in the direction you desire when it comes into existence...

So, stepping out of LOS, then taking a standard action to cast in no way makes my gated creature unable to arrive, see the enemy, and act.

How will the gated creature know who is the enemy when you cannot point it out to the creature? You could say "fight for me against the creatures you see over there" or "against that nasty halfling".
But...the wizard does not know for sure whether his opponent is still there (readied action being a possibility).

Casting gate is less safe than you seem to think.

- Giacomo

[BeholderSlayer]

Using a DM as a shield to claim core isn't broken basically invalidates your entire argument.

[awa]

so logical a monsters most notable ability would be the best well known or are you honestly telling me your average person is more likely to know that dragons are immune to paralysis than that they fly and have breath weapons?

all you have to do is not be a moron when casting gate summon the solar up into the air so it can see say destroy my enemies the hafling in your example has not gotten a chance to go yet and the solar is super humanly intelligent with a 30+ sense motive check and being good he has no reason to screw you over in the fight against evil and can figure out what you wanted not what you said if you made a mistake and can easily to tell who your enemies are.

sorry for the rant these back in forth arguments just drive me crazy

[Psyren]

Using a DM as a shield to claim core isn't broken basically invalidates your entire argument.

I can never understand that mindset either.

"X is broken."
"No it's not! You can fix it with A, B or C!"

That it can be fixed isn't the point. The fact that it needs fixing is what proves it's broken. Giacomo's position is self-defeating.

[dsmiles]

Macross Missile Salvo

Has anyone statted that out as a spell? I'd love to see it. :smallbiggrin:


I can never understand that mindset either.

"X is broken."
"No it's not! You can fix it with A, B or C!"

That it can be fixed isn't the point. The fact that it needs fixing is what proves it's broken. Giacomo's position is self-defeating.

Indeed. If it needs fixing it is indeed broken, because if it's not broke, don't try to fix it. (This coming from an engineering standpoint.)

[TheThan]

I posted this in another thread, thought I'd drop it off here too. What's spoilered below points out the problem with most of the core system.



Oh boy where to start.

DnD 3.x is a class and level based system.

Levels
Levels are designed to tell the Dm how powerful the characters are in relation to the monsters presented in the rules. It provides an easy curve to follow for the dm to determine what sorts of encounters are appropriate at any given time. Simply put the higher level you are, the more powerful you are.

As you might expect, each character is supposed to grow in power as he levels, gaining new and more powerful abilities as he attains each new level. The problem lies in the fact about half of the core classes do not actually increase in power as they gain levels. The five spell casters (bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer and wizard), gain more abilities and more powerful ones each and every level. I’m referring to spells. At each level any spell caster gains access to more spells (or can replace existing ones), or new higher level (and usually more powerful) spells. Also the DC on their spell increase and become harder to resist. This is the primary reason why most of those classes are considered “top tier”. Rogues are the only other class that gets any decent amount of power through leveling up with their sneak attack. Barbarians get 6 lousy instances of rage (by 20th level even) and paladins get 5 instances of smite evil. Not to mention the paladin’s Smite Evil doesn’t improve at all; at least the barbarian’s rage gets improvements.


Classes
Class systems are designed to give the player a solid framework to build a character upon; for instance you want to cast spells, you play a wizard or sorcerer. That’s fine, but the problem is that many of the classes are too focused (rangers and monks for instance), while other classes are too generic (fighters, wizards). So for the first choice, you have no options to take your character they’re too focused on doing on thing that if you want to do something else for your character (ranger with a great axe for instance) you’re not getting to actually use your class features. The problem with the classes that are too generic, is that there are not enough options for them. Sure that fighter could be a man at arms or a knight, but there are little in the way of rules that reflect those two character concepts, and a lot of people like and want their character sheets to reflect their characters.

So what you end up with is a game system that is saturated with classes, many of which are slight variations of the same theme (ranger/scout, paladin/favored soul, knight/fighter are a few examples). Do we really need those extra classes? Sure they’re nice to have, but are ultimately not necessary if those core classes had options to make them into those sorts of characters.

Man I could go on, but I’m getting long winded.

[Logalmier]

Even without such things as free wishes and candles of invocation, I believe that core is broken after around level ten. This is because, as people have said, the spell versatility and power that spellcasters have. Spellcasters have spells that can do far more then a fighter can with his sword. Hit point damage is not one of them, but hit points are small potatoes compared to things like negative levels, save-or-dies, no saves. Things like Maze, Metamagicked Eneveration, Finger of Death can do much more then a sword swing.

For example, if you compare attacking something with a sword and using Finger of Death, this is what you will see.

Both require a roll. A sword will need an attack roll, and a Finger of Death will need a saving through. So at this point they both need a single roll, so their pretty even right now, right?

But... if you succeed on an attack roll then your enemy is damaged. If your enemy fails to save against Finger of Death then they are dead. See the difference?

Heck, with things like Maze and the Power Words, your enemy doesn't even get a saving through, while the fighter is still smacking things around. This IMO is an example of what's wrong with core.

(Btw, I'm not very good at debating, so if anyone tries to refute any of what I've said, I'm not going to argue with them. People can still correct me if they think I'm wrong of course.)

[Fawsto]

Lets just say that a high level fighter (meleers without ToB in general) should be able to "pull out a Mihawk on other people's boats", but they simply can't.

All a fighter can do is to hit harder and, sometimes, more times in a row. Nothing more. No more options.

A high level wizard, for example, can hit pretty hard if he wants. He can also finish the encounter using the proper spell. They also have other options if they want to go around.

Swordsage'd OVER 9000! times.

[Ealstan]

Is 3.5 unbalanced? Yes, absolutely. Is it broken? No.

I don't believe that game balance is king. Look at 4e. They made all classes exactly the same power level as the others, and a large percentage of people hate the game.

For people who care about balance, think of it this way: At least you're not playing RIFTS ;)

[Logalmier]

Is 3.5 unbalanced? Yes, absolutely. Is it broken? No.

I don't believe that game balance is king. Look at 4e. They made all classes exactly the same power level as the others, and a large percentage of people hate the game.

For people who care about balance, think of it this way: At least you're not playing RIFTS ;)

I agree. I still have fun with this game, even though it's unbalanced.

And if you think about it, it makes a weird kinda sense that casters are more powerful. I mean, it fits with the fantasy setting that people who have spent years unlocking arcane secrets would be more powerful then people who had went to war camp for years. In fantasy stories the most powerful people were always the wizards, like Gandalf. So it sorta kinda makes sense from a Roleplaying standpoint that Spellcasters would be more powerful.

Now does that make the game better or more fun to play for everyone? No. Overall I would say balance in a game is more important than realism. But from a worldbuilding standpoint, it makes sense. Or at least I think it makes sense.:smalltongue:

EDIT: Oh, and I think that what people mean by broken is that the game is way unbalanced at higher levels, and can be unbalanced and broken even more by using simple tricks, like summoning genies to give you wishes.

[Cainen]

And if you think about it, it makes a weird kinda sense that casters are more powerful.
No, it really doesn't. Never was the case until the very tail end of AD&D and the number of literary magic users that use magic that can do anything in six seconds flat with little to no personal cost is... very small, to put it bluntly.

Just because it's a core assumption of D&D 3.5 doesn't mean it makes sense. Gandalf was more powerful because he was higher-level than everyone else, not more powerful just because he was a Wizard, and nothing about magic states that it does EVERYTHING with no cost attached.

[awa]

gandalf best power was he was friends with the eagles he doesn't do much magic at all i think that is a bad example

[Logalmier]

No, it really doesn't. Never was the case until the very tail end of AD&D and the number of literary magic users that use magic that can do anything in six seconds flat with little to no personal cost is... very small, to put it bluntly.

Just because it's a core assumption of D&D 3.5 doesn't mean it makes sense. Gandalf was more powerful because he was higher-level than everyone else, not more powerful just because he was a Wizard, and nothing about magic states that it does EVERYTHING with no cost attached.

Eh, I've always thought of people using magic as really cool and powerful since I saw a rabbit being pulled out of a hat.

I see your point though. Perhaps if casters were more balanced in the game I wouldn't have this perception of them doing amazing things, even when I think of magicians outside of the game. To me magic has always seemed cool and wonderful, in a way that other things never did. So I guess that's why I have that perception. That's just how it seems to me anyway.

EDIT: Oh, and all those fantasy novels I read. Those can't have helped.:smalltongue:

[Master Thrower]

Heres a simple qestion.
11 bonus feats or 9th level spells?
at 20th lvl fighters get 11 bonus feats wizards get 9th lvl spells which would u rather hav?

[OracleofWuffing]

So, I specify "I want a grey elf wizard with the same alignment as me". Bam. One shows up, and my wizard now has an apprentice. Oh, sure, the DM gets to build him. Whatever. I'm going to let him copy my spellbook anyhow, as a good master should. Incidentally, he has a familiar too. A cohort with a familiar is obviously more powerful than a familiar.
I'm thinking that the difference between choosing/building/preferring your cohort and not is the difference between 9001 and 9825. I'm going to give a really roundabout explanation to that reasoning. I don't want this to come off sounding wrong, because I'm not really disagreeing with you, just running off on this note.

Mmkay, let's say you've got a 4-character party, you're all ECL 6, and after this last encounter you all retire and live happily and richly ever after on flying motorcycles that transform into unicorns. Also you have many "generous" well-looking and kind friends of the preferred gender(s), and the unicorns can connect to form a- wait, I'm getting ahead of myself. Anyhow, if you die, that's it, end of the world, don't ask how just roll with it.

For your final job that you kinda need to live through to get all that, you've got the choice between fighting a single encounter with one CR 6 enemy (encounter level 6), or a single encounter with one CR 6 enemy and one CR 4 enemy (encounter level 7). It will benefit you, for whatever reason, to take the path of least resistance.

Which one are you going to take?

Surprise, they're the same encounter! Only difference is the level 7 encounter has a CR 6 enemy that took toughness instead of leadership and thus has 3 more hit points- the CR 6 encounter still has you fighting a level 4 cohort. Because it's a resource of whoever took Leadership, it doesn't increase ECL or CR. Whether this proves Leadership or the CR system broken (or both), I don't know, and I don't think I've got the prestige to make a decision on that anyways.

Don't get me wrong, having a pair of Boots of Speed is nice, but if you won't let me have that, having 240 tanglefeet bags will still let me muck things up pretty good for some time now. Still better than spending it on the world's largest collection of 9-foot poles.

Or in more concise terms, leadership gets your team the benefits of extra turns in combat, extra wealth, extra meatshielding, and extra pack muling, without any investment other than the feat itself. Being able to pick the cohort is a cherry-on-top, you still get a perfectly good banana split if you don't get to. Compared to other people who get lima beans. For dessert.

[Gametime]

That candle/gate thing:
Common myths, spell description of gate, item knowledge all do not provide knowledge of the wishing ability of a certain creature type. Given the potential power it can even be assumed that such knowledge is extremely hard to find out.

Common myths don't let us know what creatures can do? So... the fact that I know genies grant wishes because I learned it from myths is invalid, even though genies do grant wishes? :smallconfused:

I don't buy the argument that wishes from djinni are "common knowledge," because I think that's extrapolating fantasy world paradigms from real world paradigms in an unjustified way.* However, you can't say the DC must be high because it should be high. That's fallacious. What the DC is and what the DC should be are not the same thing.


RAW, it is clear: the DM decided what you know via knowledge check. There are many useful bits of information that a wizard can get, not just the special abilities, but also AC, usual combat tactics, speed, strength, intelligence, languages spoken, etc. The DC for knowing wish SLA goes easily into the 100s

The first sentence is true. The second sentence is full of unabashed falsehoods. For the record, here is what the knowledge skill actually says:


In many cases, you can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster’s HD. A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster.

For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you recall another piece of useful information.

Emphasis mine. Special powers and vulnerabilities. That's it. Not AC, not tactics, not stats, not languages, not anything else. Just special powers and vulnerabilities. AC? Not a special power or vulnerability. A supernatural ability that hardens the creature's skin and increases AC? A special power. You can learn about the latter but not the former, according to RAW.

The DC to learn about wishing can get very high, as I posted above. It cannot get into the hundreds if you are going by RAW. While there are plenty of good reasons to ignore RAW on knowledge skills, you yourself have said that the knowledge skills get the DC into the hundreds by the rules. They don't. DC 70 is the upper bound to learn that noble djinni grant wishes, give or take 10 depending on your interpretation of "special abilities."




The only time power plays into it is the HD modifier for identifying a creature.

The description for knowledge skills implies otherwise. Admittedly, the modifier "in many cases" means it isn't universal, but it seems absurd to assert that discovering "special powers or vulnerabilities" of the creature doesn't fall under the formula explicitly given for that purpose.

* Also, your bog standard pseudo-medieval peasant probably wouldn't have knowledge of pseudo-Arabic myths anyway, but this particular objection is very setting specific. Still, if your world is roughly based on Europe, you should give a darn good explanation of why foreign myths and customs are well known.

[Tvtyrant]

you just keep missing the point.

that the differences between a combat cleric and a fighter in the lower levels is a few negligible HP at best due to how low everyone's HP is (though they both can use the same armor/sheilds in general, a cleric's healing makes him just a viable a tank as a fighter is if not slightly better overall) an the attack bonus can be easily enough made up through spell selection/domain power a few levels in.

as for the wizard, if he makes it clear strait from the get-go that his goal (IE: his character concept, one aspect that is VERY core to how the character functions in-game) is to be a combat wizard who wades in as an invisible remorhaz, the fighter can't complain since this was made clear from the start that that is what the wizard had in mind.

you know what, i'll hit closer to base. if a Fighter & a Barbarian both want to be the group's big 2-handed weapon big damage guy. the fighter is a mediocre charger while the barbarian is relatively optimized power attacker. who's in the "right"? who has to give? just like how the fighter/caster, both have the same overall archetype (main physical powerhouse) but different methodology (casters use spells while the barbarian uses a more thorough & synergistic feat/class abilities combo).

to put it into perspective (to steal a phrase) if X & Y both want to do [thing], and make this clear from the outset, why should X get a free pass as opposed to Y, simply because Y is using a non-traditional method to achieve [thing] and somehow manages to do [thing] better then X?

Edited out for being jerky~

First let me point out that constantly restating your opinion with the catch phrase "Your missing the point" doesn't actually make your argument more persuasive. I saw from the beginning what your point was.

And I disagree. A cleric buffing the ever loving stuffing out of themselves in order to defeat an opponent is crazy. Your throwing buffing spells on yourself to pass the fighter, when you have less capacity then him to use them. If you buffed the stuffing out of him, he would be better then you when you buff yourself. So as far as "doing it better" that is total self justification. Your ability is based around buffing, and lo when you buff things get better at what they do. Your not making use of "none-traditional methods," your doing what your class does already, but badly. You don't have the fighter feats or strength to really make use of those buffs.

Second, my point from the beginning was that if you throw out the social contract of the group, there isn't a reason for anyone else to do otherwise. A rogue can steal all your stuff and there isn't anything you can do about it, the druid could use earth to mud and drown caverns filled with enemies and then turn into an animal that burrows to get the treasure, etc. Classes in D&D can function on their own in higher levels, something I have never disagreed with. But once you do that, once you invalidate the party (in a way that isn't actually that useful. Seriously, if you think a fighter is useless imagine a party where the caster gives up his abilities to play a fighter) then there isn't a reason to play with a group. And even if you convince the fighter that he should play something else, he kill himself and switch to a full caster druid that makes you bite the dust.

D&D isn't about winning; anyone can win at D&D. A fighter can get a cohort to use up his xp casting wish on him, a druid can become a self buffing T-rex, shoot transformation makes it so a wizard can do well in melee. The point is telling a story; it doesn't have to be a story about rescuing a princess or defeating an evil wizard. Killing things in combat IS a story, but if you take away everyone else's spot in the story to make the spotlight center on you then you aren't telling it together, your writing your own and making other people watch.

[Da Beast]

Turning back to the knowledge thing: you gain one bit of useful information concerning a creature. A stat block of a creature contains around a hundred useful bits of information. Even if the DM uses random chance, it is sheer coincidence that a pc will receive the particular wish-giving information - at very high levels, that is.

Except that granting wishes is kind of a genies thing. I'll admit that you're technically correct that nothing guarantees you'll get the specific bit of information about genies granting wishes before the knowledge DC gets unmanageably high (even though it only got that high because you insist that the information be dolled out in ridiculously small pieces), but only if you admit that that's sort of like saying there's no guarantee that your knowledge checks will reveal that a red dragon breathes fire before it reveals that red great wyrm has discern location as a spell like ability once per day. A few posts back you listed strength and intelligence scores as things a knowledge check should reveal before the fact that a genie can grant wishes. Seriously? On the one hand, granting wishes is probably the single most iconic aspect of genie lore, and on the other the actual numbers attached to an ability score is something characters should have no in game conception of. You can't chastise people for metagaming when they want to summon a genie for wishes and then turn around and suggest that a knowledge check can give your character in game knowledge of the game mechanics his fictional world is built around.



And a lower-level cohort with a familar is obviously not necessarily more powerful than a familiar, since the pc wizard's familiar has better abilities and can share better spells etc. Plus, a cohort does not have the same kind of devotion to the pc as a familiar.

Okay, this is a (seemingly) fair point, so lets examine it a bit using the example of a wizard with a familiar using leadership to gain another wizard with another familiar for his cohort. When you first take leadership the first wizard (who will call Soren) is level 6 with a level 4 cohort (who we'll call Ilyana). Soren's level six familiar has, compared to Ilyana's familiar, the ability to speak with his master, 1 more point of AC and 1 more point of intelligence. Most people take a raven for their familiar specifically because it can speak a language, so the speak with master bit may very well be irrelevant. With that in mind Soren's familiar has +1 ac and +1 Int over Ilyana's familiar and can benefit from Soren's higher level buffs, provided he is within 5 feat and actually has something useful to accomplish by sharing his mirror image with a harmless bird who won't contribute much to the fight anyway. That +1 ac and +1 int only benefits Soren's familiar and has to compare to Ilyana's full casting resources for the day which are at a minimum 6 non 0 lvl spells (assuming the bare 12 intelligence needed to cast 2nd level spells. We can probably agree that a DM forcing a wizard cohort with 12 intelligence on a player is extremely ****ish, but that's the way some people are). That's +1 ac on something that should never be in combat anyway and +1 intelligence on a companion that doesn't actually gain skill points compared to two extra castings of alter self on the party beat sticks and four extra mage armors granting +4 AC to people who actually need it. As levels go up Ilyana's casting potency will increase dramatically with new spells, more spells per day, and free scaling on several of her spell affects. Soren's familiar will mostly just get +1 AC and +1 Int every other level, things that only help the familiar and even then only give a marginal boost in power at best. A few of the higher level familiar abilities are nifty but not all that important. Furthermore, these abilities can only really be counted in the familiars favor for two levels before Ilyana catches up and her own familiar gains the same abilities. This is also assuming that Soren stays a single class wizard. Most Wizards PRC out between levels 5 and 7 meaning that Soren's familiar will simply stagnate from that point on.


No, it is not. Because the wizard is not your "pet", but an npc with varying loyalty, depending on your behaviour and other factors. It also lacks the special features of the familiar/mount or companion. They are similar in power, overall

It maybe lacks one of the special features of your familiar, but only for two levels before her own familiar catches up. On the Subject of loyalty


Benefits

Having this feat enables the character to attract loyal companions and devoted followers, subordinates who assist her.

Sounds like your cohort should be pretty loyal by default. If not, the DM is messing with RAW to screw with the player. DO NOT come back and tell me this is one interpretation, it clearly says "loyal companions", not "companions of varying loyalty who may or may not screw you over for the sole purpose of making a default familiar look better by comparison".

TL,DR: Suggesting that granting wishes be amongst the most obscure pieces of genie lore is rediculous, as is suggesting that the measly benefits of having a familiar two levels higher can compare to the power that an entire extra wizard with her own familiar brings to the table. Even someone who has never played DnD before should be able to tell you that wish granting is the most basic of genie lore and a newbie with only a cursory knowledge of the rules should be able to tell you that several extra castings of invisibility/fireball/whatever per day is better than +1 armor for your noncombatant pet. These things are so basic I don't understand how you could try to argue them and expect to be taken seriously.

[Tvtyrant]

Of course, at high level the fighter could have his cohort just use up his xp granting the fighter wishes. :P

[Eloel]

Wizards and sorcerers get a familiar each. Obviously broken.

[Thiyr]

And I disagree. A cleric buffing the ever loving stuffing out of themselves in order to defeat an opponent is crazy. Your throwing buffing spells on yourself to pass the fighter, when you have less capacity then him to use them. If you buffed the stuffing out of him, he would be better then you when you buff yourself. So as far as "doing it better" that is total self justification. Your ability is based around buffing, and lo when you buff things get better at what they do. Your not making use of "none-traditional methods," your doing what your class does already, but badly. You don't have the fighter feats or strength to really make use of those buffs.

And to your disagreement, I feel the need to disagree myself. First, the issue of buffing the fighter instead of yourself ignores a number of important buff spells which are personal, most notably Divine Power. Of course things get better when they're buffed, but if you're the only party member that can receive said buff, and that buff alone can put you above the fighter's level of competency, it's not really a counterpoint. As for the lacking of the strength or feats, I'd disagree yet again. The fighter gets a ton of feats. Almost too many feats. Especially if we're staying in core, I just see most of those feats going to waste. As for the strength, if we're talking the stat, there is no reason that their strength has to be low (presuming, as per the example given by oxybe, that the character was trying to go for the war-priest character). Certainly there will be a difference, but that difference can be fairly small all things considered. Even at first level, the cleric has Divine Favor to make up the lower BAB (while boosting his damage), which already puts him on mostly even footing with the fighter before any other buffs are added in.


Second, my point from the beginning was that if you throw out the social contract of the group, there isn't a reason for anyone else to do otherwise.

I'm...Kinda confused by this. Not because it doesn't make sense, but why it needs to be brought up. I'm not seeing people saying to throw away the social contract. I keep seeing reference to bringing up character concepts and ideas before characters have been made. From there the question keeps coming up, why is it the cleric's fault that he's playing the character he wants to play? Or, in other words, why is it that the cleric is the only one being held to the social contract? The cleric's player should take effort to not make the fighter dead weight by outperforming. The other player should take effort to not -be- dead weight. They should -both- work to make sure either that they have their own niches, or that they can at least share the workload. "Don't be a jerk to the guy that protected you during the early levels" works if the person protected you during the early levels, but even in levels 1-4, clerics and wizards can not only protect themselves, but can do what they intended to do from the start (that is to say playing the magically-powered beatstick instead of the back-row artillery). In short, why should the clerics and wizards be expected to tone themselves down or abandon the character type they wanted to play, while the fighter isn't expected to try and bring himself up so that they remain relevant? I'm not saying that players should be allowed to dominate the spotlight. I'm saying that someone who's doing something well shouldn't be the only one expected to change when somebody else isn't doing as well.

also

Seriously, if you think a fighter is useless imagine a party where the caster gives up his abilities to play a fighter

I honestly don't understand what you mean by this. Mind clarifying a bit?

[Edhelras]

I'd just like to say that I'm not convinced that "core is broken", in the sense that I haven't experienced any game that does it much better, and still retains the qualities that DnD 3.5 has.

Much of the "brokenness" I see here stems from some sources:

- players thinking more about "ME! ME! ME!" than about playing as a party. Well, if you're being egotistical, the chances are that a party based game won't be that much fun. I've had some real newbies play DnD, and the most difficult concept for them, in the beginning, is that they don't play against each other, but together with each other (and, in a way, together even with the DM, in order to make a fun session).

- of course some classes may feel useless - but that has much to do with the DM or the adventure setup. First of all - if you really play 3.5 - and not the per-encounter 4E or an approximation of that - casters will frequently find themselves out of slots. Even at higher levels, you can find that. The DM is free to create circumstances (not only anti-magic field, no) where the spellcasters aren't able to replenish their stores. The DM is, after all, God, and his task is to keep each and every player happy at least part of the time.

- Casters may make their own items, scrolls, wands and such. But crafting takes time - why should the DM allow casters - always - the time and resources needed for making every magic item they wish? It's in situations where the casters are worn down that non-casters really get to shine, and a good DM should make those situations occur.

- DnD is much more than the combat. Even though a caster can use several utility spells, if the adventure contains a lot of utility situations, the caster simply doesn't have enough magical power to be of service in all those situations. Whereas the Rogue carries with him his skill points all the time. A good adventure could create sufficient situations where you simply must have a Rogue in your party to succeed. You can also have restrictions and consequences from using enchantments on characters - this all depends on how eager or laze the DM is in countering the party's tactics in order to make it fun for everyone.

- highest levels/epic: Well, perhaps broken, but non only balance-wise, I personally think that everything gets kinda broken when characters are approaching godhood. Most of all, if they're so extremely powerful, it gets kinda hard to understand why their outlooks and responsibilities don't change - why would someone as powerful as a lvl 18 character still be bothering with dungeon crawls? Why wouldn't he instead engage in the United Nations of Faerun or something more far-reaching? Also, I find it kind of ridiculous that some thieve's guilds are composed of lvl 1 and 2 thugs, while others build their ground army with lvl 8 and 9 NPCs - just to provide a thieves's guild for different party lvls. High lvls suck.


The thing I personally is most frustrated by in 3.5 is the lack of skill points for some of the classes, especially the 2+INT classes. I always find I have to give my characters an INT score higher than necessary for RP purposes, and at the cost of other important abilities, just to get sufficient skill points. The array of skills in DnD is a great way to personalize your character, and to make it useful in non-combat situations. But you really need more points than what is in core. I think the 2+INT classes should have at least 3+INT, possibly 4+INT, and the more+INT classes could well get a slight increase as well.
For instance, it's all well that the Fighter has a natural talent for (class skills) climbing, swimming and jumping, what with his physical prowess. But much of that benefit is eaten up by the AC penalty (which is in itself OK - adding realism). The net result is that your fighter might not at all be the most suited to jump a chasm to secure a rope.

As for more "options" for non-fighters in combat, I don't really see the need. There are already several options for hampering your enemy other than just hitting him. And much of the excitement in DnD too comes from the great variability provided by the d20, which allows for such a range of failures and successes - together with the variable damage rolls. Personally I get much fun from just rolling to attack with my favored weapon, although I too like to do the caster stuff. As long as no one is bound to play only one character type for the rest of his life, I'd say that DnD provides the player with a lot of opportunities.

EDIT: Forgot to mention: FMCs (Frenzied Multi-Classillas). It's called a "role-playing game", after all. If players insist on creating characters that have no or just crazy role-playing justifications, well, how can you call the game broken? It's being broken because said players have broken it, not because the game is broken in itself.

[Kurald Galain]

I can never understand that mindset either.

"X is broken."
"No it's not! You can fix it with A, B or C!"

That would be the Oberoni Fallacy. And, of course, the reason we have a well-known fallacy named after this mindset is an indication of how common that mindset is.

[Awnetu]

- players thinking more about "ME! ME! ME!" than about playing as a party. Well, if you're being egotistical, the chances are that a party based game won't be that much fun. I've had some real newbies play DnD, and the most difficult concept for them, in the beginning, is that they don't play against each other, but together with each other (and, in a way, together even with the DM, in order to make a fun session).




This me me me attitude really only seems to exist in your example, care to show where other people here have done this? Saying I can melee just as well/better than a fighter as a cleric isn't an all about me attitude, it's 'ok so if I had 2 clerics instead of a cleric and a fighter', I could cover a lot more ground and solve alot more problems.



- of course some classes may feel useless - but that has much to do with the DM or the adventure setup. First of all - if you really play 3.5 - and not the per-encounter 4E or an approximation of that - casters will frequently find themselves out of slots. Even at higher levels, you can find that. The DM is free to create circumstances (not only anti-magic field, no) where the spellcasters aren't able to replenish their stores. The DM is, after all, God, and his task is to keep each and every player happy at least part of the time.


So it isn't broken because if the DM harasses the spell casters forever till they run out of slots, then the melee will finally get to unleash their 'power'?
(Ignoring the fact that HP runs out faster than spells do).



- Casters may make their own items, scrolls, wands and such. But crafting takes time - why should the DM allow casters - always - the time and resources needed for making every magic item they wish? It's in situations where the casters are worn down that non-casters really get to shine, and a good DM should make those situations occur.


If the DM blocks crafting of magic items fine, they can find plenty to supplant the group, but look at the melee, what does it take for them to be as mechanically effective as a caster? What's that? Magic Items? Why is that not broken? Why is it that my fighter MUST have that +3 Greatsword to do what the Sorceror can with nothing but a component pouch? (Remember that pouch is fairly cheap, time to buy Mithral Feycraft XYZ Chain Shirts or whatever.)

Also, rushed game 24/7 is not standard D&D, it's broken if you have to work to fix it.



- DnD is much more than the combat. Even though a caster can use several utility spells, if the adventure contains a lot of utility situations, the caster simply doesn't have enough magical power to be of service in all those situations. Whereas the Rogue carries with him his skill points all the time. A good adventure could create sufficient situations where you simply must have a Rogue in your party to succeed. You can also have restrictions and consequences from using enchantments on characters - this all depends on how eager or laze the DM is in countering the party's tactics in order to make it fun for everyone.


The Rogue/Ranger/Bard are the only classes with more than 4 + Int skill points a level, none of those classes are Int based, and 2 have spell casting which can help cover some ground. Poor Rogue, he can be supplanted by a Wizard who is Int based and thus winds up covering most of the ground fairly quickly, with little work. Oh, and the wizard has stuff like Knock and the ability to make magic items to put the Rogue even farther in the dust. Whether or not all of your games are simply rushed grindfests where no one is given enough time to craft or recover their spells is irrelevant, as that's not how D&D is assumed to run as per the PHB and DMG.

It's broken if you have to fix it.



- highest levels/epic: Well, perhaps broken, but non only balance-wise, I personally think that everything gets kinda broken when characters are approaching godhood. Most of all, if they're so extremely powerful, it gets kinda hard to understand why their outlooks and responsibilities don't change - why would someone as powerful as a lvl 18 character still be bothering with dungeon crawls? Why wouldn't he instead engage in the United Nations of Faerun or something more far-reaching? Also, I find it kind of ridiculous that some thieve's guilds are composed of lvl 1 and 2 thugs, while others build their ground army with lvl 8 and 9 NPCs - just to provide a thieves's guild for different party lvls. High lvls suck.


High Levels suck, I agree, so no comment.



The thing I personally is most frustrated by in 3.5 is the lack of skill points for some of the classes, especially the 2+INT classes. I always find I have to give my characters an INT score higher than necessary for RP purposes, and at the cost of other important abilities, just to get sufficient skill points. The array of skills in DnD is a great way to personalize your character, and to make it useful in non-combat situations. But you really need more points than what is in core. I think the 2+INT classes should have at least 3+INT, possibly 4+INT, and the more+INT classes could well get a slight increase as well.
For instance, it's all well that the Fighter has a natural talent for (class skills) climbing, swimming and jumping, what with his physical prowess. But much of that benefit is eaten up by the AC penalty (which is in itself OK - adding realism). The net result is that your fighter might not at all be the most suited to jump a chasm to secure a rope.

As for more "options" for non-fighters in combat, I don't really see the need. There are already several options for hampering your enemy other than just hitting him. And much of the excitement in DnD too comes from the great variability provided by the d20, which allows for such a range of failures and successes - together with the variable damage rolls. Personally I get much fun from just rolling to attack with my favored weapon, although I too like to do the caster stuff. As long as no one is bound to play only one character type for the rest of his life, I'd say that DnD provides the player with a lot of opportunities.


Your fighter also has terrible listen, spot, search checks. Fighters have been beaten to death though, so moving on. Also going back to your 'D&D is so much more than combat', what is the Fighters role in any situation other than combat? The Barbarians? Hope it can be intimidated? You say rolling a d20 to attack is fun, that's cool. Remember fun is subjective, you may find saying 'I hit it with my sword' is fun after doing it for the thousandth time, but a solid number of posters on this board feel quite differently.



EDIT: Forgot to mention: FMCs (Frenzied Multi-Classillas). It's called a "role-playing game", after all. If players insist on creating characters that have no or just crazy role-playing justifications, well, how can you call the game broken? It's being broken because said players have broken it, not because the game is broken in itself.

The FMC's as you call them? Those builds are really not the broken stuff.

Druid 20 is better than Fighter 2/Barbarian 1/ Ranger 2/Rogue 15 or whatever. The druid is considered broken, the 'Frenzied Multi-Classillas' is not. In fact, that's how you help a non caster keep up. If I remember correctly one of the MOST broken things that gets thrown around is a paladin build. (Pun Pun?)

And I know that this seems to start a fight every time it gets mentioned... but classes are Metagame constructs. The system was built for the things that you consider 'breaking the system'.

[BeholderSlayer]

Back on topic for the OP, Alter Self can potentially break the game, and that's only at level 3. Tack it onto an Otherworldly level 5 wizard and BAM, you've got a Dwarven Ancestor that can cast spells and have higher than 30 AC at level 5, though that isn't core.

IMHO, once Polymorph comes into the picture it's game over. A wizard's options are virtually endless. He ignores environment-based challenges (traps, geography, etc) and he can fight better than a fighter. He also has access to spells that eliminate much of a need for being a sociable person. Writing an Illusory Script on his shirt that suggests everybody "be my bestest friend in the whole wide world" can make social encounters obsolete. He can scout reliability with clairaudience/clairvoyance.

For this reason, I think the true break down level is level 7, in the case of wizards.

In the case of druids, it's level 1. Animal Companion for combat, spells for BFC, summons/speak with animals for scouting. They aren't as good at social encounters, though, and can't quite ignore environmental threats until later. However, they're already stomping on the toes of the fighters and rogues, and can heal to boot. If you don't think that's good enough, by level 7 they roll up the game and light it on fire with strong Wildshapes.

Clerics don't quite have the versatility of either class above. However, at level 1 they are already stepping on the fighter's toes, and by level 5 they are stomping on them, and at level 7 they literally crush the fighter's foot. They don't have the strong scouting abilities of the wizard, but can pass okay at it by level 7. Environmental hazards must be dealt with in a pretty imaginative fashion, but they do have Summon Monster and Air Walk at level 7. I suppose for the cleric, the true breakdown point is level 7.

Just looking at the above, in my opinion the true, absolute break down point is level 7.

[The Big Dice]

And I know that this seems to start a fight every time it gets mentioned... but classes are Metagame constructs. The system was built for the things that you consider 'breaking the system'.
I would agree with you but for a few things. Namely, Bards are a class that is also a paticular function in society. And they probably should have been called Minstrels, but that's a different set of issues. Clerics are also defined by what they do in game as well as being a class. Same for Paladins and of course Barbarians. Both of which get a specific set of roleplaying limitations in exchange for having a particular class.

So classes are metagame constructs, except they aren't just that. They are also in game constructs. Which muddies the waters further.

[Eldariel]

Namely, Bards are a class that is also a paticular function in society.

Unlikely. Bard is a magician who weaves arcane power through song, and is a competent warrior to boot. Minstrel would be an Expert with ranks in Perform and maybe Knowledges.


Clerics are also defined by what they do in game as well as being a class.

Clerics are, at their core, spellcasters imbued power upon by something. They can get their power from anything, pretty much. Some serve archdevils and get power. Others serve ideals. Some serve deities. Cleric can be a Priest but a Priest doesn't have to be a Cleric, and many a Cleric can be traveling champions, stage magicians, witches of the forest or necromancers, for example. A Cleric can literally be anything due to the amount of options available to them and how many different class combinations they fit due to Domains.


Same for Paladins and of course Barbarians.

Barbarians' roleplay limitation is "don't become Lawful". While a ridiculous limitation (the "proud Barbarian warrior" archetype who does everything by tradition and only fights fair and so on would be Lawful!), it's still, at its core, just the ability to draw power from your anger. Or some mystical combat focus. Or, in general, some way to temporarily increase your combat prowess. That's what the class is about, in the end.

Paladin is the class you can make the strongest case for. And yet, there are tons of ways to build a "Paladin" that doesn't use the class, and a few ways to use the "Paladin"-class in builds that aren't necessarily Paladins. But really, you can be a Paladin with 0 levels in the class Paladin. LG Cleric could be a Paladin just as well. A Fighter/Sorcerer/Eldritch Knight could be a Paladin no problem. And so on and so forth...

[Sir Giacomo]

That would be the Oberoni Fallacy. And, of course, the reason we have a well-known fallacy named after this mindset is an indication of how common that mindset is.

This fallacy does not apply here. I simply point out that the RAW ecplicitly provide rules that delegate decisions on the respective matters (knowledge/bits of useful information; leadership) to the DM.
This is not "hiding behind the DM" but just using the rules.
Quite different from DM fiat when he intervenes because a player used a RAW method that just happens to ruin the campaign in that particular situation, not ruining it in general (which would constitute brokenness).

Guys, when you feel that something is broken why do you oppose any limits though the rules so much? Why do you feel nerfed, insisting that a knowledge check should automatically give you all info on a monster even though the rules say otherwise?

- Giacomo

[dsmiles]

LG Cleric could be a Paladin just as well.

I know this one from personal experience. I wanted to be a Dwarven Paladin in a 2e game, but Dwarves can't be Paladins. LG Dwarven Cleric with a Paladin-esque code of conduct = Dwarven Paladin! YAY ME! :smallcool:

[The Big Dice]

Unlikely. Bard is a magician who weaves arcane power through song, and is a competent warrior to boot. Minstrel would be an Expert with ranks in Perform and maybe Knowledges.
Strictly speaking, a bard is an oral historian who tells tales through song, and who has served a long and hard apprenticeship. While a minstrel is an entertainer travelling from town to town. Which one describes a D&D bard?

Then again, I come from Wales, the land of the bard, where we still have Eisteddfoddau every year. Which are also highly druidic in nature, come to think of it. That's potentially another class that has concerns that cross from out of game to in game.

But that way WotC got Druids so wrong is another story.

Clerics are, at their core, spellcasters imbued power upon by something. They can get their power from anything, pretty much. Some serve archdevils and get power. Others serve ideals. Some serve deities. Cleric can be a Priest but a Priest doesn't have to be a Cleric, and many a Cleric can be traveling champions, stage magicians, witches of the forest or necromancers, for example. A Cleric can literally be anything due to the amount of options available to them and how many different class combinations they fit due to Domains.
You said it yourself, Clerics serve. That is their purpose in-game. They serve a higher power than themselves, and in turn are rewarded with the ability to use certain types of magic. If they fail to serve this higher power, they can have their abilities taken away from them.

I'd say that qualifies as something that crosses from metagame to in game.

Barbarians' roleplay limitation is "don't become Lawful". While a ridiculous limitation (the "proud Barbarian warrior" archetype who does everything by tradition and only fights fair and so on would be Lawful!), it's still, at its core, just the ability to draw power from your anger. Or some mystical combat focus. Or, in general, some way to temporarily increase your combat prowess. That's what the class is about, in the end.
And of course being the only illiterate class in the PHB. Which is much more of a roleplaying limitation than anything to do with alignment.

Paladin is the class you can make the strongest case for. And yet, there are tons of ways to build a "Paladin" that doesn't use the class, and a few ways to use the "Paladin"-class in builds that aren't necessarily Paladins. But really, you can be a Paladin with 0 levels in the class Paladin. LG Cleric could be a Paladin just as well. A Fighter/Sorcerer/Eldritch Knight could be a Paladin no problem. And so on and so forth...
Making a paladin without using the Paladin class isn't making a Paladin. Note the capitalisation, by the way. You can be a samurai without being a Samurai. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0209.html)

[dsmiles]

And of course being the only illiterate class in the PHB. Which is much more of a roleplaying limitation than anything to do with alignment.

Spending a skill point to read and write seems more of a mechanical limitation than a roleplaying one, IMO.

[The Big Dice]

Spending a skill point to read and write seems more of a mechanical limitation than a roleplaying one, IMO.
Why would a proud barbarian warrior go against his heritage and learn to read like some weak and soft city dweller? That's a roleplaying limitation right there.

Also, you can't make a barbarian with a Barbarian. Try designing a character based on a Viking or a Hun. The naval needs of the Viking and the cavalry requirements of the Hun are both incompatible with the Barbarian class.

Barbarians should really have been called "Arnold in Conans" because, like so many D&D classes, they don't have anything to do with what they are named for.

[Tvtyrant]

And to your disagreement, I feel the need to disagree myself. First, the issue of buffing the fighter instead of yourself ignores a number of important buff spells which are personal, most notably Divine Power. Of course things get better when they're buffed, but if you're the only party member that can receive said buff, and that buff alone can put you above the fighter's level of competency, it's not really a counterpoint. As for the lacking of the strength or feats, I'd disagree yet again. The fighter gets a ton of feats. Almost too many feats. Especially if we're staying in core, I just see most of those feats going to waste. As for the strength, if we're talking the stat, there is no reason that their strength has to be low (presuming, as per the example given by oxybe, that the character was trying to go for the war-priest character). Certainly there will be a difference, but that difference can be fairly small all things considered. Even at first level, the cleric has Divine Favor to make up the lower BAB (while boosting his damage), which already puts him on mostly even footing with the fighter before any other buffs are added in.
....So your arguing that the Cleric, by having the same BAB, is just as good as a fighter? I insist that you spend some time as a Paladin that has lost its abilities then. Take a level 10 fighter and put...rage, heroism and enlarge person on him and combined with his improved grappling he has a base grapple bonus of over thirty. A cleric of that level can just about manage 20 with those same buffs. If you boost the str of the cleric you leave one of the other important stats in the dust, while a fighter only has three stats that matter (int over 13, str and con). So yes, by making your cleric unable to turn undead or making him squishy as heck you can make him similar to buffing an npc warrior of that level, but that's it. I fail to see that as being "better."


I'm...Kinda confused by this. Not because it doesn't make sense, but why it needs to be brought up. I'm not seeing people saying to throw away the social contract. I keep seeing reference to bringing up character concepts and ideas before characters have been made. From there the question keeps coming up, why is it the cleric's fault that he's playing the character he wants to play? Or, in other words, why is it that the cleric is the only one being held to the social contract? The cleric's player should take effort to not make the fighter dead weight by outperforming. The other player should take effort to not -be- dead weight. They should -both- work to make sure either that they have their own niches, or that they can at least share the workload. "Don't be a jerk to the guy that protected you during the early levels" works if the person protected you during the early levels, but even in levels 1-4, clerics and wizards can not only protect themselves, but can do what they intended to do from the start (that is to say playing the magically-powered beatstick instead of the back-row artillery). In short, why should the clerics and wizards be expected to tone themselves down or abandon the character type they wanted to play, while the fighter isn't expected to try and bring himself up so that they remain relevant? I'm not saying that players should be allowed to dominate the spotlight. I'm saying that someone who's doing something well shouldn't be the only one expected to change when somebody else isn't doing as well.
I understand from the beginning what you all meant. The issue is that your 1. Under performing at your role when you do this. The barbarian and fighter are better at melee combat. There are a few buffs that only apply to casters that exist, but even those only bring you up to the level of a fighter without combat feats. Your Base Attack Bonus isn't going to help you with the Tarrasque, while buffing the fighter he can grapple it at that level (I have seen it done). So as group efficiency goes, your doing your job BADLY. 2. Most of the reasons that people expect the wizard and sorc to be back seat artillery is because those are the best spells. Glitterdust is better then MM, Time Stop buffing is better then Meteor Swarm, etc.

Take Disintegrate. If the enemy fails their fort save you essentially insta kill it. If it saves you just blew a high level spell slot on nothing. Even if it does kill it kills exactly one monster, which implies a dragon. Demons and Devils summon reinforcements, humanoids are using character levels and so there should be groups, etc. So dragons or unique beasts, most of which have high fort, will and reflex saves.

3. Yes, you can play whatever character concepts you like. I play a cleric myself almost every single game I have played; however what you are saying is essentially "I can't slow down, you have to speed up." To someone you are taking a walk with. While you can do whatever you want, its a mean spirited way to go about it, especially since the fact that the role of cleric or wizard being filled leads the DM to prevent other people from playing those roles.
also


I honestly don't understand what you mean by this. Mind clarifying a bit?I did up above. Rather then derail this thread further about the stats of buffed clerics vs buffed fighters, send me a PM and I will show you the stats involved.

[Eldariel]

Strictly speaking, a bard is an oral historian who tells tales through song, and who has served a long and hard apprenticeship. While a minstrel is an entertainer travelling from town to town. Which one describes a D&D bard?

Then again, I come from Wales, the land of the bard, where we still have Eisteddfoddau every year. Which are also highly druidic in nature, come to think of it. That's potentially another class that has concerns that cross from out of game to in game.

But that way WotC got Druids so wrong is another story.

Na, WoTC just made Druids something different; not the folklore Druid. I'm from Finland myself and our national epic involves Magic as "Singing" and generally involving natural powers; so power channeled like Bard but powers more akin to a Druid.

That would be a slightly different origin for the Bard but then again, more or less the same. Still, if looking for the storyteller Bard, I'd say that would be an Expert. Now, the mystic wiseman, that would be what a D&D Bard works as the easiest, though you could also make that work as a Wizard or a Cloistered Cleric or some such.


You said it yourself, Clerics serve. That is their purpose in-game. They serve a higher power than themselves, and in turn are rewarded with the ability to use certain types of magic. If they fail to serve this higher power, they can have their abilities taken away from them.

I'd say that qualifies as something that crosses from metagame to in game.

Meh, I'd say that applies to more or less every character and class. Everyone serves something. Sure, Clerics gain their powers from the service but as it's so free in form, I don't see that a huge stumbling block one way or the other.


And of course being the only illiterate class in the PHB. Which is much more of a roleplaying limitation than anything to do with alignment.

Well, that basically means "they start with 2 skill points less than other classes". Everyone can be Illiterate and get bonus to one skill for it; a flaw in Unearthed Arcana.


Making a paladin without using the Paladin class isn't making a Paladin. Note the capitalisation, by the way. You can be a samurai without being a Samurai. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0209.html)

I don't see your point here. Yes, you aren't making Paladin The Class if you make a paladin, but what does that matter? In-game, you're a paladin and that's all that matters. You don't need pally fluff for Paladin.

[dsmiles]

Why would a proud barbarian warrior go against his heritage and learn to read like some weak and soft city dweller? That's a roleplaying limitation right there.

Honestly, unless he plans on spending the rest of his adventuring career tied to a literate person, why wouldn't he learn to read and write? As a proud barbarian warrior, feeling stupid would hurt my pride.

[The Big Dice]

Honestly, unless he plans on spending the rest of his adventuring career tied to a literate person, why wouldn't he learn to read and write? As a proud barbarian warrior, feeling stupid would hurt my pride.
Why does a Barbarian need to read anyway?

In purely mechanical terms, if you're not going to be using scrolls, there's no reason for it.

And in purely character-based terms, illiterate characters don't bother me at all. In fact, it's fun to play them. Everything is written in Lizard Man after all.

But then I spent a long time playing GURPS, which has the assumption that most people in a medieval technology type society won't be able to read. Being able to read actually costs points in that system.

[Il_Vec]

Why does a Barbarian need to read anyway?


I roleplayed a barbarian/frenzied berserker from level 1 to 10. I spent the points in reading and writing as soon as my character realized that he'd need to read notes, riddles, inscriptions in walls, documents, credit bills, write letters to other warlords, write warnings etc etc things that adventurers need to do.

[dsmiles]

Why does a Barbarian need to read anyway?

In purely mechanical terms, if you're not going to be using scrolls, there's no reason for it.

But then I spent a long time playing GURPS, which has the assumption that most people in a medieval technology type society won't be able to read. Being able to read actually costs points in that system.

For me, I always dump skill points into UMD, so, yeah, for me scrolls are an option.

RM is like that too. Spend points to speak a language, spend more points to read/write it. It's actually a better way than DnD, IMO. It's a little more realistic.

[awa]

default dnd is not a mid evil setting not really when was the last time you saw a depiction of a french knight with a spiked chain?

between the gender equality, the mythological mismatch, and the wide range of weapons like scimitars, kukiris, and composite bows which aren't even exotic weapons it does not seem much like mid evil Europe

[The Big Dice]

default dnd is not a mid evil setting not really when was the last time you saw a depiction of a french knight with a spiked chain?

between the gender equality, the mythological mismatch, and the wide range of weapons like scimitars, kukiris, and composite bows which aren't even exotic weapons it does not seem much like mid evil Europe

There are a lot of anachronisms in D&D. But did you know that crossbows were made of composites? And that composite bows were well known in Europe, just not that popular. The image of the English Longbow is a popular and romantic one, but by the time the Crusades were on the wane, composite technology was well established in European bowmaking.

As for a spiked chain, it's a very silly weapon when you stop to think about it. Kind of like a manrikigusari, but with nowhere to hold it. And chain weapons aren't even that good for making people fall over. Well, apart from those ankle level strikes from the steel whip the shaolin monks use. But that's more a smashed ankle than a trip.

[BeholderSlayer]

When you can ask a little 5 year old kid "what do genies do" and they say "THEY GRANT WISHES!" you know that granting wishes isn't some kind of obscure lore.

You are hiding behind the shield of the DM, no matter how strongly you might believe you aren't, Sir.

[Tyndmyr]

There are a lot of anachronisms in D&D. But did you know that crossbows were made of composites? And that composite bows were well known in Europe, just not that popular.

Given that not all crossbows were made of composites, but a lot were, and that D&D offers no composite crossbow, and the idea of a composite longbow is pretty clearly not historical, he is correct in that it doesn't map well to medival europe.

Also, I was under the impression that composite bows were much more of an asian technology than a european one.

And of course, composite bows don't map well to the mechanics at all. It's a handy conceit so that archers don't suck completely, but archery as a whole is not terribly realistic in D&D.

[Awnetu]

This fallacy does not apply here. I simply point out that the RAW ecplicitly provide rules that delegate decisions on the respective matters (knowledge/bits of useful information; leadership) to the DM.
This is not "hiding behind the DM" but just using the rules.
Quite different from DM fiat when he intervenes because a player used a RAW method that just happens to ruin the campaign in that particular situation, not ruining it in general (which would constitute brokenness).

Guys, when you feel that something is broken why do you oppose any limits though the rules so much? Why do you feel nerfed, insisting that a knowledge check should automatically give you all info on a monster even though the rules say otherwise?

- Giacomo

You've found us out Giacomo, we really are just grubbing for power, why do we EVER bother quoting the rules? I mean, the only one who gets them right is you apparently.

@ The Big Dice,

With classes such as the Monk/Cleric/Paladin, I think of the class as different than the Archetype. You have the monk Archetype which is a badass, ultra disciplined unarmed fighter, the cleric Archetype which spends their time in service of a god, spreading their will and whatnot and the paladin archetype, who crusades and actively seeks out evil to combat. The classes are just one way to fill that archetype but are not by any stretch THE way to do it.

[Gametime]

This fallacy does not apply here. I simply point out that the RAW ecplicitly provide rules that delegate decisions on the respective matters (knowledge/bits of useful information; leadership) to the DM.
This is not "hiding behind the DM" but just using the rules.

You are correct that the rules provide a mechanism for the DM to dispense information, but you have repeatedly and insistently exaggerated the extent to which individual DM decision comes into it. I myself have pointed out, on two separate occasions, the exact limitations of the Knowledge skill as written and what that implies for the upper bound on a Knowledge DC to learn that genie grants wishes. You don't seem willing to acknowledge that while you are correct that the DM decides what you learn, he doesn't have infinite freedom in giving out information unless he is willing to alter the rules.


Guys, when you feel that something is broken why do you oppose any limits though the rules so much? Why do you feel nerfed, insisting that a knowledge check should automatically give you all info on a monster even though the rules say otherwise?

- Giacomo

Because the rules provide for an exact way to get the information on monsters; it just might get to a high DC. You are exaggerating what the rules say. I've quoted the actual text of the Knowledge skill. If you take issue with my quotation, I encourage you to go to the SRD and pick out the part where it say every aspect of the monster is something that can be doled out one piece at a time; until then, learning about special powers and vulnerabilities is very specifically described.

Also, it comes up in every thread about this, so let me be clear.

We do not favor unbalanced rules interpretations, we favor accurate rules interpretations. Just because we want the rules to be balanced doesn't make it so. Just because a given reading of the rules is broken doesn't make it invalid. What we want the game to be and what the game is are two very separate things. To argue that the rules must be X because the rules should be X is a logical fallacy.

[dsmiles]

To argue that the rules must be X because the rules should be X is a logical fallacy.

:smalleek:
*GASP!*

How dare you use logical thinking! :smalltongue:

(Seriously, though. I agree completely. RAW and RATSBW [Rules as they should be written; isn't that a mouthful?] are sometimes at opposite ends of the rules spectrum. Just because Pun-Pun is legal by RAW, doesn't mean he should be legal by RAW.)

[Tyndmyr]

The fact that both "Toughness" and "Leadership" are considered roughly equivalent options should be enough to convince anyone that core is sadly lacking in balance. The fact that it, by RAW, contains infinite loops is also troubling.

There are countless lesser details that are arguably fairly broken, but those are surprisingly obvious ones, that are generally fixed in practice by outright banning.

The definition of "broken" must be a wide spread of power, and few books contain so wide of a spread as that found in the books comprising core. If more examples are desired, consider the base races. One of the best races available(human) is there, as are some of the worst without LA(half orc, half elf). Other books may vary in power between books, but very few vary so highly within the same book.

[Mystic Muse]

Heres a simple qestion.
11 bonus feats or 9th level spells?
at 20th lvl fighters get 11 bonus feats wizards get 9th lvl spells which would u rather have?

9th level spells.

[Doug Lampert]

Heres a simple qestion.
11 bonus feats or 9th level spells?
at 20th lvl fighters get 11 bonus feats wizards get 9th lvl spells which would u rather hav?


9th level spells.

But wait! There's MORE! Yes, for a limited time only, while the fighter gets his pitiful little 11 feats and YOU get 9th levels spells we'll throw in 0th through 8th level spells as a FREE BONUS OFFER!

But that's not all. If you'll call now to ImAWizzard then you ALSO get 5 bonus feats of your own! And a familiar!

Now, you may have heard that casters have a weakness in that they run out of spells. So to prevent this horrible problem we'll give you 40 spells per day. But that's not all! We'll give you an extra 15 spells a day JUST for having a moderately good prime ability. But that's not all! You can SPECIALIZE, or join a prestige class, or get a pearl of power, and have EVEN MORE SPELLS per day!

But that's not all! While the fighter's core feats are things like a +1 to attack with a single weapon, YOUR bonus feats let you make items that let you CAST MORE SPELLS, or you can learn to make an item giving the fighter +5 to hit and damage, or you can cast a single level 3 spell to give the fighter +5 to hit and damage, and remember that the fighter can't even REACH the enemy without your active help.

Yes friends, all of this can be yours if you'll just call ImaWizzard today!

See also our special offer in your PHB for a Druid who gets level 9 spells, and the ability to be a bear, that summons bears, with a bear for a friend! Or a cleric, with bonus spells that ONLY WORK ON YOU, that make you better than the fighter!

[dsmiles]

Heres a simple qestion.
11 bonus feats or 9th level spells?
at 20th lvl fighters get 11 bonus feats wizards get 9th lvl spells which would u rather hav?

Depends on what I want to play.

[arrowhen]

I've played in plenty of Core-only campaigns that weren't at all broken - because we were more interested in rolling dice, eating pizza, and telling cool adventure stories than in breaking things and spoiling each other's fun.

[Tyndmyr]

Good players can make just about any system work, if they want to, and having good players is invariably more important than having a good system.

However, the ability for mature players to avoid the broken bits does not make the system non-broken.

[Eloel]

Good players can make just about any system work, if they want to, and having good players is invariably more important than having a good system.

However, the ability for mature players to avoid the broken bits does not make the system non-broken.
Exactly. Mature players can make a freeform game work. Would that make all freeform games "balanced" ?

[The Big Dice]

Good players can make just about any system work, if they want to, and having good players is invariably more important than having a good system.

However, the ability for mature players to avoid the broken bits does not make the system non-broken.

Does the ability of some people to break any RPG mean that any RPG is broken, or that some people delight in breaking RPGs?

This is a very serious question, as I've seen people on these hallowed boards claiming that GURPS is broken. And yet GURPS is one of the most balanced games you'll find.

And really, if 3.5 D&D is as broken as al that, why on Earth is anyone still playing the game?

[Eloel]

And really, if 3.5 D&D is as broken as al that, why on Earth is anyone still playing the game?

3.5 is easy to play. And it's VERY versatile. And while yes, it is broken, I have not seen any game without any houserules in them - to address the issues.

[Tvtyrant]

Does the ability of some people to break any RPG mean that any RPG is broken, or that some people delight in breaking RPGs?

This is a very serious question, as I've seen people on these hallowed boards claiming that GURPS is broken. And yet GURPS is one of the most balanced games you'll find.

And really, if 3.5 D&D is as broken as al that, why on Earth is anyone still playing the game?

Honestly I think ANY game CAN be broken. I remember a diplomacy game where italy held rome for 8 rounds while every other person in the game tried to take it, and that game doesn't even HAVE dice rolls. The issue with D&D is that it allows people to play as a living McGuffin. In old stories the Wizard/fairy was never the hero, it was barefoot man or the cobbler's apprentice. Seriously, read WoT and watch the author try to find challenges for the main protagonist. There is a scene where they destroy 100,000 people using 12 in less then an hour.

[The Big Dice]

3.5 is easy to play. And it's VERY versatile. And while yes, it is broken, I have not seen any game without any houserules in them - to address the issues.

I wouldn't say it's particularly easy to play. You're looking at a minimum of three books, each of around 300 pages, before you can actually play the game. Compare that to most RPGs having one book being all you need to get started.

As for versatile, as I said before, let's see you make a Viking character. Classes are like handcuffs when it comes to making characters. Sure, you can do some things with them, but you're pretty much tied to whatever teh game designers thought those classes should be. Which might not be quite what you want to ply.

And in my experience, usually isn't what I want to play.

[Eloel]

As for versatile, as I said before, let's see you make a Viking character.
Bardbarian? As in, Barbarian with a couple levels of Bard added?

[Goudaa]

As other posters have said, I think it's mostly about the players and how competent of a DM you're dealing with.

A competent DM through logical house-ruling can usually weed out the major imbalances.

Very competent players (or as I like to call them min-maxing-munchkins) tend to break the game by virtue of wishing to be OP...which 3.5 in conjuncture with all the books easily allows for.

[Tyndmyr]

The single biggest plus to 3.5 is that it's popular as hell. You can find games, and you can find players. Doesn't matter how awesome a system is if you have nobody to play it with.

I love it, mind you, but it does have it's flaws.

As for broken...it's not so much a binary thing as it is a sliding scale. Some things are more broken than others.

And balance is obviously not the only thing that makes a game good. You can have the most perfectly balanced game in the world, but if it isn't actually fun, well...the rest doesn't matter.

[The Big Dice]

Bardbarian? As in, Barbarian with a couple levels of Bard added?

How is that a Viking?

Where's the sailing, the raiding, the building ships and the farming in a Bardbarian?

And you can't do that at first level without bringing in optional rules anyway.

[Eloel]

How is that a Viking?

Where's the sailing, the raiding, the building ships and the farming in a Bardbarian?


Wow. I can't believe what you're suggesting right now. You're trying to make a single person summarize an entire community. It's like saying "Build me someone from medieval ages". Someone (or at least I) would go build an Arthurian knight, but really. A king? A farmer? A soldier? All at once?


And you can't do that at first level without bringing in optional rules anyway.
Start with the Bard. When they're trained to go to war, add in Barbarian for their experience.

[SurlySeraph]

As for versatile, as I said before, let's see you make a Viking character. Classes are like handcuffs when it comes to making characters. Sure, you can do some things with them, but you're pretty much tied to whatever teh game designers thought those classes should be. Which might not be quite what you want to ply.

Fighter, Warrior, Barbarian and/or Commoner, ranks in Profession (farmer) or Profession (Sailor) (yes, they're cross-class. So?), might take the Shield Wall feat from Complete Warrior when available, probably uses a heavy shield and a battleaxe. If you insist that a Viking (or a Hun, as you said before) must take its levels in Barbarian and must have more skill in Profession (sailor) or Ride than it could get with them as a cross-class skill, take Skill Focus or look for one of the various ways to get another class skill. I don't really see how "Barbarians don't get Profession (sailor) or Ride" is a major flaw. It's stupid, sure, but it's not broken and effortless to change. It's certainly not as damaging to the ruleset as Polymorph, or even as Toughness and Weapon Focus being legitimate feats.

[Cainen]

Very competent players (or as I like to call them min-maxing-munchkins) tend to break the game by virtue of wishing to be OP...which 3.5 in conjuncture with all the books easily allows for.

You're not getting it. It's actually easy to break 3.5 by accident with the core rulebooks, thanks to the Cleric having spontaneous healing and the Druid having their animal companion and Wild Shape by level 5. To make it even worse, most of the counters to those characters work better on the characters they're outshining - Dispel Magic on the buffing Cleric? Probably a losing proposition, but if it works it'll put them down for a turn at best while they rebuff. Meanwhile, Dispel Magic on the Fighter's magic weapon has a much higher chance of success and nearly puts them out of the fight for 1d4 rounds. AMF? Hurts everyone and doesn't really solve anything because now it's just as much about them as it was before. Skill checks? Guess which two classes aren't the Fighter, and thus don't have the worst skill list in the game.

I don't have any idea how your concept of "minmaxer" came to be "Wizards who are not Evokers, also exactly how the Cleric and Druid were intended to be played."

It actually takes a LOT of work to weed out all of the gamebreaking things from 3.5 if you're evaluating on a case-by-case basis.

[Yuki Akuma]

*pops in*

Gandalf is not a Wizard! Gandalf is an angel!

*pops out*

[Eloel]

*pops in*

Gandalf is not a Wizard! Gandalf is an angel!

*pops out*

Solar, I'd say, in 3.5 terms.

With Alter Self, obviously.

[Tyndmyr]

Solar, I'd say, in 3.5 terms.

With Alter Self, obviously.

Most underpowered solar of all time.

[arrowhen]

Your basic shipload of Viking raiders is mostly Warriors, some Warrior/Experts and a couple of Fighters or Barbarians. None of them over 4th or 5th level.

[Goudaa]

You're not getting it. It's actually easy to break 3.5 by accident with the core rulebooks, thanks to the Cleric having spontaneous healing and the Druid having their animal companion and Wild Shape by level 5. To make it even worse, most of the counters to those characters work better on the characters they're outshining - Dispel Magic on the buffing Cleric? Probably a losing proposition, but if it works it'll put them down for a turn at best while they rebuff. Meanwhile, Dispel Magic on the Fighter's magic weapon has a much higher chance of success and nearly puts them out of the fight for 1d4 rounds. AMF? Hurts everyone and doesn't really solve anything because now it's just as much about them as it was before. Skill checks? Guess which two classes aren't the Fighter, and thus don't have the worst skill list in the game.

I don't have any idea how your concept of "minmaxer" came to be "Wizards who are not Evokers, also exactly how the Cleric and Druid were intended to be played."

It actually takes a LOT of work to weed out all of the gamebreaking things from 3.5 if you're evaluating on a case-by-case basis.

*shrug* i've played with people not very adept at the game and don't strive to min-max munchkin and honestly, the game was very simple and didn't seem extremely broken.

When I play with people that know all the ins and outs (as you sir seem to have a grander grasp) they exploit more and make sure wizard and cleric are near unstoppable.

I.E. my opinion is the less competent players tend to not break the game as easily.

Whatever it is you feel i'm not understanding is kosher in my book, I thought this thread was about opinion =)

[Frosty]

Okay, this is a (seemingly) fair point, so lets examine it a bit using the example of a wizard with a familiar using leadership to gain another wizard with another familiar for his cohort. When you first take leadership the first wizard (who will call Soren) is level 6 with a level 4 cohort (who we'll call Ilyana). Soren's level six familiar has, compared to Ilyana's familiar, the ability to speak with his master, 1 more point of AC and 1 more point of intelligence. Most people take a raven for their familiar specifically because it can speak a language, so the speak with master bit may very well be irrelevant. With that in mind Soren's familiar has +1 ac and +1 Int over Ilyana's familiar and can benefit from Soren's higher level buffs, provided he is within 5 feat and actually has something useful to accomplish by sharing his mirror image with a harmless bird who won't contribute much to the fight anyway. That +1 ac and +1 int only benefits Soren's familiar and has to compare to Ilyana's full casting resources for the day which are at a minimum 6 non 0 lvl spells (assuming the bare 12 intelligence needed to cast 2nd level spells. We can probably agree that a DM forcing a wizard cohort with 12 intelligence on a player is extremely ****ish, but that's the way some people are). That's +1 ac on something that should never be in combat anyway and +1 intelligence on a companion that doesn't actually gain skill points compared to two extra castings of alter self on the party beat sticks and four extra mage armors granting +4 AC to people who actually need it. As levels go up Ilyana's casting potency will increase dramatically with new spells, more spells per day, and free scaling on several of her spell affects. Soren's familiar will mostly just get +1 AC and +1 Int every other level, things that only help the familiar and even then only give a marginal boost in power at best. A few of the higher level familiar abilities are nifty but not all that important. Furthermore, these abilities can only really be counted in the familiars favor for two levels before Ilyana catches up and her own familiar gains the same abilities. This is also assuming that Soren stays a single class wizard. Most Wizards PRC out between levels 5 and 7 meaning that Soren's familiar will simply stagnate from that point on.
See, if Soren's player were smart, he'd get Paladin or Knight or Crusader cohort named Titania instead :smallbiggrin:

These things are so basic I don't understand how you could try to argue them and expect to be taken seriously.On topic, you're NOT supposed to take Sir Giacomo seriously on this kinda topic (or on Monks) (or on UMD)

Say Sir Gia, what would you say is the Knowledge (arcana) DC to know of all the useful spells up through 4th level?

[Susano-wo]

Nerd quibble: Gandalf is not underpowered, he has limiters. The Maiar known as "Wizards" are expressly forbidden from using the full extent of their powers, lest they break the world:smallamused:

Also, I'd agree that unbalanced is a sliding scale, and the point at which a game system is broken is very YMMV.

Finally, no the system is not set up to create a viking. Can you do it? sure, at first level even, as people have pointed out. But its not an archtype the game tries to simulate. The barbarian really is besically Movie Conan. But with 'rage' (Adrenaline rush or something would be a better de3scription, but hey...:smalltongue:). Not sure that that really proves anything, though:smallconfused:

[Psyren]

Gandalf is pretty damn powerful even with limiters. He blinded an entire army, no save. He soloed a Balrog. He has martial weapon proficiency and ranks in Ride, and nigh-unbeatable AC in cloth. Dude is hardcore.



The mode of play is being forced by the player, not by the class. But this is a systemic problem with D&D. It's one of the reasons I've come to despise the game. It really did set roleplaying games back by twenty years. Next time i play D&D, it's going to be a heavily house ruled version of BECMI.


If you have to buy a splatbook to make a gme work, you may as well buy a different game. Preferably one that comes in a self contained starter book, rather than having to buy three hefty tomes plus a splat just to be able to play the game.

Seriously, D&D ain't all that.


I wouldn't say it's particularly easy to play. You're looking at a minimum of three books, each of around 300 pages, before you can actually play the game. Compare that to most RPGs having one book being all you need to get started.

I'm sensing a pattern here...

[Soren Hero]

I think core is broken because it is easily exploitable RAW. Combos come to my mind. for example, cast genesis (with a really fast time trait, like 6 seconds material plane=9 hours demiplane) and you now have a hyperbolic time chamber (like in DBZ) where a wizard can planeshift during a fight, rest, recoup spells, and planeshift back into the fight. this is debatable RAW, because Genesis doesn't definitively say whether you can or can't determine the flow of time in your demiplane. there's also the wall of iron and fabricate combo, which lets you, essentially, make lots of money for free. also, planar-binding an efreeti and using wish to create a simulacrum of itself that serves you. and some spells in and of themselves are broken RAW: case in point, simulacrum. 5000 xp to create a copy of any creature, which is completely under your control, way too awesome (using wish negates the XP cost btw)

[Starbuck_II]

*pops in*

Gandalf is not a Wizard! Gandalf is an angel!

*pops out*

Ghaele Eldarin works really good. They don't have armor proficiency. They have SLA arcane spells (Chain lightning, etc). Cleric casting for extra benefits.

[awa]

clerics have powerful self only buffs righteous might divine power.
sure the fighter has more feats then the cleric but most of those feats arnt very good (in core) particularly at high levels because the feats don't really get stronger as the fighter gains levels but the clerics spells do.
so the cleric is superior to the fighter plus he can do other things as well.
just because the cleric could deliberately go out of his way to make the fighter think hes usefully with tons of buff does not change the fact that the party would be vastly better off with a second cleric.

An even stronger example is the druid he has an animal companion which is almost as strong as the fighter right from the get go. and the druid can be a bear and be as tough as the fighter to so a druid is nearly twice as good as fighting as a fighter. when you take into account the druids buffs affect both the druid and his companion its obvious that buffing himself is far more efficient than casting them on that guy who hangs out with them.

and on top of all that the druid can do stuff other than just fight which is all a fighter can do in fact i would be willing to say that at certain levels a druid is more useful than 2 core fighters.

[Da Beast]

See, if Soren's player were smart, he'd get Paladin or Knight or Crusader cohort named Titania instead :smallbiggrin:

Aha, you've spotted my reference! A cookie for you, good sir :smallsmile:

[Frosty]

Aha, you've spotted my reference! A cookie for you, good sir :smallsmile:
I never played the game, but I love Fire Emblem so I knew some of the characters at least. Although I don't really see Titania wanting to be Soren's cohort. They'd argue too much...

[nyarlathotep]

*shrug* i've played with people not very adept at the game and don't strive to min-max munchkin and honestly, the game was very simple and didn't seem extremely broken.

When I play with people that know all the ins and outs (as you sir seem to have a grander grasp) they exploit more and make sure wizard and cleric are near unstoppable.

I.E. my opinion is the less competent players tend to not break the game as easily.

Whatever it is you feel i'm not understanding is kosher in my book, I thought this thread was about opinion =)

I think it's more accurate to say that core is unbalanced. There is no single book in D&D that is broken but several that are unbalanced and that lack of balance started with the core books.

If I were to take stab at it though I'd say the unbalancing factors are primarily the power of higher levels spells and the enormous amount of hit points at higher levels. Those are the two largest paradigm shifts from 2nd ed and while 2nd ed wasn't a paragon of balance either it was much closer than 3E.

[Saph]

I never played the game, but I love Fire Emblem so I knew some of the characters at least. Although I don't really see Titania wanting to be Soren's cohort. They'd argue too much...

I made the two of them an NPC pair in the last campaign I ran. The PCs made friends with them, and Soren and Titania ended up running the PCs' castle/mercenary army while the PCs went off on missions. Soren was a Beguiler, Titania a Warblade/Fighter with the Mounted Combat feats, and I turned Ilyana into an Artificer. :smallbiggrin:

[Zore]

I made the two of them an NPC pair in the last campaign I ran. The PCs made friends with them, and Soren and Titania ended up running the PCs' castle/mercenary army while the PCs went off on missions. Soren was a Beguiler, Titania a Warblade/Fighter with the Mounted Combat feats, and I turned Ilyana into an Artificer. :smallbiggrin:

Soren wasn't a Warmage? :smallconfused:

[Saph]

Soren wasn't a Warmage? :smallconfused:

High Int/low Cha suited his personality better. He always came across to me as more of a strategist/exploiter of enemy weaknesses rather than a blaster.

[Tvtyrant]

Nerd quibble: Gandalf is not underpowered, he has limiters. The Maiar known as "Wizards" are expressly forbidden from using the full extent of their powers, lest they break the world:smallamused:

Also, I'd agree that unbalanced is a sliding scale, and the point at which a game system is broken is very YMMV.

Finally, no the system is not set up to create a viking. Can you do it? sure, at first level even, as people have pointed out. But its not an archtype the game tries to simulate. The barbarian really is besically Movie Conan. But with 'rage' (Adrenaline rush or something would be a better de3scription, but hey...:smalltongue:). Not sure that that really proves anything, though:smallconfused:

...The wizards were still capable of ridic amounts of power. They weren't allowed to act like the demi-gods/angels they were, but Gandalf kills an angel of the same level as himself in a straight fight when it was using its powers and he wasn't. Gandalf with his Maiar powers would be Sauron level, which would mean they would have a giant show down in the middle of Gondor, and Gandalf would learn Sauron some respect.

[SurlySeraph]

If that's true, why did someone who semi-died to save his companions refuse to use his power, causing countless men of Gondor and Rohan to die in battle and letting the hobbits risk horrible death trying to sneak the ring to Mount Doom? Hell, why didn't they just have a single unrestrained Maiar skip on over, beat up Sauron, and go home? Putting five wizards around the world (one of whom is corrupted, causes numerous deaths and creates abominations, and later is killed by midgets with bows) sounds like a pretty terrible plan compared to that.

[Eldariel]

If that's true, why did someone who semi-died to save his companions refuse to use his power, causing countless men of Gondor and Rohan to die in battle and letting the hobbits risk horrible death trying to sneak the ring to Mount Doom? Hell, why didn't they just have a single unrestrained Maiar skip on over, beat up Sauron, and go home? Putting five wizards around the world (one of whom is corrupted, causes numerous deaths and creates abominations, and later is killed by midgets with bows) sounds like a pretty terrible plan compared to that.

They sorta did that back in the whole Morgoth-deal. It didn't work out that well. The whole point of the third age was teaching the Middle Earth folk to handle such evils themselves. Though it is also stated that Sauron was a maia of a higher order than the Istari; had they fought, Sauron would most likely have kicked Olorin's ass. But yeah, when Mystra tells a Wizard to behave, a Wizard behaves. Sorta same deal here; the Vala forbade the Istari from...y'know, breaking the world (just read Silmarillion; after the whole deal with Angband the scenery changed quite a bit).

Then again, with most of his power tied to the ring, it's unclear if he was even capable of fighting. But it's shown that he dominated Saruman mentally through the Palantír and Gandalf answers "I am Gandalf the White. But Black is still stronger." or something to that effect when someone (may have been Pippin during the long ride) inquires if he can just waltz in and smack Sauron across the countryside.


And of course, Arda is a world where greater beings are suspectible to numerous lesser beings. An innumerable army simply has a greater "might" than an individual.

[Chambers]

Core is not broken.

Mostly just many of the rules interpretations out there are.

And some broken RAW loopholes exist in theory, but could normally never happen in practice (e.g. Gate/inifinite wishes), simply because they would require massive metagaming and/or be prevented by npc behaviour.

- Giacomo

Sir Giacomo

Core is broken.

The reason it is broken is because the class features of different classes are not worth the same. A Fighters feats is not worth the same as the Wizards spells, because spells are better than feats.

That is how the game was designed. There are any number of spells you can use to illustrate this. Gate is more powerful than a feat. Fly is more powerful than a feat. Dominate Person is more powerful than a feat. Summon / Conjure Anything is more powerful than a feat.

The fact that spells are more powerful than feats is undeniable. Therefore, the classes that get the most powerful class feature (spells) will be more powerful than classes that get a far weaker class feature (feats).

The only way that other classes can mechanically compete with the most powerful classes is to get and wear magic items that duplicate spells. Wings of Flying. Cloaks of Resistance. Magic Armor & Weapons. The spellcasting classes get the real things as class features - everyone else buys them as magic items.

---

Another way to explain it.

Core is broken because the most powerful classes are designed to be the most powerful. If a player plays the class as RAW, it will outshine the non-spellcasting classes. For the sake of balance the game system demands that the most powerful classes be played without maximizing their potential.

When it's necessary for a player to tone down his RAW & Core character class in order to not completely overshadow another RAW & Core character class, the system is broken.

[bloodtide]

I'm not sure about the 'spellcasters' are all powerful in Core D&D. 20th level fighters are powerful. It come by how you rate powerful.

I've gamed in thousands of games. It's rare for me to encounter an all powerful spellcaster. And the reason is simple, players are humans. Most players don't take 24/7 of their life to make an uber spellcaster. They just make normal spellcasters. It's not a rule that the spellcaster must be all powerful. So the spellcaster has a couple spells to cast for a couple rounds, but the fighter can fight all day.

No modern day gamer(especially those under 30) who is a advocate of brokenness would make it in a classic dungeon. In Ye Old Days, the adventuring group would be in the dungeon for (game and real) hours. So even if a spellcaster went 'nova' a couple times...the adventure would still continue for several hours before the group rested. So a spellcaster had to save up their spells. Many modern gamers want only a maximum of four encounters that they can nova blast through a day, then they immediately demand to rest. A spellcaster in a classic mindset game had to be able to cast spells all day.


Most so-called broken things in core are just there because of lazy, bored and uninterested DM's. The easy way to 'mend broken' is to up the power of the game. The 'broken tricks' that work so well vs 0 level human guards, don't work so well vs 10th level vrock rogue/warlocks. There is always a bigger fish.

[The Mentalist]

If that's true, why did someone who semi-died to save his companions refuse to use his power, causing countless men of Gondor and Rohan to die in battle and letting the hobbits risk horrible death trying to sneak the ring to Mount Doom? Hell, why didn't they just have a single unrestrained Maiar skip on over, beat up Sauron, and go home? Putting five wizards around the world (one of whom is corrupted, causes numerous deaths and creates abominations, and later is killed by midgets with bows) sounds like a pretty terrible plan compared to that.

The answer to this and all other questions is "It would have sucked!"

If I remember right the Valar didn't let the Maiar interfer directly because they wanted mortals to control their own destinies or something like that.

[Tvtyrant]

They sorta did that back in the whole Morgoth-deal. It didn't work out that well. The whole point of the third age was teaching the Middle Earth folk to handle such evils themselves. Though it is also stated that Sauron was a maia of a higher order than the Istari; had they fought, Sauron would most likely have kicked Olorin's ass. But yeah, when Mystra tells a Wizard to behave, a Wizard behaves. Sorta same deal here; the Vala forbade the Istari from...y'know, breaking the world (just read Silmarillion; after the whole deal with Angband the scenery changed quite a bit).

Then again, with most of his power tied to the ring, it's unclear if he was even capable of fighting. But it's shown that he dominated Saruman mentally through the Palantír and Gandalf answers "I am Gandalf the White. But Black is still stronger." or something to that effect when someone (may have been Pippin during the long ride) inquires if he can just waltz in and smack Sauron across the countryside.


And of course, Arda is a world where greater beings are suspectible to numerous lesser beings. An innumerable army simply has a greater "might" than an individual.

And the whole point of the story is that evil is more powerful individually, and good gets its strength from unity. Morgoth once took on the entire pantheon of gods in a wrestling match by himself, and Sauron was stated to be the strongest servant of Morgoth. There is a scene in the Quenta where Finglofin, the strongest elf lord ever is killed by Morgoth, and Morgoth does it by crushing him under his shield. Evil is crazy strong, it just spends most of its time killing other evil things.

[olentu]

I'm not sure about the 'spellcasters' are all powerful in Core D&D. 20th level fighters are powerful. It come by how you rate powerful.

I've gamed in thousands of games. It's rare for me to encounter an all powerful spellcaster. And the reason is simple, players are humans. Most players don't take 24/7 of their life to make an uber spellcaster. They just make normal spellcasters. It's not a rule that the spellcaster must be all powerful. So the spellcaster has a couple spells to cast for a couple rounds, but the fighter can fight all day.

No modern day gamer(especially those under 30) who is a advocate of brokenness would make it in a classic dungeon. In Ye Old Days, the adventuring group would be in the dungeon for (game and real) hours. So even if a spellcaster went 'nova' a couple times...the adventure would still continue for several hours before the group rested. So a spellcaster had to save up their spells. Many modern gamers want only a maximum of four encounters that they can nova blast through a day, then they immediately demand to rest. A spellcaster in a classic mindset game had to be able to cast spells all day.


Most so-called broken things in core are just there because of lazy, bored and uninterested DM's. The easy way to 'mend broken' is to up the power of the game. The 'broken tricks' that work so well vs 0 level human guards, don't work so well vs 10th level vrock rogue/warlocks. There is always a bigger fish.

I must play much more challenging games then you since generally spellcasters need to cast spells or everyone dies.

[Morithias]

Conclusion I have reached after researching this concept of "broken".

Items truly has no traits of their own besides physical ones. A gun is not evil. A vaccine for a virus is not good. A Dnd book is not broken.

Core is broken, because we use it in a way that makes it broken. It is not flat out broken by itself, but in the way it is used.

A dictatorship if ruled by a moral, just, and wise person resistance to corruption in every way is, in theory better than a democracy.

In short.

A. Core is not broken by itself.
B. The players break it.
C. When we use it for "UNLIMITED POOOOOOWER" instead of playing a fun game.
D. By abusing the game in ways it wasn't meant to be done.

Yes, one can abuse glitches to beat Ocarina of Time only doing 2 of the adult dungeons, but that doesn't mean the game is bad or broken.

It means the player isn't playing it the 'right' way. That's a whole another debate, but with the exception of the most extreme munchkin, I don't think there's really a person who plays games for the enjoyment of playing them that can they think abusing a glitch to skip 80% of the game is 'proper' so to speak.

{Scrubbed}

[Tvtyrant]

I must play much more challenging games then you since generally spellcasters need to cast spells or everyone dies.

I think your using different versions of "hard." Sounds like he is advocating twenty encounter days, while your advocating a few really hard encounters.

[Godless_Paladin]

I think it's important to distinguish "Unbalanced" and "Broken." When I think Broken, I think Campaign Smashers List from the old CharOp boards. Diplomancy kicked it pretty damn early for a core bard, and that was on there next to Pun Pun. :smallwink:

That said, just plain glaringly unbalanced stuff breaks out at level 1, but it gets significantly worse as you go. What point you consider that "broken" depends on your definition of broken.

[olentu]

I think your using different versions of "hard." Sounds like he is advocating twenty encounter days, while your advocating a few really hard encounters.

Oh I got that but I still don't find 20 encounters weak enough to be auto attacked to death by the fighter/barbarian/druid and his animal companion to be difficult.

[Tyndmyr]

I'm not sure about the 'spellcasters' are all powerful in Core D&D. 20th level fighters are powerful. It come by how you rate powerful.

I've gamed in thousands of games. It's rare for me to encounter an all powerful spellcaster. And the reason is simple, players are humans. Most players don't take 24/7 of their life to make an uber spellcaster. They just make normal spellcasters. It's not a rule that the spellcaster must be all powerful. So the spellcaster has a couple spells to cast for a couple rounds, but the fighter can fight all day.

No modern day gamer(especially those under 30) who is a advocate of brokenness would make it in a classic dungeon. In Ye Old Days, the adventuring group would be in the dungeon for (game and real) hours. So even if a spellcaster went 'nova' a couple times...the adventure would still continue for several hours before the group rested. So a spellcaster had to save up their spells. Many modern gamers want only a maximum of four encounters that they can nova blast through a day, then they immediately demand to rest. A spellcaster in a classic mindset game had to be able to cast spells all day.

Most so-called broken things in core are just there because of lazy, bored and uninterested DM's. The easy way to 'mend broken' is to up the power of the game. The 'broken tricks' that work so well vs 0 level human guards, don't work so well vs 10th level vrock rogue/warlocks. There is always a bigger fish.

Has been proven time and again, endurance is not a challenge to a high level wizard.

1. At level 20, he'll have 36 spells(not counting cantrips) per day.
2. Oh dear me, he gets bonus spells for having int. All wizards have int. Tack another 15 or so spells on that.
3. Specialization is awesome. Tack on another 9.
4. Focused specialist is even more awesome. Tack on another 9.
5. Scribe Scroll is a class feature. Tack on as many as he feels like carrying.

So, before we even get to scrolls, or things castable from the many items the wizard has accumulated throughout his career to this point, we're looking at something like 70 spells per day.

That fifth encounter is not gonna make him run dry. Nor is the tenth.

Edit: Since you did say casters, not merely wizards, let look at the endurance of the other primary casters.
Sorc, can compete with a focused specialist wizard on spellpower. Not likely to run dry.
Druid. Also has lots of spells. Will also spend a significant amount of time shifted, ripping faces off. Has an animal companion kicking around for the lulz. Not terribly worried about running dry on spells.
Cleric. Well, a clericzilla tops a fighter via buffs. Thing is, when you're cramming ridiculous amounts of encounters into a day, you end up having buffs last through multiple encounters. Delightful. Nope, not going to worry about running dry either.

Fighter. Oddly enough, hp do run out. Unlike the others mentioned, he lacks access to handy healing magic, and item use is generally limited to potions. So, unless you count on achieving balance by guilting the casters into burning their resources on him so he can keep up, he'll be the first one running on empty.

[Eldariel]

And the whole point of the story is that evil is more powerful individually, and good gets its strength from unity. Morgoth once took on the entire pantheon of gods in a wrestling match by himself, and Sauron was stated to be the strongest servant of Morgoth. There is a scene in the Quenta where Finglofin, the strongest elf lord ever is killed by Morgoth, and Morgoth does it by crushing him under his shield. Evil is crazy strong, it just spends most of its time killing other evil things.

Well, that's more of the few evil beings; the story kinda requires for Morgoth to be insanely strong since he's basically the only evil entity in the beginning in the world, which means he'll have to offset the power of all the other deities to provide a truly worthwhile villain. But still in story, I don't recall Morgoth truly willing or capable to take on Tulkas, for example (certainly not Tulkas and Aulë). Though yeah, his strength was not in combat like Tulkas's which kind of explains that. But still, the whole Silmarillion is a bunch of stories of good (or "good"; hard to use that word on Noldor for example) individuals with similar capabilities to the great evils.

And when we get a bit lower in the creation, Orcs were certainly no match for Elves or Trolls for Ents. And heck, Elves were capable of defeating Balrogs and Dragons. So while the evil deities at the very top (mostly Melkor and Sauron) were insanely strong comparatively, the evil creatures were lesser than whatever they were perversions of and mostly thrived on power of numbers.

[Tvtyrant]

Well, that's more of the few evil beings; the story kinda requires for Morgoth to be insanely strong since he's basically the only evil entity in the beginning in the world, which means he'll have to offset the power of all the other deities to provide a truly worthwhile villain. But still in story, I don't recall Morgoth truly willing or capable to take on Tulkas, for example (certainly not Tulkas and Aulë). Though yeah, his strength was not in combat like Tulkas's which kind of explains that. But still, the whole Silmarillion is a bunch of stories of good (or "good"; hard to use that word on Noldor for example) individuals with similar capabilities to the great evils.

And when we get a bit lower in the creation, Orcs were certainly no match for Elves or Trolls for Ents. And heck, Elves were capable of defeating Balrogs and Dragons. So while the evil deities at the very top (mostly Melkor and Sauron) were insanely strong comparatively, the evil creatures were lesser than whatever they were perversions of and mostly thrived on power of numbers.

But orcs ARE elves :P

And it says straight up after the lamps thing that all of the gods grab him together; Tulkas joined them because Morgoth was to difficult for the rest to beat him combined. I don't have a copy with me at the moment, because mine is at home safe while I'm at the dorms, but there are several passages that refer to Morgoth as being the flat out strongest being in existence after the big one.

However in a general sense I agree with you, the evil army tends to be shown as giant waves of troops ala the hot gates.

[Chambers]

...

In short.

A. Core is not broken by itself.
B. The players break it.
C. When we use it for "UNLIMITED POOOOOOWER" instead of playing a fun game.
D. By abusing the game in ways it wasn't meant to be done.

...

Shut up about balance and broken crap, and learn to restrain yourselves. Just because you have a weapon doesn't mean you have to use it.

So a Wizard shouldn't use the spells that are printed in the Players Handbook because those spells unbalance the game? That is definition of broken. Asking the players to restrict themselves from using the material in Core is an argument for how Core is broken - not an argument against it.

My argument is that the brokenness of Core lies in the discrepancy between the class features. If the Fighter got abilities that were equal in power to the Wizards spells, then the game would be more balanced.

Here is what I mean. Please list the feats that a Fighter can take, from Core, that equals the power of these Core spells.


Gate. Summon a powerful creature and force it to do your bidding.
Time Stop. Exactly what it says.
Wish. Alter reality, with a few restrictions.


These spells are in Core, not some obscure sourcebook that a player bought to have ULTIMATE POWER. These are the Core class features of the Wizard. These spells (as class features) are orders of magnitude more powerful than the class features of the fighter (feats). It is hard for me to imagine how you can deny this.

[Psyren]

You don't even have to get to 9th-level to make casters ridiculous. Polymorph. Forcecage. Blasphemy line. Bigsby's line. Enervation. And that's just combat; the social applications are just as numerous.

*all are core of course

[BeholderSlayer]

You don't even have to get to 9th-level to make casters ridiculous. Polymorph. Forcecage. Blasphemy line. Bigsby's line. Enervation. And that's just combat; the social applications are just as numerous.

*all are core of course

You don't even have to go that far. The game literally completely breaks down at level 7.

[OracleofWuffing]

You don't even have to go that far. The game literally completely breaks down at level 7.

... Given that my 3.5 PHB is still in one piece after playing a post-level 7 campaign (and I would know given the amount of times it has been thrown at me), I think you mean that it figuratively breaks down.

Otherwise, we'd all have to buy new tables each week! :smalltongue:

Obligatory (http://xkcd.com/725/).

[Tyndmyr]

You don't even have to go that far. The game literally completely breaks down at level 7.

It can. That's probably the early end of the range. I've seen core only games make it past level 10 before running into the issue, depending on classes involved and such. If nobody actually picks sorc, wizard, or druid, and the cleric hasn't yet figured out the glories of spont healing, it can actually work for a while.

But it's temporary. Eventually the differences will be apparent, as the monk wonders why he can never hit, and other players happen across broken bits. The exact point probably varies a lot depending on group, but it is immensely hard to play to level 20 without accidentally running into a huge power gap.

[Tvtyrant]

A ranger using the wildshape variant rules could probably escape being relegated to the back, but most classes end up sitting on their hands (looking at you bard; shame on you for peaking at level 3!)

[Eldariel]

And it says straight up after the lamps thing that all of the gods grab him together; Tulkas joined them because Morgoth was to difficult for the rest to beat him combined. I don't have a copy with me at the moment, because mine is at home safe while I'm at the dorms, but there are several passages that refer to Morgoth as being the flat out strongest being in existence after the big one.

Yeah, I remember that but after Melkor was first thrown out, it is stated Melkor only dared to re-enter when Tulkas was distracted. And when Melkor fled Valinor after destroying the trees, it was Tulkas alone who was sent to detain him. Of course Melkor eluded capture but stands to reason that if he was able, he'd have beaten up the only reason he couldn't take out the rest of the Valar right then and there. And when the Elves awoke, it was Tulkas (with Aulë) who ultimately wrestled Melkor to submission.

But yeah, I understand combat was Tulkas's only power while Melkor was pretty much the Next After Eru in terms of power, with all of Eru's knowledge (while other Valar only had what belonged to their domain).


Buut, I think this is a big enough aside for now.

[Jolly]

Some of the broken comes only in TO play. Some comes only in poor/generous/favoring Tier X rules interpretation. Some comes from a small handful of items and spells. Some (a lot) comes from people with no idea of or regard for the social contract.

But, really, this discussion misses the point. DnD is and always has been a patently absurd system. Let's just stick to 3.x since that seems to be the basis of this discussion.

It takes just as much time, effort, and resource allocation to become fluent (reading and writing) a totally alien language spoken by creatures with utterly different vocal organs as it does to become slightly better at jumping over things. You gain the resources needed to learn more languages by killing things.

The more things you kill, the better you become at hitting things with a stick, even if you're a caster who has never struck another living being during the leveling experience.

The number of things you kill and how tough they are is the sole determiner of how much "experience" you gain. "Hey guys, I killed a bunch of really mean bad guys this weekend, now I'm ready to learn another 5 languages."

And those aren't the only resources derived from killing things. You spend a couple years killing things with a sword, and suddenly you can get impaled by a whaling harpoon and it's only a fraction of your total health. You get to the point where the fact that you've spent a couple years killing things with a sword means that you can set yourself on fire and it's no big deal.

Heck, it takes special magical enhancement to make it so that when you get hit with that big ole axe, you continue to bleed! If you go into DnD trying to break it, or getting fussy about your "character concept" then yes it sucks. If you play it for what it is, a silly game designed to let people get together and have fun, it works ok.

Are there serious issues in 3.x? Absolutely. Anything that can't be circumvented with a bit of maturity, consideration, cooperation, and of course rule 0? No. Does the fact that it can be rule 0'ed mean it's ok? Not at all, still bad design. However, the imperfections in the system are just a necessary evil for this time of game. No system is perfect or able to resist abuse. All have strengths and weaknesses. DnD certainly has a lot of the latter. But some of the angst in this thread is just.... comical.

Edit: just for me, as a personal preference, I want a world where magic is magical and powerful, more so than being able to hit things hard. Mechanical balance, to me, precludes some of the things I love most about fantasy. And of course for a break I also like low magic world's where spell choice is limited through scarcity of other casters. DnD takes this too far at higher levels imho, but really I don't think perfect mechanical balance is necessarily desirable. More balanced than it is now would be good, but total equality is not something I want, personally.

[Kaldrin]

To me the balance issue is that classes with a lot of power are also given a lot of other abilities. I've thought about it and I would start with unequal progression. Casters might need 3x or 4x more xp to level up. Fighters can be late teens when the spell casters are just entering the teens. Make all skills class skills and give everyone 4 or 6 + int mod.

Stop with the one catch-all to prevent melee types from being more effective. Crit immunity, I'm looking at you. Give fighters a mastery talent that lets them do more damage per round akin to the rogue sneak attack. Last game we played in a one-off the rogue actually did more melee damage than the fighter. WTF? They should at the very least be comparable.

Anyway, those are some of my thoughts.

[Morithias]

So a Wizard shouldn't use the spells that are printed in the Players Handbook because those spells unbalance the game? That is definition of broken. Asking the players to restrict themselves from using the material in Core is an argument for how Core is broken - not an argument against it.

My argument is that the brokenness of Core lies in the discrepancy between the class features. If the Fighter got abilities that were equal in power to the Wizards spells, then the game would be more balanced.

Here is what I mean. Please list the feats that a Fighter can take, from Core, that equals the power of these Core spells.


Gate. Summon a powerful creature and force it to do your bidding.
Time Stop. Exactly what it says.
Wish. Alter reality, with a few restrictions.


These spells are in Core, not some obscure sourcebook that a player bought to have ULTIMATE POWER. These are the Core class features of the Wizard. These spells (as class features) are orders of magnitude more powerful than the class features of the fighter (feats). It is hard for me to imagine how you can deny this.

Well for one Gate and Wish cost xp. Plus there's a ton of ways a DM could easily shut that down.

Gate states that a "unique being" cannot be controlled. Well if you want to get technical no two beings are 100% alike and one can easily argue that therefore any creature that doesn't have a non-existence intelligence score is unique, even if the others are only unique on a mental level.

Wish...seriously? Literal Genie much? Jackass Genie more? Face it, if you're using that spell and ruining the other's fun the DM can EASILY screw you over. Not to mention the Xp cost on both spells.

Time Stop is a tad harder to work if you don't know how speed works. Since it does not actually stop time but actually speeds everything up to the point where the others are frozen. Well aging much? One can easily argue that casting the spell ages the mage a fair bit. In hackmaster all 3 of these spells actually do age you 5 years. Gate spam? Well, hope you enjoy dying of old age.

[Mystic Muse]

Well for one Gate and Wish cost xp. Plus there's a ton of ways a DM could easily shut that down.

Gate states that a "unique being" cannot be controlled. Well if you want to get technical no two beings are 100% alike and one can easily argue that therefore any creature that doesn't have a non-existence intelligence score is unique, even if the others are only unique on a mental level. While the spell needs fixing this is a pretty bad way of doing it. If you're going to do this, you should just ban if before it gets on somebody's spell list.


Wish...seriously? Literal Genie much? Jackass Genie more? Face it, if you're using that spell and ruining the other's fun the DM can EASILY screw you over. Not to mention the Xp cost on both spells. There are plenty of things on the wish spell that are considered safe and can still break the game. While the player would be a jerk for trying to destroy his DM's campaign, the DM would also be a jerk for not explaining that isn't the way wish works in his campaign before hand.



Time Stop is a tad harder to work if you don't know how speed works. Since it does not actually stop time but actually speeds everything up to the point where the others are frozen. Well aging much? One can easily argue that casting the spell ages the mage a fair bit. In hackmaster all 3 of these spells actually do age you 5 years. Gate spam? Well, hope you enjoy dying of old age.
Then the player should be aware of this. Once again, if the player is trying to abuse this, they're being a jerk. If the DM doesn't tell you that's how the spell functions before you use it, so are they.

[olentu]

Well for one Gate and Wish cost xp. Plus there's a ton of ways a DM could easily shut that down.

Gate states that a "unique being" cannot be controlled. Well if you want to get technical no two beings are 100% alike and one can easily argue that therefore any creature that doesn't have a non-existence intelligence score is unique, even if the others are only unique on a mental level.

Wish...seriously? Literal Genie much? Jackass Genie more? Face it, if you're using that spell and ruining the other's fun the DM can EASILY screw you over. Not to mention the Xp cost on both spells.

Time Stop is a tad harder to work if you don't know how speed works. Since it does not actually stop time but actually speeds everything up to the point where the others are frozen. Well aging much? One can easily argue that casting the spell ages the mage a fair bit. In hackmaster all 3 of these spells actually do age you 5 years. Gate spam? Well, hope you enjoy dying of old age.

Shall I say needing to modify the rules to fix their brokenness rather means they are broken.

[Morithias]

Shall I say needing to modify the rules to fix their brokenness rather means they are broken.

The rules themselves are poorly written, but not broken in themselves. As I said before, they would be no problem if people showed restraint.

People constantly complain, almost everyone on here has complained at some point about monks, La, wizards, fighters, tob, etc.

Has it really never occurred to anyone to just...stop using it? Or use it more wisely? Like maybe using a time stop spell to delay a series of buff spells instead of summoning 4 solars. Or using the gate spell for it planar shift use instead of a dues ex machina. Or maybe not using wish for breaking the game, and rather for fixing stuff that would normally be beyond fixing. Like say restoring the city that just got genocided by the Big Bad's Supernova Expy attack.

[olentu]

The rules themselves are poorly written, but not broken in themselves. As I said before, they would be no problem if people showed restraint.

People constantly complain, almost everyone on here has complained at some point about monks, La, wizards, fighters, tob, etc.

Has it really never occurred to anyone to just...stop using it? Or use it more wisely? Like maybe using a time stop spell to delay a series of buff spells instead of summoning 4 solars. Or using the gate spell for it planar shift use instead of a dues ex machina. Or maybe not using wish for breaking the game, and rather for fixing stuff that would normally be beyond fixing. Like say restoring the city that just got genocided by the Big Bad's Supernova Expy attack.

I think not using the broken rules to break the game has occurred to many people. But you know having to choose not to use some of the rules because they will break the game rather means that those rules are broken.

[nyarlathotep]

The rules themselves are poorly written, but not broken in themselves. As I said before, they would be no problem if people showed restraint.

People constantly complain, almost everyone on here has complained at some point about monks, La, wizards, fighters, tob, etc.

Has it really never occurred to anyone to just...stop using it? Or use it more wisely? Like maybe using a time stop spell to delay a series of buff spells instead of summoning 4 solars. Or using the gate spell for it planar shift use instead of a dues ex machina. Or maybe not using wish for breaking the game, and rather for fixing stuff that would normally be beyond fixing. Like say restoring the city that just got genocided by the Big Bad's Supernova Expy attack.

Most of the core is unbalanced talk is actually reactionary. Specifically it's reactionary to the crowd that says 3.5 is only unbalanced due to splatbooks. The argument is that splatbooks don't make 3.5 unbalanced it is inherently unbalanced.

As for why don't they just stop using it. Well if you want truly balanced D&D you don't use it. People willfully taking weaker options to maintain balance does not mean the system is balanced.

Additionally it is possible to have balanced D&D your classes just only come from the following books Tome of Magic, Tome of Battle, and Expanded Psionic Handbook, though even then truenamers and soul knives should be ignored.

[ranagrande]

I think Core is actually balanced fairly well...

... if you're playing E6.

[Frosty]

I made the two of them an NPC pair in the last campaign I ran. The PCs made friends with them, and Soren and Titania ended up running the PCs' castle/mercenary army while the PCs went off on missions. Soren was a Beguiler, Titania a Warblade/Fighter with the Mounted Combat feats, and I turned Ilyana into an Artificer. :smallbiggrin:
If you're using Pathfinder, Titania should just flat out be a Cavalier, and either Order of the Shield or Order of the Dragon.

On topic: 2e had uneven experience tables. That didn't make 2e balanced either.

[dsmiles]

There are plenty of things on the wish spell that are considered safe and can still break the game. While the player would be a jerk for trying to destroy his DM's campaign, the DM would also be a jerk for not explaining that isn't the way wish works in his campaign before hand.

See, I've never felt the need to state that Wish, in my campaigns, is based on the intent of the caster. You cast it yourself, fine, no problem. Get somebody else to cast it, or get/force a supernatural being to use their SLA, on the other hand...(cue dramatic music)...anything goes.

[Chambers]

Well for one Gate and Wish cost xp. Plus there's a ton of ways a DM could easily shut that down.

Gate states that a "unique being" cannot be controlled. Well if you want to get technical no two beings are 100% alike and one can easily argue that therefore any creature that doesn't have a non-existence intelligence score is unique, even if the others are only unique on a mental level.

Wish...seriously? Literal Genie much? Jackass Genie more? Face it, if you're using that spell and ruining the other's fun the DM can EASILY screw you over. Not to mention the Xp cost on both spells.

Time Stop is a tad harder to work if you don't know how speed works. Since it does not actually stop time but actually speeds everything up to the point where the others are frozen. Well aging much? One can easily argue that casting the spell ages the mage a fair bit. In hackmaster all 3 of these spells actually do age you 5 years. Gate spam? Well, hope you enjoy dying of old age.

Your description of Gate is Raw As I Want It To Be. Arguing over the meaning of a phrase that isn't in question (unique individuals), you're reducing yourself to arguing over specifics because you can't argue the big picture. The same with Wish. There are strict RAW uses for Wish that don't screw the character over.

Your argument of aging for Time Stop is another RAIWITB. It doesn't mention aging at all. We are not talking about Hackmaster - we're talking about Core D&D.

EDIT:

Furthermore, you didn't answer the question I asked. Please list the feats that equal the power level of these spells. I am not asking you to re-interpret the spells - I'm asking you to find feats that are the equivalent of the spells as they are actually written, not as how you want them to work.

[ranagrande]

Furthermore, you didn't answer the question I asked. Please list the feats that equal the power level of these spells. I am not asking you to re-interpret the spells - I'm asking you to find feats that are the equivalent of the spells as they are actually written, not as how you want them to work.

The aforementioned Leadership is probably the only core feat in that power range.

[SparkMandriller]

Has it really never occurred to anyone to just...stop using it?

So you think the only way a spell can be broken is if it forces you to cast it, or what?

[Tyndmyr]

I think Core is actually balanced fairly well...

... if you're playing E6.

E6 is delightfully balanced. Core or non-core. Sure, optimization still exists, and there are tricks and such, but it is massively more equal even so, and it doesn't generally end up broken by accident.


Well for one Gate and Wish cost xp. Plus there's a ton of ways a DM could easily shut that down.

Gate doesn't cost enough XP to matter compared to the XP of the encounter you use it to defeat.

As for the wish loop, well, neither item usage nor other creature usage costs xp, so this doesn't fix the most broken application of it.


Gate states that a "unique being" cannot be controlled. Well if you want to get technical no two beings are 100% alike and one can easily argue that therefore any creature that doesn't have a non-existence intelligence score is unique, even if the others are only unique on a mental level.

Really? You're just saying that the spell doesn't work at all, and trying to justify it by an unusual interpretation of RAW?

Unique creature means a given creature. You can't use it to summon Ted the genie, just a random genie.


Wish...seriously? Literal Genie much? Jackass Genie more? Face it, if you're using that spell and ruining the other's fun the DM can EASILY screw you over. Not to mention the Xp cost on both spells.

Well, they are bound to obey you. Sure, if you state your wish poorly, you may get what you ask for, not what you want. That's unsurprising, and why the wish loop relies on the auto-success wishes listed in the spell.


Time Stop is a tad harder to work if you don't know how speed works. Since it does not actually stop time but actually speeds everything up to the point where the others are frozen. Well aging much? One can easily argue that casting the spell ages the mage a fair bit. In hackmaster all 3 of these spells actually do age you 5 years. Gate spam? Well, hope you enjoy dying of old age.

That's not in the rules at all.

Things not in the rules do not make the rules balanced. See also, Oberani's fallacy. Plus, relying on aging as a form of balance also does relatively little when you consider the ways to gain immortality, and realize that the caster isn't using wish, the genie is.

[Yuki Akuma]

If Time Stop aged you any faster while sped up, to age a single extra year you'd need to cast it, on average, one million, five hundred and two thousand, seven hundred and forty three times.

Oh no.

[Awnetu]

But Yuki, we can't become immune to aging effects, can we? Perfectly balanced. :smallbiggrin:

[Thrawn183]

Next he/she'll be asking us to give up our familiars too.

[Xyk]

Before I came to these boards, I thought barbarians were then unbalanced ones. My players rarely want to play wizards. I mean yes, my games are usually low level, but still, the wizards are constantly overshadowed by the barbarians and fighters. Honestly, it's not even a hassle to keep them balanced in a game. As a DM, I don't even suggest that they keep a "balanced" party of a tank, arcane caster, divine caster, and skill monkey. I often have two rangers or two rogues and a sorcerer or something and it's still just as fun. I encourage creativity in combat.

For example, I sent a Giant Ant at my first level party of a sorcerer, a ranger, and a rogue. As the ant charged at the mule as stupid ants would probably do, the rogue scurried up a tree, the ranger guarded the mule and the sorcerer distracted it from the mule with a magic missile, goading it closer to the tree that the rogue was in. The rogue jumped down and sneak attacked it from above.

All party members were useful, despite being in different tiers. It's really not hard.

[Tyndmyr]

Next he/she'll be asking us to give up our familiars too.

It's ok. In return, we'll get the lightning warrior increases. They'll be balanced if we don't have a familiar.

[Psyren]

All party members were useful, despite being in different tiers. It's really not hard.

Of course rangers and rogues are useful. Their job is to mop up after the casters take care of everything.

For instance, say there was no tree around in your Giant Ant example; the sorcerer could have enabled the same finish with a single Grease spell. (GAs have 10 dex and no ranks in balance.) Ranger and Rogue waltz up while the thing is prone and shove steel in its thorax.

[Gametime]

But wait! There's MORE! Yes, for a limited time only, while the fighter gets his pitiful little 11 feats and YOU get 9th levels spells we'll throw in 0th through 8th level spells as a FREE BONUS OFFER!

But that's not all. If you'll call now to ImAWizzard then you ALSO get 5 bonus feats of your own! And a familiar!

Now, you may have heard that casters have a weakness in that they run out of spells. So to prevent this horrible problem we'll give you 40 spells per day. But that's not all! We'll give you an extra 15 spells a day JUST for having a moderately good prime ability. But that's not all! You can SPECIALIZE, or join a prestige class, or get a pearl of power, and have EVEN MORE SPELLS per day!

But that's not all! While the fighter's core feats are things like a +1 to attack with a single weapon, YOUR bonus feats let you make items that let you CAST MORE SPELLS, or you can learn to make an item giving the fighter +5 to hit and damage, or you can cast a single level 3 spell to give the fighter +5 to hit and damage, and remember that the fighter can't even REACH the enemy without your active help.

Yes friends, all of this can be yours if you'll just call ImaWizzard today!

I heard this all in the Powerthirst voice.

"Vancian casting! IT'S LIKE CRYSTAL METH IN A SPELLBOOK! IT'S CRYSTAL METH!"




Items truly has no traits of their own besides physical ones. A gun is not evil. A vaccine for a virus is not good. A Dnd book is not broken.

So, basically, you decided to ignore what people mean when they use the shorthand "Core is broken" in favor of arguing semantically against a point no one was making.

Let me clarify. When someone says "Core is broken" they do not mean that the system cannot be played, or that the system will never produce balanced games, or that you cannot use the system in a fun way. What they mean is "The power disparity between allegedly equal options within the Core rules for Dungeons & Dragons, edition 3.5, makes the probability extremely high that a person choosing options to fit his or her character and to help said character to overcome level-appropriate challenges will eventually choose an option significantly more powerful than anything another character is capable of matching. Often, this leads to one or more players feeling marginalized. At this point, significant effort is necessary to rebalance the game if interplayer balance is something valuable to the gaming group."

But that's kind of a mouthful, so instead we say "Core is broken" and move on.


A. Core is not broken by itself.
B. The players break it.
C. When we use it for "UNLIMITED POOOOOOWER" instead of playing a fun game.
D. By abusing the game in ways it wasn't meant to be done.

This is a very important quote. You're advocating RAI, right? That's what it sounds like. I agree with you! For actual games, at least, RAI (or Rules as Makes Sense, sometimes) is clearly the way to go. Okay, so we're agreed. RAI = good. Keep that in mind, it'll come up again in a second.



Gate states that a "unique being" cannot be controlled. Well if you want to get technical no two beings are 100% alike and one can easily argue that therefore any creature that doesn't have a non-existence intelligence score is unique, even if the others are only unique on a mental level.

Aaaand here's where that "RAI" bit above comes in. So you favor using RAI... unless you need to use a semantic argument by RAW to "prove" that Core isn't broken. That's... inconsistent.

There's literally no reason for the "unique being" bit to be in there unless the game designers intended that Gate could control a non-specific member of a race - like the ones in the Monster Manual. You're flagrantly denying the obvious intention of the rules here in favor of shoehorning in some modicum of "balance." Isn't it easier to acknowledge that the spell is unbalanced, and to houserule it to be more balanced?


Time Stop is a tad harder to work if you don't know how speed works. Since it does not actually stop time but actually speeds everything up to the point where the others are frozen. Well aging much? One can easily argue that casting the spell ages the mage a fair bit. In hackmaster all 3 of these spells actually do age you 5 years. Gate spam? Well, hope you enjoy dying of old age.

How speed works? Wut? Time Stop gives you 2 to 5 rounds in the space of one round. If you use it, it should age you... 1 to 4 rounds. That's hardly a deterrent. Adding in massive aging penalties isn't unreasonable, but it's also not in the rules, nor is there any indication it's intended to be. If you want to argue with us about how balanced your houserules are, dandy, but don't pretend that houserules make the normal rules more balanced. They don't.


The rules themselves are poorly written, but not broken in themselves. As I said before, they would be no problem if people showed restraint.

Whether something is unbalanced and whether something is a problem are two separate issues. We are not arguing that every game ever will eventually break down. That's trivially false. We are arguing that every game ever has the potential to break down, and is more likely to do so than in many other game systems.

Or, to use an analogy: "Land mines aren't dangerous! They would be no problem if people wouldn't step on them."

[Morithias]

Whether something is unbalanced and whether something is a problem are two separate issues. We are not arguing that every game ever will eventually break down. That's trivially false. We are arguing that every game ever has the potential to break down, and is more likely to do so than in many other game systems.

Or, to use an analogy: "Land mines aren't dangerous! They would be no problem if people wouldn't step on them."

Then let me ask you this, if you judge something on potential, how the hell do you ever leave your house?

Every time you get in a car there is a potential for you to crash. Every time to walk down a street there is potential for you to get mugged. Every time you work on a computer there is potential for a virus to get in a delete all your files.

If you want to go really crazy, there's an argument that in theory, anything could randomly happen at any time potentially. The chance is extremely low, but still, you could just randomly get struck by lightning, while in doors on a sunny day.

[Gametime]

It's ok. In return, we'll get the lightning warrior increases. They'll be balanced if we don't have a familiar.

Speak for yourself! Some of us aren't willing to give up that much power in exchange for some flavor.

[Gametime]

Then let me ask you this, if you judge something on potential, how the hell do you ever leave your house?

Every time you get in a car there is a potential for you to crash. Every time to walk down a street there is potential for you to get mugged. Every time you work on a computer there is potential for a virus to get in a delete all your files.

If you want to go really crazy, there's an argument that in theory, anything could randomly happen at any time potentially. The chance is extremely low, but still, you could just randomly get struck by lightning, while in doors on a sunny day.

Because the chance of crashing, or getting mugged, or getting a computer virus is much, much lower than the chance of someone using an unbalanced option from the Player's Handbook in the course of playing a game of Dungeons & Dragons.

I never suggested we act as though every possibility would happen; just that it's bizarre to suggest that because we can prevent it from happening, it isn't a possibility.

Moreover, we can't really control the real world. We can control our game design. A game with as many unbalanced options as 3.5 is more poorly designed than a game that does not possess so many unbalanced options.* This doesn't mean 3.5 is a bad game - it isn't - or that you can't enjoy it - you can - or that you'll never play a balanced game of it - you might. It does mean that 3.5 is poorly balanced and, in many ways, poorly designed.

* Assuming you value game balance. Many people don't, and for them the disparity among options is no downside, but I'm assuming people arguing about whether or not 3.5 is balanced also care whether or not it is balanced.

[Aharon]

Speak for yourself! Some of us aren't willing to give up that much power in exchange for some flavor.


not to mention that the extra spell per round my familiar casts from a staff might be better than the full bab the Lightning Warrior gets :smalltongue:

[awa]

the thing i hate most about this arguments is after a page or two all that happens is people refute the common sense argument (mine :smallsmile:) and come up with a nonsensical objection people poke holes in their argument and the they either ignore this and keep repeated their argument convinced that this time surely this time you will change your mine or they grasp a tiny aspect of your counter argument and focus on it entirely.

The fact that you can use house rules or choose not to use broken options does not make the system not broken and has been said many times by people before me it in fact proves the system is broken because you realize their are things you have to avoid.

[Edhelras]

I'm not sure about the 'spellcasters' are all powerful in Core D&D. 20th level fighters are powerful. It come by how you rate powerful.

I've gamed in thousands of games. It's rare for me to encounter an all powerful spellcaster. And the reason is simple, players are humans. Most players don't take 24/7 of their life to make an uber spellcaster. They just make normal spellcasters. It's not a rule that the spellcaster must be all powerful. So the spellcaster has a couple spells to cast for a couple rounds, but the fighter can fight all day.

No modern day gamer(especially those under 30) who is a advocate of brokenness would make it in a classic dungeon. In Ye Old Days, the adventuring group would be in the dungeon for (game and real) hours. So even if a spellcaster went 'nova' a couple times...the adventure would still continue for several hours before the group rested. So a spellcaster had to save up their spells. Many modern gamers want only a maximum of four encounters that they can nova blast through a day, then they immediately demand to rest. A spellcaster in a classic mindset game had to be able to cast spells all day.


Most so-called broken things in core are just there because of lazy, bored and uninterested DM's. The easy way to 'mend broken' is to up the power of the game. The 'broken tricks' that work so well vs 0 level human guards, don't work so well vs 10th level vrock rogue/warlocks. There is always a bigger fish.

I completely agree.

The curious thing is that first one make dungeon crawls into short encounters where econimizing with your power is superfluous (thus making casters all-powerful), then one complains of brokenness, then one creates a new game (4E) in which the basic is encounterbased powers - exactly the conditions under which casters will "break" the game. And then one changes non-casters into pseudomagic classes with their own per-encounter features.

So this is why 4E is perceived to have betrayed the "spirit" of DnD by some old, reactionary dudes (like me), who rejoiced in the very condition that you had to be careful with your resources, because much of the combat and other challenges would be encountered after you expended your most powerful abilities.

[Mikal]

I wouldn't say it's particularly easy to play. You're looking at a minimum of three books, each of around 300 pages, before you can actually play the game. Compare that to most RPGs having one book being all you need to get started.

As for versatile, as I said before, let's see you make a Viking character. Classes are like handcuffs when it comes to making characters. Sure, you can do some things with them, but you're pretty much tied to whatever teh game designers thought those classes should be. Which might not be quite what you want to ply.

And in my experience, usually isn't what I want to play.

Actually, Vikings can be pretty much anything. Unless you just like stereotypes.

Fighter: A skilled viking commander, who leads the legions into battle.
Barbarian: The prototypical "berserker". Have to spend points on literacy tho since the Vikings did have a language
Bard: The Viking skald
Rogue: A Viking scout or merchant
Ranger: Another Viking scout, this one more trained in woodslore. Also a hunter
Cleric: Can also be a skald of sorts
Wizard/Sorcerer: Viking Tribal leaders and/or wisemen.
Paladin: Another commander type, this one more religious.

So yeah. If one wants to play a viking one can easily do so with any class. And you can easily make other classes fit into the viking roles as well.

It seems to me your issue is that you like stereotypes a wee bit much and allow yourself to remain limited to actual originality when it comes to stuff.

[Yuki Akuma]

Barbarian: The prototypical "berserker". Have to spend points on literacy tho since the Vikings did have a language

Not all of them would have been literate, though.

[Edhelras]

Has been proven time and again, endurance is not a challenge to a high level wizard.

1. At level 20, he'll have 36 spells(not counting cantrips) per day.


Who play games at lvl 20? Who are having fun at lvl 20?

All right, I realize that someone do, someone has. Fine, fine. I agree then, Core is broken because it cannot manage to keep the fun going all the way to godhood.

Now tell me - which game system can do better? In particular - which game system can keep the fun both at low, middle and high levels?

As far as I'm concerned, 3.5 is doing a great job at those levels I like - the low and middle levels, if one is prioritizing role playing and a "whole" character with a core class. I'm sorry it's not satisfactory for every other player, though.

P.S. And as I mentioned before, more skill points would be great!

[Tvtyrant]

Actually, Vikings can be pretty much anything. Unless you just like stereotypes.

Fighter: A skilled viking commander, who leads the legions into battle.
Barbarian: The prototypical "berserker". Have to spend points on literacy tho since the Vikings did have a language
Bard: The Viking skald
Rogue: A Viking scout or merchant
Ranger: Another Viking scout, this one more trained in woodslore. Also a hunter
Cleric: Can also be a skald of sorts
Wizard/Sorcerer: Viking Tribal leaders and/or wisemen.
Paladin: Another commander type, this one more religious.

So yeah. If one wants to play a viking one can easily do so with any class. And you can easily make other classes fit into the viking roles as well.

It seems to me your issue is that you like stereotypes a wee bit much and allow yourself to remain limited to actual originality when it comes to stuff.
hehe, legions.

Yeah, pretty much any culture can be recreated with D&D classes.

[Xyk]

Of course rangers and rogues are useful. Their job is to mop up after the casters take care of everything.

For instance, say there was no tree around in your Giant Ant example; the sorcerer could have enabled the same finish with a single Grease spell. (GAs have 10 dex and no ranks in balance.) Ranger and Rogue waltz up while the thing is prone and shove steel in its thorax.

What non-metagaming sorcerer would know how to make things slippery but not how to shoot something with a bolt of magic? If he did, maybe I'd have made it a Giant Bee or two just as easily. Remember that it's a storytelling game first and foremost. What makes a better story? An ant falls down and gets stabbed or a halfling rogue leaps down from a tree with a knife and stabs it between it's exoskeleton plates.

[awa]

the argument that wizards would be balanced if you just had more encounters because they could not nova is false other have said why before but this keeps popping up over and over again so i might as well mention the reason again.

a high level wizard does not need to "nova" to win fights because many fights can be won with a single spell. force cage is deadly to any creature they needs to breath and can't teleport sure it has an expensive material component so you cant use it all the time but for a wide range of monsters its a slow death by suffocation.

and if you send lots of fight that means they have to be easier or the fighter who had high levels is barely competent would be dead to. and if the fights are easier than the wizard doesn't need to nova because he can just win with low level spells.

a wizard at high levels can flee combat almost whenever he wants all he needs to do is save a teleport for the end of the day.

And before you leap in with but the dm should just give every enemy permanent magic immunity and make every adventure have a time limit and also dimensional anchors to stop the wizard from going home and resting Than that means you admit the game is broken because you have to take actions to fix it

[Zore]

What non-metagaming sorcerer would know how to make things slippery but not how to shoot something with a bolt of magic? If he did, maybe I'd have made it a Giant Bee or two just as easily. Remember that it's a storytelling game first and foremost. What makes a better story? An ant falls down and gets stabbed or a halfling rogue leaps down from a tree with a knife and stabs it between it's exoskeleton plates.

Really? Its metagaming now for a Sorcerer to not be a stereotypical 'Dumb shoots things wif the magic dat goes boom!' now? I mean making things slippery would have vast usefulness for people who aren't blasters. It may help a sorcerous child escape from guards after he steals some bread. It may help a sorcerous kobold slow or stop the intruders into his warren so his tribe can escape or set up traps. You know useful things rather than doing 1d4+1 damage which will often do little but tickle an opponent.

And you know what can be a good story too? When the PCs set up and execute a trap they devise, or work together as a team to take down a tough foe with minimal losses. When I play a heroic game I want my characters to cause a mook to fall so his friends can clean up, not blast it for pitiful damage while their friend has to run away and hide because they couldn't help him. I also fail to see why the Rogue can't still stab it between the plates in an awesome manner picture this scene,

A giant ant rushes towards you, anger clear and evident in its ferocity. Callin up your magical powers you make it slip and send it sprawling before it can reach you or your friends. Your friends then approach and attack it before it gets up, shaken but alright.

And if it had been a giant bee? Use a different spell, Sorcerers do get more than one first level spell and some of them should be intelligent enough to know when to use the more efficient ones.

[Mikal]

What non-metagaming sorcerer would know how to make things slippery but not how to shoot something with a bolt of magic?

Any of them who know how effective their spells are? So... any one of them who has said spell and has used it or seen it used at any point of their life?


If he did, maybe I'd have made it a Giant Bee or two just as easily.

So in other words you see how there is an issue in the game, and you make special effort to try and balance it. Thus agreeing that there is an issue with the game. Thanks for agreeing.


Remember that it's a storytelling game first and foremost.

No it isn't.



What makes a better story? An ant falls down and gets stabbed or a halfling rogue leaps down from a tree with a knife and stabs it between it's exoskeleton plates.

False Dichotomy. You add completely extraneous flair to attempt to show that a bad mechanical strategy is somehow better.
In reverse, what makes a better story?

The monstrous ant loses its balance as the words of the wily mage cause a thick patina of glaze to appear under its feet, at which point the heroic arcanist finishes it off with a masterful strike, or one of the characters jumps out of a tree and kills it with a critical hit and sneak attack damage.

[Xyk]

Any of them who know how effective their spells are? So... any one of them who has said spell and has used it or seen it used at any point of their life?

Fair enough. I asked a question and received an answer. This sorcerer hadn't done those, being young.

So in other words you see how there is an issue in the game, and you make special effort to try and balance it. Thus agreeing that there is an issue with the game. Thanks for agreeing.

The DM is there for a reason. His job in combat is to make the encounter challenging and interesting. That's built into the game, eliminating little issues.

No it isn't.


Originally posted by The Player's Handbook v3.5, page 4

The D&D game is a fantasy game of your imagination. It’s part
acting, part storytelling, part social interaction, part war game, and
part dice rolling.It's written first if you don't count "acting".:smalltongue:

False Dichotomy. You add completely extraneous flair to attempt to show that a bad mechanical strategy is somehow better.
In reverse, what makes a better story?

The monstrous ant loses its balance as the words of the wily mage cause a thick patina of glaze to appear under its feet, at which point the heroic arcanist finishes it off with a masterful strike, or one of the characters jumps out of a tree and kills it with a critical hit and sneak attack damage.

Flair was mostly for fun. But mine was better because all the characters are utilized. The sorcerer didn't have to dominate the combat so he didn't.




Really? Its metagaming now for a Sorcerer to not be a stereotypical 'Dumb shoots things wif the magic dat goes boom!' now? I mean making things slippery would have vast usefulness for people who aren't blasters. It may help a sorcerous child escape from guards after he steals some bread. It may help a sorcerous kobold slow or stop the intruders into his warren so his tribe can escape or set up traps. You know useful things rather than doing 1d4+1 damage which will often do little but tickle an opponent.

Fair enough. I asked a question and received an answer. This sorcerer didn't have those experiences.

And you know what can be a good story too? When the PCs set up and execute a trap they devise, or work together as a team to take down a tough foe with minimal losses. When I play a heroic game I want my characters to cause a mook to fall so his friends can clean up, not blast it for pitiful damage while their friend has to run away and hide because they couldn't help him. I also fail to see why the Rogue can't still stab it between the plates in an awesome manner picture this scene,

Oh, I totally agree. I've allowed the players to successfully set up a trap for the BBEG. I mean it needs to be a good plan. To be a good plan, it needs to use more than one character. I'll give an example here too of something that actually happened: The villain is a bard who has a very specific route to the bank every Tuesday. It's always guarded by bribed watchmen. The PCs are a Cleric and a Sorcerer. After learning of his route through some detective work, they decide they need to get by the watch. So the sorcerer makes a commotion, casting flashy spells everywhere near the bard's route, causing the guards to chase him and the bard to change his route to avoid the mess. The cleric is waiting with his big weapon and buffs and beats the snot out of the bard.

Both were used.

A giant ant rushes towards you, anger clear and evident in its ferocity. Callin up your magical powers you make it slip and send it sprawling before it can reach you or your friends. Your friends then approach and attack it before it gets up, shaken but alright.

That's worse because it highlights a main character above the others. Yes, I do realize that one side of the debate says the fact that that can happen means the game is broken. I think it means you're playing it in a way that it wasn't meant to be played.

And if it had been a giant bee? Use a different spell, Sorcerers do get more than one first level spell and some of them should be intelligent enough to know when to use the more efficient ones.

Sorcerers get only two spells. I don't remember what his other one was off the top of my head (I wanna say Charm Person). If it were a wizard, they'd only get to prepare so many spells. I'm not saying that I'd eliminate the caster's usefulness to the point that he'd be overshadowed, but I'm saying I'd tailor combats to give a challenge

I've responded here in bold.

Edit: I've almost forgot: a great way to discourage overshadowing is to reward teamwork and creativity with greater chances of success and XP and increases in the treasure the party would have gotten. It works great for me.

[Mikal]

Fair enough. I asked a question and received an answer. This sorcerer hadn't done those, being young.


So in other words... he's never cast his inborn magic before. This is literally his first time, ever, using magic.

O....kay...


The DM is there for a reason. His job in combat is to make the encounter challenging and interesting. That's built into the game, eliminating little issues.


No, his job is to adjudicate the game, not to tailor encounters to fit a persons weaknesses just for the sake of them being weaknesses. You seem upset with a player who metagames, yet seem fine with a DM doing so. The double standard... is laughable.


It's written first if you don't count "acting".


You said "first and foremost". Storytelling is one equal component. Unless somehow you equate the term "Part X, Part, Y, Part Z, Part A" to mean "First and foremost Y". So yeah. As I said before, no. No it isn't.



Flair was mostly for fun. But mine was better because all the characters are utilized. The sorcerer didn't have to dominate the combat so he didn't.


Your example had a rogue do it all. My example had a sorcerer do it all.Though honestly in my example there's a chance for more than one person to do it since the sorc can cast the spell and the rogue can then attack.

Unless of course "a halfling rogue leaps down from a tree with a knife and stabs it between it's exoskeleton plates." means everyone is involved... by watching the macho halfling suicide leap onto the ant and kill it singlehandedly.

Either way, you said what was more fun.
For me ending the encounter as easily as possible is more fun, rather then waiting for the party to whittle it down to death, followed by wasting more resources to heal.
Efficiency ftw.

[Xyk]

So in other words... he's never cast his inborn magic before. This is literally his first time, ever, using magic.

O....kay...



No, his job is to adjudicate the game, not to tailor encounters to fit a persons weaknesses just for the sake of them being weaknesses. You seem upset with a player who metagames, yet seem fine with a DM doing so. The double standard... is laughable.



You said "first and foremost". Storytelling is one equal component. Unless somehow you equate the term "Part X, Part, Y, Part Z, Part A" to mean "First and foremost Y". So yeah. As I said before, no. No it isn't.



Your example had a rogue do it all. My example had a sorcerer do it all.Though honestly in my example there's a chance for more than one person to do it since the sorc can cast the spell and the rogue can then attack.

Unless of course "a halfling rogue leaps down from a tree with a knife and stabs it between it's exoskeleton plates." means everyone is involved... by watching the macho halfling suicide leap onto the ant and kill it singlehandedly.

Either way, you said what was more fun.
For me ending the encounter as easily as possible is more fun, rather then waiting for the party to whittle it down to death, followed by wasting more resources to heal.
Efficiency ftw.

Firstly, chill. It's a game. The sorcerer did not know how to make things slippery and never had a reason to innately know that. Because that doesn't make sense.

Yes, there's a double standard. It's supposed to be there. Page 12 of the DMG at the top of the page: "Surprise your players by foiling metagame thinking." Try doing that without metagaming a little yourself.

I said the next part with a :smalltongue: indicating that it was a joke.

My example had the rogue strike the killing blow but not do it all. He couldn't have done that if alone. That's like saying the net does all the work in scooby doo traps. Scooby and Shaggy need to lure the monster into them and Freddy and the others need to do other things. But if Freddy just tackled the monster and the others hauled the body out of there, teamwork would not be had.

Efficiency is meh IMO.

[Yuki Akuma]

You know, Sorcerers, in-game, have absolutely no choice in what spells they know. So... a Sorcerer could quite easily never know any direct damage spells, especially as there are far less direct damage spells in the world than utility spells.

[OracleofWuffing]

Fine then, the Sorcerer casts Color Spray. The Ant's basically dead for at least four rounds and the Sorc gets to shoot something with magic that doesn't make it slippery while also effectively winning the combat. Point we're making here is that the Tree was only effective because the Sorcerer let it be effective, whatever role a tree plays in party combat, a Sorcerer can do just as well. :smallwink:

[Jolly]

Some of the "broken" things are there because people remember the mechanical ability, but forget the role playing consequences.

As an example, look at Gate abuse. The munchkin says "I can drag incredibly powerful celestial creatures away from whatever they're doing by force, then make them do as I want." The smart DM then asks "So how many solars have to die fighting for you before they get a bit unhappy and come say hi?"

The people on this thread will no doubt moan about that being Rule 0/DM fiat/picking on the poor casters/evidence that you are "fixing" the game so it must be broken etc but it's not. RAW says you can do something, not that there will never be consequences for it.

I also love the incongruity between this thread and the "How to kill a Tier 1 character" thread. If you believe that thread, wizards are impossible to kill because they spend all day every day living on a private demi-plane poly-morphed into a Dire Tortoise surrounded by guards, and spending most of their high level spell slots buffing and preparing to flee if attacked. If you believe this thread, wizards are all powerful because they can spam buffs, debuffs, spells that mimic skill monkeys, divinations, battlefield control, SoD/L/S, and then shape change into a melee monster and clean up.

[Starbuck_II]

Some of the "broken" things are there because people remember the mechanical ability, but forget the role playing consequences.

As an example, look at Gate abuse. The munchkin says "I can drag incredibly powerful celestial creatures away from whatever they're doing by force, then make them do as I want." The smart DM then asks "So how many solars have to die fighting for you before they get a bit unhappy and come say hi?"

Than you reply: "Fine than I Call some Balors so they can die for me."

[Lamech]

As an example, look at Gate abuse. The munchkin says "I can drag incredibly powerful celestial creatures away from whatever they're doing by force, then make them do as I want." The smart DM then asks "So how many solars have to die fighting for you before they get a bit unhappy and come say hi?"Why is the solar not wearing symbols of friendship? And why doesn't it have a contingency for crap like this? Also why isn't it in an area warded against explanar travel?

And the answer is solars would never risk all the potential for good they have, and come say "hi". ... They can simply wish you into a sphere of annilation. And they do have access to various spells that can see into the future so they can zap you before you even summon any. At the very least its friends can zap you the second you summon it. (And pull the solar you summoned away from the combat.)


Than you reply: "Fine than I Call some Balors so they can die for me."As a character you probably have an idea about which creatures are weaker/stronger. You probably don't have a great idea about were the line of I-die-instantly-if-I-try-to-gate-this-in is. And you don't get a second try as a character either. Its over the second a solar tosses you into a sphere of annilation.

[Awnetu]

I also love the incongruity between this thread and the "How to kill a Tier 1 character" thread. If you believe that thread, wizards are impossible to kill because they spend all day every day living on a private demi-plane poly-morphed into a Dire Tortoise surrounded by guards, and spending most of their high level spell slots buffing and preparing to flee if attacked. If you believe this thread, wizards are all powerful because they can spam buffs, debuffs, spells that mimic skill monkeys, divinations, battlefield control, SoD/L/S, and then shape change into a melee monster and clean up.

Robe Trick, Contingency, Plane Shift, Gate. Doesn't take much.

[Sir Giacomo]

the thing i hate most about this arguments is after a page or two all that happens is people refute the common sense argument (mine :smallsmile:) and come up with a nonsensical objection people poke holes in their argument and the they either ignore this and keep repeated their argument convinced that this time surely this time you will change your mine or they grasp a tiny aspect of your counter argument and focus on it entirely.

The fact that you can use house rules or choose not to use broken options does not make the system not broken and has been said many times by people before me it in fact proves the system is broken because you realize their are things you have to avoid.

This is where I disagree. I think that the rules are already in the core system to balance stuff that is allegedly broken.
- like instructions in the knowledge skills to consult the DM to see what - if at all - a player knows anything from the monster manual.
- like instructions in the leadership feat to consult the DM what kind of companion you get.
People just seem to ignore them or call them "houserules". And I simply do not know why - since we all agree on the outcome:
- there should not be characters throwing around infinite wishes
- there should not be characters outshining others constantly
- etc.
My "method" to balance - i.e., just following the rules - is just so much simpler than ignoring the rules and trying to boost classes or game mechanisms to the perceived broken levels (either via selective non-core stuff or houserules).

Maybe answering to another post will explain better what I mean:



Sir Giacomo

Core is broken.

The reason it is broken is because the class features of different classes are not worth the same. A Fighters feats is not worth the same as the Wizards spells, because spells are better than feats.

I completely agree to you! And why, you may ask?
Simply because of this:
Out of the box, the wizard starts with 1d4 hp vs 1d10 hp of the fighter and can hardly fight (lacking the weapon and armour proficiencies).
So, after this basic makeup of the class is clearly in favour of the fighter, the wizard MUST get better stuff from his class as he rises in levels. Seems just logic to me.
So, yes, spells > fighter bonus feats.



That is how the game was designed. There are any number of spells you can use to illustrate this. Gate is more powerful than a feat. Fly is more powerful than a feat. Dominate Person is more powerful than a feat. Summon / Conjure Anything is more powerful than a feat.

The fact that spells are more powerful than feats is undeniable. Therefore, the classes that get the most powerful class feature (spells) will be more powerful than classes that get a far weaker class feature (feats).

This is where I disagree. The difference in power due to spells > feats is not that big to eventually make a wizard consistently more powerful.
Further up it was brought up - what kind of feats can compete with wish, time stop and gate?
Well...
Wish: Basically the "safe" things to wish (everything else is DM decision) are lower-level spells. So we would need to look at each spell individually.
Time stop: This provides extra time for the wizard (provided he can get the spell off in combat). This is better than any feat, but the sum of all feats at those levels have their effects 24/7 all at once - the fighter does not need extra rounds for buffing as much. And some items (like boots of speed) can be activated as a free action or do not need to be actvitated at all. Yes, I know, the time stop can also be used for indirect attacks (delayed blast fire balls, etc). But will this kind of damage output truly be superior to what the fighter can do at levels 17-20 thanks to his feats?
Gate: You get an extremely powerful companion for 17-20 rounds with VERY limited things that it can do for you (note again "Fighting for you" does not mean the same as "fight to the best of its ability" as outlined in the summoning spells). For a feat (leadership), you get a less powerful companion, but that one 24/7.
EDIT: I also agree to Jolly up there that roleplaying consequences/npc reactions should be factored into the comparison, as part of all the drawbacks of such powerful spells (XP costs for wish/gate, for instance).

Some more thoughts on why feats are not far behind spells in power:
- feats provide powers 24/7, hardly any spells do that (and they are x/day). Also, as such, they have no casting time.
- Then, feats cannot be dispelled or made to disappear as magic can (AMF anyone?), although you can certainly nullify their effects when you knock out that fighter...:smallsmile:
- But the most important factor you list yourself with the following...



The only way that other classes can mechanically compete with the most powerful classes is to get and wear magic items that duplicate spells. Wings of Flying. Cloaks of Resistance. Magic Armor & Weapons. The spellcasting classes get the real things as class features - everyone else buys them as magic items.

Again, I come to a different results.
Reasons:
- Feats are hard to duplicate with (core) items.
- Meanwhile, many key spells can be duplicated with items (in particular when you include the core item creation rules).
- And the spellcasting classes usually (druid big exception here) receive hardly anything apart from spellcasting (druid having the weakest lists to balance it).
So, it is in fact THEY who first at lower levels have to buy items to make up for the inherent class weaknesses (like lower hp and protection), NOT the non-casting classes. That is, until their spell buffs and protections last reliably long enough - but at that point another factor speaks in favour of noncasters:
- As I tried once to outline already in my old monk guide, the main thing about magic items for non-caster classes is that they benefit them often disproportionately more than casters, mostly also due to some unique synergies.
For instance, cast polymorph on a wizard for melee (shudder...): congratulations, you just have pushed yourself into melee with 1d4 HD, likely no combat feats and possibly even obstructed your own strength (spellcasting) with it, because the beast you morphed into maybe cannot speak (no vocal spellcasting possible) nor use fine motions (somatic components).
Meanwhile, that same polymorph going to a monk just means: yeah, all class abilities fully synergising with the new form (larger unarmed damage, movement enhancement stacks with base move, WIS bonus to AC is preserved etc.).

Overall result: Balanced classes.



---

Another way to explain it.

Core is broken because the most powerful classes are designed to be the most powerful. If a player plays the class as RAW, it will outshine the non-spellcasting classes. For the sake of balance the game system demands that the most powerful classes be played without maximizing their potential.

When it's necessary for a player to tone down his RAW & Core character class in order to not completely overshadow another RAW & Core character class, the system is broken.

I object to this imbalance being the case for the above reasons.
3.5 Core is not broken, the classes are broadly balanced. And I am finding more and more evidence for this.

- Giacomo

[Eldariel]

This is where I disagree. I think that the rules are already in the core system to balance stuff that is allegedly broken.
- like instructions in the knowledge skills to consult the DM to see what - if at all - a player knows anything from the monster manual.
- like instructions in the leadership feat to consult the DM what kind of companion you get.
People just seem to ignore them or call them "houserules". And I simply do not know why - since we all agree on the outcome:
- there should not be characters throwing around infinite wishes
- there should not be characters outshining others constantly
- etc.
My "method" to balance - i.e., just following the rules - is just so much simpler than ignoring the rules and trying to boost classes or game mechanisms to the perceived broken levels (either via selective non-core stuff or houserules).

I'd just like to mention that nowhere do the rules give you any kinds of guidelines as to what kinds of information/abilities should and should not be given. Stands to reason that most obvious ability is given out first, which in Djinnis' case is Wish. But that doesn't really matter; whether players know about it or not through Knowledge doesn't change the fact that if DM uses them in an encounter (and they're in MM, that should cause no problems whatsoever) and has them do what they usually do (extract price for wishes), players will know.

Basically, characters not knowing X is not a sustainable way to limit characters' abilities since the game is built thusly that the information can be come by in many ways. It's an issue if just getting said information breaks the game. There's something inherently wrong about the mechanics then. Same with the cohort; if the game breaks with any way DM builds the cohort, the game is broken. If the game, in a way it doesn't tell to the DM, limits how the cohort can be built while game balance is still maintained, there's a balance problem. Nowhere in the DMG or the PHB does it say "X, Y or Z is too strong a cohort" or "X, Y or Z is information players shouldn't ever be able to come by" and that's good; such limitations limit the options DM has in terms of running a campaign and would suggest the material is not suitable for using in the most opportune way, or in other words, the material is flawed.

[Sir Giacomo]

I'd just like to mention that nowhere do the rules give you any kinds of guidelines as to what kinds of information/abilities should and should not be given. Stands to reason that most obvious ability is given out first, which in Djinnis' case is Wish. But that doesn't really matter; whether players know about it or not through Knowledge doesn't change the fact that if DM uses them in an encounter (and they're in MM, that should cause no problems whatsoever) and has them do what they usually do (extract price for wishes), players will know.

Basically, characters not knowing X is not a sustainable way to limit characters' abilities since the game is built thusly that the information can be come by in many ways. It's an issue if just getting said information breaks the game. There's something inherently wrong about the mechanics then. Same with the cohort; if the game breaks with any way DM builds the cohort, the game is broken. If the game, in a way it doesn't tell to the DM, limits how the cohort can be built while game balance is still maintained, there's a balance problem. Nowhere in the DMG or the PHB does it say "X, Y or Z is too strong a cohort" or "X, Y or Z is information players shouldn't ever be able to come by" and that's good; such limitations limit the options DM has in terms of running a campaign and would suggest the material is not suitable for using in the most opportune way, or in other words, the material is flawed.

I admit that the infinite wish thing is a theoretically broken thing for the game and an oversight of the designers. But it is so easily detected and also in the game so absolutely unlikely to ever come up, since someone needs such a high enough knowledge check (in the 100s or so) to know about this particular ability (note: granting wishes without XP cost is very, very, rare). Why should the most interesting information be the first to be handed out? "useful information" is fairly neutral - so this particular information should be handed out randomly or after half of the total information is revealed.

The leadership thing is not broken, because the DM will design the character with lower level, lower wbl equipment (that of the npc table) and thus will always be below in power of what the player characters can do.
And that he could maximise more powerfully means nothing.
That same DM could as easily max all opponents like crazy and collect TPKs or make everything too easy and the group defeats everyone easily.
Both broken, but broken in a way that no RPG system can prevent - since it always boils down to the DM's skill.

And the infinite wish thing as well as the infinite leadership/broken companion thing simply are not good examples for 3.5 core being broken because they (should) never come up.

- Giacomo

[Chambers]

...


This is where I disagree. The difference in power due to spells > feats is not that big to eventually make a wizard consistently more powerful.
Further up it was brought up - what kind of feats can compete with wish, time stop and gate?


Thanks for addressing my question. But you are missing the point. Please tell me exactly what feat there is in core that is better than the spells a wizard gets.

At 18th level, when a Wizard has 9th level spells and the Fighter gets another bonus feat, please tell me exactly which feat is better than or equal to any of the Wizards 9th level spells.

With those 9th level spells, a Wizard can entomb people in the earth, stop time, alter reality, travel to the astral plane, change shape into powerful creatures, and prevent souls from being resurrected.

What feat can the fighter take at 18th level that can compete with those abilities?

I keep asking the question to force people to admit that there is none.

Leadership is usually the go to answer because through it a fighter can gain the service of a wizard, who can cast spells. Do you see the irony there?

We can go lower levels. What feat gives a character power comparable to Dominate Person, or Evard's Black Tentacles? What feat is on the same power level as Teleport or Polymorph? What feat can compare with Raise Dead?

Furthermore:


Some more thoughts on why feats are not far behind spells in power:
- feats provide powers 24/7, hardly any spells do that (and they are x/day). Also, as such, they have no casting time.
- Then, feats cannot be dispelled or made to disappear as magic can (AMF anyone?), although you can certainly nullify their effects when you knock out that fighter...

Not all feats are constantly active. A character needs to attack in order to use Power Attack. If the Wizard prevents him from attacking, then Power Attack is useless.

[Lamech]

Why is polymorph such a problem? You have something that makes people fight better, and limits casting. Will you cast it on the a) non-caster who has good feats/hp/bab to fight with or b) the caster? I would put it on the fighter, this to me is a perfect example of how things are supposed to work out.

[olentu]

I admit that the infinite wish thing is a theoretically broken thing for the game and an oversight of the designers. But it is so easily detected and also in the game so absolutely unlikely to ever come up, since someone needs such a high enough knowledge check (in the 100s or so) to know about this particular ability (note: granting wishes without XP cost is very, very, rare). Why should the most interesting information be the first to be handed out? "useful information" is fairly neutral - so this particular information should be handed out randomly or after half of the total information is revealed.

So what you are saying is that the game is broken since not accounting for anything else one can get infinite wishes. Well I suppose I should thank you for supporting the cause.


By the by if it is so difficult for anyone to know anything about outsiders one of the best ways to gain this knowledge would be to summon them and ask them what they can do. Let us hope that a genie can not be summoned through any means.

[Eldariel]

I admit that the infinite wish thing is a theoretically broken thing for the game and an oversight of the designers. But it is so easily detected and also in the game so absolutely unlikely to ever come up, since someone needs such a high enough knowledge check (in the 100s or so) to know about this particular ability (note: granting wishes without XP cost is very, very, rare). Why should the most interesting information be the first to be handed out? "useful information" is fairly neutral - so this particular information should be handed out randomly or after half of the total information is revealed.

Because that's the defining feature of Genies? Honestly, a Genie is a Genie because they grant wishes; that's their one common denominator! The most obvious information is obviously what you should get first. And there are other ways of gaining information in character than Knowledge-checks; they just represent what you've known before the adventure.

If you meet X and it tells you or you see it use ability Y or some such, congratulations, you just information without any Knowledge-checks necessary. Same with Divinations, say Contact Other Plane asking "What creature type is commonly capable of granting wishes for other creatures?" Point being, that's not a proper restricting factor since it doesn't stop the PCs in the long term without additional restrictions in place. And nowhere in the rules does it say "the most obvious information should be told last".


The leadership thing is not broken, because the DM will design the character with lower level, lower wbl equipment (that of the npc table) and thus will always be below in power of what the player characters can do.
And that he could maximise more powerfully means nothing.
That same DM could as easily max all opponents like crazy and collect TPKs or make everything too easy and the group defeats everyone easily.
Both broken, but broken in a way that no RPG system can prevent - since it always boils down to the DM's skill.

That doesn't change anything; an additional character's worth of power is more powerful than 3 extra HP on level 6. That's pretty much eminently true. Especially blatant if the Cohort is of a type that's well-suited for functioning with the primary character, such as a Cleric, a Bard or in general, someone with abilities that augment another character's abilities.

Indeed, it's pretty much the strongest single feat you can have in D&D as you can define much of the character's abilities though the rest comes down to DM. Again, if the DM isn't out to screw you over, the assistant will be extraordinarily useful and the DM shouldn't be required to screw his players over by game rules to keep the game fair.

[Lamech]

Because that's the defining feature of Genies? Honestly, a Genie is a Genie because they grant wishes; that's their one common denominator! The most obvious information is obviously what you should get first. And there are other ways of gaining information in character than Knowledge-checks; they just represent what you've known before the adventure.
Granting wishes is NOT the defining feature of genies. Of the diferrent flavors of genie 2 can grant full-fledged wishes, and one of those is a very specific flavor of genie that requires specilized knowledge to even know exist. Several other flavors of genie can grant wishes to a lesser degree. Also likely capable of granting wishes according to possible folklore are devils, demons, eldritch horrors from beyond reality, various flavors of abomination, probably several unique being and likely countless creatures that don't exist.

And actual contact with genies is not likely to result in learning about the wish spell since they probably don't want others to know about it. So it is probably one of the later facts of knowledge that someone learns about from knowledge checks. And the countless other problems of trying to enslave creatures that will have no trouble getting mortals to wish for whatever the genie wants it too. And of course not knowing about the risks of the wish spell. (Which the genie spell like ablity isn't actually soo...)

If you meet X and it tells you or you see it use ability Y or some such, congratulations, you just information without any Knowledge-checks necessary. Same with Divinations, say Contact Other Plane asking "What creature type is commonly capable of granting wishes for other creatures?" Point being, that's not a proper restricting factor since it doesn't stop the PCs in the long term without additional restrictions in place. And nowhere in the rules does it say "the most obvious information should be told last".Aspects of Azmodeous can grant wishes I think... as can countless unique creatures. As can solars, which gating in will only end in your perma-death. Asking creatures for knowledge when said creatures don't like you calling them will likely end badly.


The leadership thing is not broken, because the DM will design the character with lower level, lower wbl equipment (that of the npc table) and thus will always be below in power of what the player characters can do.The only way leadership can be called not broken is if you think it is a feat tax. Its balanced since everyone can use it. But yeah its basically the best feat in the game.

[OracleofWuffing]

If you meet X and it tells you or you see it use ability Y or some such, congratulations, you just information without any Knowledge-checks necessary.
If you really want rocks to fall in your campaign before it even starts? Just write "Before the orcs attacked my village my grandpa had a genie and I saw him wish for a sandwich," in your character biography. Bam, your character knows about genies granting wishes. :smallbiggrin:

[Valameer]

I don't why some of you guys are so hostile to posters like Sir Giacomo, who is essentially trying to defend the integrity of a game we all are fond of, and have probably had many fun times playing.

I waited a long time, even wondering whether I wanted to get involved in this thread, but here it is. :smallsigh:

If core is broken, not just imbalanced, but outright broken, then why do you even bother posting about it anymore? Find another game to pick apart in the same way 3.5 has been disassembled.

You know, 6 years ago, people may have thought things were imbalanced, but I doubt the consensus was "This game is broken." Plus, do people actually run RAW-games as opposed to RAI? Really? I could see it for experimental games like the Tippy-verse. But when a player starts chaining wishes in your game, you stop it. There are guidelines in the DMG that tell you to stop it. If you allow it, I'm sorry, but you're actually doing it wrong on purpose.

But you guys can come up with better examples as to why 3.5 is broken than just one or two glaring abuses of the rules, right? Oh - and you all realise that having a DM is part of the rules, and if he seems perturbed by your rules lawyering and disallows a stupid oversight - he is in the right, by RAW, not you?

Would anyone dispute this in an actual game? Does having no starvation rules in RAW break the versimilitude of whole game for you? People who like to beat others over the head with these terrible examples of rules lawyering seem to ignore other rules in the DMG that basically tell the DM how to work out imbalances or broken rules. RAW certainly does not say "This text is not to be altered. Yes, we missed starvation rules on purpose. People in a fantasy scenario like the one we are modelling do NOT die of thrist. Also, see how long it takes your players to realise that whole efreeti-wish-thing. Heheh. You're welcome."

I've also noticed the tendancy for rules-combers to also completely ignore any text they regard as 'flavour' while bowing down to 'crunch' like it was written on a stone tablet. But both are malable. That the game has a few oversights does not make it unplayable, in the way that the truenamer is unplayable. Most of the rules flow and follow a theme, and we can easily notice what is out of place (time stop, gate, gate, gate, gate). I think one official errata would solve a ton of the bad stuff.

Let's get back to non-stupid examples: Like feats vs. spells. This one is perfect. It is imbalanced. Not quite broken, since it only really starts to strain the game past 9th level or so. But definitely it can get in the way of people's enjoyment of the game. I do think that by 20th level, things are ridiculous (potentially game-breakingly so) in core. But hey, level 20 is the end. You're done! I think because of this kind of mentality, the designers really didn't look closely enough at balancing the very high levels. It doesn't say it - but I get the feeling no one was really intended to build 20th level characters for 20th level play. It's like playing 10000 point GURPS characters. There will be imbalance. Not the best design choice, I know. I agree.

But mid-through-high level play is not quite so bad in practice as it is in theory. In theory, spell casters will have any spell they want memorized, just perfect for whatever theoretical scenario you can make up. That makes them pretty unstoppable. They also have unlimited access to new spells, components, xps, and whatever feats they need to enable them for the scenario. In theory, you can contact other plane to learn everything you need to know, and prepare accordingly. In theory, fireballs are always a poor choice compared to other, more applicable spells. In theory, wizards are invulnerable, because they never leave their demi-planes.

In practice, you don't know what's coming. Your DM is working with you to keep it fun for everyone, and your contact other plane probably comes back cryptic or useless, as your DM makes up something on the spot just to suit it. You've probably built up for a few levels, and sacrificed some 'power tomorrow' for 'power today.' You know, a character built for level 20 is a lot different and probably richer than one that advanced slowly from x to 20. Things get all blurry, and your powers are mitigated by occasional poor spell choice or unforseen circumstances. And you most certainly have to leave your demi-plane, as cool a retirement spot as it will eventually be.

Does that balance it all out? Not in my experience, no. But is the game broken - unplayable? Hardly. In fact - I didn't realize there were so many problems with the game until I came here and heard all the optimizers complaining about how the game doesn't work anymore.

Like a kid who gets a car and pushes it to the limit everyday - they wore it out. Ha. :smalltongue:

But what I can't for the life of me get is why they try so darn hard to tell everyone else why and how the game is broken, and why we are all silly for somehow not seeing this.

Get a new game to optimize. 3.5 is old, it's loopholes are exposed. It's a dead horse. It's up to you whether to play on the systems weaknesses or not. If you don't op, and if you have a good DM, it still can be playable. It still shudders and weezes at high levels, but you might not even notice.

These people that still enjoy 3.5, and post about how it still can work for them - why do you feel the need to prove you were smarter, and that the game really shouldn't work. You're absolutely right, and I pat you on the back. There are more than a few stupifying loopholes right in the rules, never errata'd. Pointing them out in thread after thread - how does that help? And did your DMs allow it when you tried it? Did you allow it as a DM?

PS: Sir Giacomo, I applaud you for standing bravely against the storm and defending your point of view. I agree with some of what you say, however, the DC for a Knowledge: the Planes check to know what an efreeti can do is 20 (10 + creatures HD {10}) or 25 (+5 for more detailed knowledge) at best. Play it however you want in your games, if you like how it works that way, but I don't think you should argue that you are doing it the RAW way.

...and now, to regret posting...

[Mystic Muse]

Doesn't it seem kind of odd to complain about people saying 3.5 in broken in a thread about When and where it breaks down?

[OracleofWuffing]

Does that balance it all out? Not in my experience, no. But is the game broken - unplayable?

I think I'll reiterate the point Gametime made earlier: Saying that the game is broken does not mean that it is unplayable. You can have fun playing and discussing a game that is broken. My personal favorite examples of such are Pokemon Red and Blue and Final Fantasy 5. Broken is not a synonym for unplayable.


When someone says "Core is broken" they do not mean that the system cannot be played, or that the system will never produce balanced games, or that you cannot use the system in a fun way. What they mean is "The power disparity between allegedly equal options within the Core rules for Dungeons & Dragons, edition 3.5, makes the probability extremely high that a person choosing options to fit his or her character and to help said character to overcome level-appropriate challenges will eventually choose an option significantly more powerful than anything another character is capable of matching. Often, this leads to one or more players feeling marginalized. At this point, significant effort is necessary to rebalance the game if interplayer balance is something valuable to the gaming group."

[Valameer]

Doesn't it seem kind of odd to complain about people saying 3.5 in broken in a thread about When and where it breaks down?

It's pretty late in the thread, there's been plenty of time to talk about where and when it breaks down. And I did, too.

However, the argument seemed to become a question of if it was broken, almost right out of the gate.

I'll admit: Broken and imbalanced are two different cats to me. My copy of Gothic 3 was broken. I can't get past Vista Point without it crashing in a different way every time. It is unplayable. Morrowind was imbalanced, because there was no challenge past a certain point. The later embodies D&D 3.5 to me.

Do people not make a distinction between these words anymore? Or am I really from such a different part of the interwebs... hm.

Broken implied, to me, that it was only possible to enjoy core with heavy fixes in place, not just regular retipping of balances.

[Chambers]

But what I can't for the life of me get is why they try so darn hard to tell everyone else why and how the game is broken, and why we are all silly for somehow not seeing this.

...because this is the internet, and D&D is serious business.

Not really, no. I'm not combing through the books looking for loopholes to exploit. I generally prefer to run and play in games where things are adaptable, precisely because the rules can be restrictive about certain things which would be cool.

Most notably, the rules are restrictive about having someone play a Fighter 20 and having the Fighters abilities be on equal or comparable level to the Wizards abilities. Conan was a bad ass warrior that fought with Wizards a lot and was able to hold his own and win. If I wanted to play a warrior that like in D&D...I would probably play something other than a Fighter, because the abilities that a Fighter get don't actually simulate what a Fighter is supposed to be able to do.

But there are people that think the 20th level Fighter is balanced with the 20th level Wizard. I'm not talking about in terms of flavor or fun - those things are not tied to the rules. I'm talking about game mechanics, and in game mechanics the two are night and day. When someone says that the classes are balanced when it's clear that they are not because of the huge power discrepancy in their class abilities...it's pretty much a big wtf. X is clearly not balanced with Y, because Y has power that can destroy / remake / create the world...while X is good in combat with other X's. ::shrug::

Play the game however you want, have fun while you're doing it, but don't pretend that because you play it in a certain way it means it's inherently balanced.

[Mystic Muse]

Play the game however you want, have fun while you're doing it, but don't pretend that because you play it in a certain way it means it's inherently balanced.

This.

I'm thinking about quoting this in my sig. Would you mind me doing so Chambers?

[Valameer]

...because this is the internet, and D&D is serious business.

Of course. And if we do this long enough, we'll solve everything, right? :smallsmile:


Play the game however you want, have fun while you're doing it, but don't pretend that because you play it in a certain way it means it's inherently balanced.

Uhh...


feats vs. spells. This one is perfect. It is imbalanced.


Does that balance it all out? Not in my experience, no.

Core isn't balanced. I didn't say it was, so...


Play the game however you want, have fun while you're doing it, but don't pretend that because you play it in a certain way it means that way will work for everyone.

Fix'd it for you. :smalltongue:

[OracleofWuffing]

Do people not make a distinction between these words anymore? Or am I really from such a different part of the interwebs... hm.
In Tabletop RPG terms, the distinction's not very... Distinctive... anymore. My understanding is the terminology came from competitive play games, where such disparities in options "force" the "competitive" "playerbase" to cater to a single specific strategy. I want to say something about Magic the Gathering and a Black Lotus, but I'm afraid that's the only thing I know about Magic the Gathering, I don't actually know how the two work together.

Anyhow, in "competitive game" discussion, unbalanced means that there's more support for A strategies than B, C, D, or E strategies (whereas "broken" means that C strategy is much more favorable than all the other strategies). Since D&D is very strongly influenced on combat, you're kind of locked in to a single strategy as far as mechanic discussions go (Make the thing die), and the difference between the two terms gets lost in translation. Add to the fact that those are just arbitrary definitions tacked on to existing words, and you've got a communications theory to apply to this mess.

Admittedly, D&D isn't specifically a competitive game in the traditional sense, so the usage is kind of clumsy. However, you certainly can be competitive in D&D, and given The Arena and similar topics here, plenty of people have fun in competitive D&D.

[Jolly]

Most (not all, but most) "broken" things are only issues with 1. high level play 2. strictly RAW games with a "generous" ie "Well it doesn't explicitly ban it, so it must be ok" interpretation of many rules 3. players who are either competitive or just selfish and immature.

Now, there are some things (I'm looking at you diplomacy) that are very broken by RAW. However, pointing to a cooperative game (designed explicitly for the DM to change rules to fit with the desired level of play and the party on hand), and saying "It's not balanced if you exploit X loopholes, therefore it's broken broken broken!!!" is pretty silly.

[oxybe]

go back and read my post on the first page. post no.28 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9548763&postcount=28).

that's why core is borked: options.

fighter types can hit things but unfortunately do little else and rely almost entirely on metagame/player skill to solve problems. the few times they can do other stuff, it's usually due to a magic item... a magic item that was created by a caster to duplicate a caster's ability. the options they do have can be easily duplicated or surpassed via magic, often low level spells like alter self, fly, invisibility, etc....

many these are all low level spells that can emulate or surpass stuff non-casters can do with little effort on the caster's part. at higher levels the scope of these can be staggering.

as for the "yes but casters only get X amount of resources a day", note that the game generally assumes 4-5 encounters a day, so it doesn't matter that the non-casters can fight all day without tiring. his ability to fight is really only relevant for those 4-5 encounters and outside of that... not really.

and inside those 4-5 encounters what else can he do? with no innate self-healing and no innate ability to escape from losing situations barring his own 2 feet the only real resource they have to rely on is their HP and hope they can kill the enemy before he gets killed himself. a caster generally has resources he can turn to if things do go sour ranging from invisibilty to flight to teleportation.

LT;DR IMO & IME that's why core is broken: fighter types don't have many options and the ones they do can can be easily reproduced via magic when necessary.

[Gametime]

As an example, look at Gate abuse. The munchkin says "I can drag incredibly powerful celestial creatures away from whatever they're doing by force, then make them do as I want." The smart DM then asks "So how many solars have to die fighting for you before they get a bit unhappy and come say hi?"

You know, this example gets brought up a lot. I believe you are the third poster in this thread alone to say "Oh-ho! You think you can abuse Gate, but really it has consequences!"

So let's grant that Gate might result in angry angels coming after you. That still doesn't fix any of the other ridiculous spells available to a wizard. Polymorph. Time Stop. Solid Fog. Enervation. Foresight. Contingency. Greater Shadow Evocation. Greater Shadow Conjuration. Summon Monster Whatever. Plane Shift. Teleport.

Every one of those spells is capable of trivializing an encounter at the least and a campaign at the worst.


I also love the incongruity between this thread and the "How to kill a Tier 1 character" thread. If you believe that thread, wizards are impossible to kill because they spend all day every day living on a private demi-plane poly-morphed into a Dire Tortoise surrounded by guards, and spending most of their high level spell slots buffing and preparing to flee if attacked. If you believe this thread, wizards are all powerful because they can spam buffs, debuffs, spells that mimic skill monkeys, divinations, battlefield control, SoD/L/S, and then shape change into a melee monster and clean up.

No one is claiming that wizard are always this powerful. We are only claiming that they can be this powerful. Wizards are entirely capable of doing everything you just listed. Will they, in actual games? Very unlikely. But they can, and that possibility is why the game system is broken even though actual games may not be.



People just seem to ignore them or call them "houserules". And I simply do not know why - since we all agree on the outcome:
- there should not be characters throwing around infinite wishes
- there should not be characters outshining others constantly
- etc.

Honestly, Giacomo, I don't know if you just didn't see my post or you ignored it or you didn't understand it, but this is the exact sort of thing I was addressing. Let me try again.

Wanting the rules to be balanced does not make them balanced. Thinking that the rules should be a certain way does not make them a certain way. The argument from undesirable consequences is not a valid logical argument, and it is in fact a fallacy.

If your argument stood on its own merits, then we would not dispute your interpretation of the rules. But the fact that your interpretation most closely aligns with what we want to be the case has nothing to do with whether your interpretation is accurate!

Consider the following argument:
1. If global temperatures rise, then many cities would be flooded.
2. Cities being flooded is bad.
Therefore, global temperatures will not rise.

That is clearly an absurd argument, and it is the exact sort of justification you insist on offering.


I admit that the infinite wish thing is a theoretically broken thing for the game and an oversight of the designers. But it is so easily detected and also in the game so absolutely unlikely to ever come up, since someone needs such a high enough knowledge check (in the 100s or so) to know about this particular ability (note: granting wishes without XP cost is very, very, rare). Why should the most interesting information be the first to be handed out? "useful information" is fairly neutral - so this particular information should be handed out randomly or after half of the total information is revealed.



Again, I have no idea whether you're just ignoring my posts accidentally or willfully, but I've already calculated the actual maximum knowledge DC to discover that a genie grants wishes. "AC" is not a special ability or vulnerability. Neither are ability scores. They are not valid pieces of information to give from knowledge checks. The claim that the knowledge check could easily get into the hundreds, according to the rules, is blatantly false.

If you want to contest that, at least contest it openly instead of just asserting the same thing over and over again without addressing the counterarguments people bring up. I've rarely agreed with you, Giacomo, but I've always respected you. This is the first thread where I've seen you repeatedly ignore counterarguments in favor of just spouting off the same thing over and over, and it's quite aggravating.

[Tvtyrant]

And the infinite wish thing as well as the infinite leadership/broken companion thing simply are not good examples for 3.5 core being broken because they (should) never come up.

- Giacomo

Weirdly I agree with Giacomo. The argument over the rules thing is about wish is silly, since in the rule it flat out states that the DM makes the rules. The argument that not following the rules and using house rules isn't playing 3.5 is silly; the use of house rules is a rule of 3.5. Even the prestige classes we all love to abuse come with the suggestion that you run it past the DM first, since the DM is the rules.

yes, if we ignore the rule that the DM has control of the game, the game is broken. However once you start cherry picking rules you are no longer playing 3.5.

[Mystic Muse]

You have to look at a system without the intervention of the DM because the way a DM will affect the game will be different depending on the DM. for example, I can't go into a thread and say "Who cares if Shapechange is overpowered. It's not allowed anyway" Because that's not the way the game as a whole works. It's a houserule of mine which isn't valid in a discussion on Rules as written.

EDIT:as others have said, just because something can be fixed, doesn't change the fact that it needed to be fixed in the first place.

[Kurald Galain]

But what I can't for the life of me get is why they try so darn hard to tell everyone else why and how the game is broken, and why we are all silly for somehow not seeing this.

Because brokenness can be worked around if you know where it is.

Most DMs don't want their campaign ruined by a single spell by accident, and most players don't want to completely upstage another player at the same table by accident. This is why we tell DMs that if they don't want the wizard to one-shot the BBEG dragon, they should ban Shivering Touch; and why we tell players that if they don't want their druid to completely upstage the party monk, then here's some play advice to prevent that from happening and keep the game fun for everyone.

Knowledge is half the battle.

[olentu]

Weirdly I agree with Giacomo. The argument over the rules thing is about wish is silly, since in the rule it flat out states that the DM makes the rules. The argument that not following the rules and using house rules isn't playing 3.5 is silly; the use of house rules is a rule of 3.5. Even the prestige classes we all love to abuse come with the suggestion that you run it past the DM first, since the DM is the rules.

yes, if we ignore the rule that the DM has control of the game, the game is broken. However once you start cherry picking rules you are no longer playing 3.5.

Now I know this is reiterating what has already been said but I think this bears repeating.

So you are talking about using rule zero to change the rules. Again if one needs to change the rules with house rules to keep them from being broken then they rather are broken in the first place.

[Ormur]

If you're arguing about whether core is broken or just imbalanced I'd say it's broken because even though you fix the obvious loopholes, nerf a few spells and create your version of RAI instead of RAW core is still imbalanced.

There are all sorts of things my groups would never allow in play but the difference between a wizard and a fighter would still make the fighter seem useless at higher levels and very limited at lower levels, especially in core only. That's why after all the fixing we still have to adjust our play styles to the imbalances of D&D (mostly core) by either specially designing every encounter to challenge everyone or simply mandating that the players stay within a single tier of each other.

It works but only by houseruling the brokenness away and then picking the internally balanced options among the merely unbalanced.

[Chambers]

Core isn't balanced. I didn't say it was, so...


Right. I was responding to your question of why people (or at least why I) argue this. Didn't mean to insinuate that you thought core was balanced. :smallsmile:

Kyuubi

Sure.

[Sewercop]

Imo core is broken. That does not mean every group will see broken combos in play. But core itself are broken due to the options available in it. The higher level you get, the more you see of it. But some things presents themselves pretty early.. Druid anyone?
Chain wishing? Presented itself in the very first group we played.

We have a simple rule in every game we play, you break it once. Then we fix it.
That actually works pretty good. Not 100%, but close enough.

Player imbalance are way worse than class imbalance. That presents itself more often. And even more often in 3.5 due to its inherited imbalance.

When you need buffs,items or gm fiat to keep up with the other players its my definition of broken, and that happens around 7-12. That assumes that all the players optimize to an equal level.

The right players together can have fun on every level, all being equal. It just do not happen in my groups.

But yeah, its broken. It baffles me that people actually say its not.

[awa]

druids are better tan fighters this does not require unusual interpretations of the rules it just notices that a druid has a buddy (who may or may not be a bear) who is as good as many fighters as a class feature, who can transform into a monster (wich may or may not be a bear) who is as good as many fighters. and still has full casting and on top of all that a large number of slightly useful non combat abilities and more skills.

the druids potential power might not be as high as the wizard but its average power is still far greater than a fighters and because its abilities are so simple its harder for people to make up excuses of why its balanced

[Tiki Snakes]

It's good to know that I'm a super-genius, able to make 70 to 100 knowledge checks. (Everyone in my neck of the woods knows genies grant wishes, who'd have thought it was a sign that we are all super high level and so on?)

Two things;
Firstly, the knowledge check isn't even a problem. Over 9000 you say? Not an issue. I don't need to roll and confirm that Genies grant wishes. If I am allowed to have heard that Genies do, infact, exist, even in the sense of stories and so on, then I can believe what I want about them. I believe that Genies, generally speaking, will likely be able to grant wishes.
I can do this indipendant of all outside input. Doesn't even have to be right.
Now, If I later gain access to Gate, I may choose to test this belief.
Either, it turns out that yes, who knew, Genies really do grant wishes!
Or they can't, because the DM doesn't want them to. Ah, Fiat, good to know, and I can move on. Likewise, if the DM is that certain about avoiding this, maybe I won't even be allowed to have heard of Genies at all. Good for him. There's no guarantee they even exist in any particular setting.
But in a relatively generic one, I just summoned a Genie and kickstarted my 'wish economy'.
Worth a shot, I'd say.

Secondly, don't you think the idea that you might need to perform epic skill checks to receive basic information about a creature is a little wonky? I understand that low level commoners are unlikely to have heard of many hilariously common creatures. By Raw, a Commoner with 10 int and no knowledge skills, has slightly below a 50/50 chance to have any idea what this strange creature could possibly be -
http://blogs.venturacountystar.com/dennert/archives/sad_dog.jpg
But then, I'm hazy with the knowledge check thing, because as far as I can see the check to identify / know some stuff about genies is as low as 20, and that's for Noble (wish casting) Djinn (Or Efreeti). So perhaps I'm missing something and the check for identifying that strange creature in the spoiler should be higher.