On the term "Broken"

[Z3ro]

This is just a pet-peeve of mine that I wanted to get out. It seems that many people use the word Broken to mean anything even a little overpowered. This has lead to a situation where the word basically has no meaning.

In the past, broken was meant in the literal way; a broken game was one that wouldn't function as intended or wouldn't let you play at all. Hence, broken.

In recent years that definition expanded to anything that was so overpowered that it basically represented an "I win" button, usually outside of the normal rules. Hence, broken.

But recently, anything even sort of overpowered is called broken. There was a recent thread were someone called alter self "broken". No, it's not. Is it overpowered? For its spell level, yes. But does it make the game unplayable? Not in the least. Pun-Pun is broken, as D&D ceases to be a game when you can just say "I win". Chaining wishes is broken, as once again it becomes an "I win". Getting a couple extra abilities is not broken in the least.

Sorry, had to rant about that.

[gbprime]

Well "broken" is truly in the eye of the beholder. I know a lot of DM's who consider anything Tier 2 to be "broken" because it's more powerful than they want to allow into a game, or that consider the entire psionic system to be "broken" because they've never used it and read about some cheese.

In truth, the word "broken" means "that's too powerful for my preferences".

[oxybe]

a better way to describe broken is "does not perform as intended" in regards to power/versatility.

the druid is broken in that he has far too many good things going for him with little drawbacks. the monk is broken in that several of his abilities just don't synergize well together (flurry requires you to stand still, monk is a mobile class...).

[Psyren]

a better way to describe broken is "does not perform as intended" in regards to power/versatility.

the druid is broken in that he has far too many good things going for him with little drawbacks. the monk is broken in that several of his abilities just don't synergize well together (flurry requires you to stand still, monk is a mobile class...).

Agreed, and throw the Truenamer in there too.

[ericgrau]

Broken means so powerful that it ruins the game. As long as everyone is on a level playing field what might be broken for another group could be fine for them. If not then the DM cannot create encounters that adequately challenge one player without accidentally killing another player, or players might simply bypass things they're not supposed to bypass so easily, etc. Basically the game breaks. EDIT: Yeah, things that fail hard create the same scenario and break the game equally, but I'm not gonna get into another 50 page discussion on what they are.

That said, outside of the internet I've never seen or been in play groups with power levels on par with many of the tricks mentioned online. Many other tricks are merely a bit too strong and unfair to anyone who doesn't use them, but not game breaking.

I wouldn't say alter self is broken, btw. Maybe a little strong in some situations. But the duration and limitation on forms (unless you resort to a small handful of cheesy forms) limits the spell in an immersive world where monsters are smart too. Even when this is ignored in MMO style games, or in certain situations in any game, the spell is a small boost over similar level spells leaving it "too strong" and not "broken".

[valadil]

This is just a pet-peeve of mine that I wanted to get out. It seems that many people use the word Broken to mean anything even a little overpowered. This has lead to a situation where the word basically has no meaning.


Yup. Most people pick it up from the context and don't really stop to think about where it came from. They think it's just another adjective for awesome.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Ah, welcome to the world of Internet Slang.

AN ASIDE
Yes, people constantly use words in confusing fashions (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/YouKeepUsingThatWord), particularly ones that are newly coined and/or are being cribbed off other people's text.

I also am annoyed by "broken" but mainly because it has a common meaning ("overpowered") but would better be used in a different context ("does not work as advertised"). For me, the phrase "begs the question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question)" is infuriating because the correct meaning ("a type of logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proven is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise") is something I rarely use while the colloquial meaning ("a statement that provokes a follow-up question") is something I use frequently.

Anyhow, in my wargamming circle things that are overpowered are more appropriately divided into "cheesy" (made powerful via questionable readings of the rule) and "beardy" (made powerful via violation of social conventions). "Broken" things are game elements that simply do not work as intended - usually in the negative sense. D&D3.5 provides this mostly in the Skill system (e.g. Crafting 0 cost items; Profession in general), while things like CoDzilla would be called "beardy" and Tippyverses are "cheesy."
At best all you can do is excise confusing slang from your own vocabulary and seek to speak with greater precision. If you must use a Term of Art, provide a link to a defining page (Wikipedia works well) so that people who read your post might have a chance to learn the precise meaning of the word rather than attaching some sort of "learned from context" meaning to it.

[Otodetu]

I wouldn't say alter self is broken, btw. Maybe a little strong in some situations. But the duration and limitation on forms (unless you resort to a small handful of cheesy forms) limits the spell in an immersive world where monsters are smart too. Even when this is ignored in MMO style games, or in certain situations in any game, the spell is a small boost over similar level spells leaving it "too strong" and not "broken".

People find the spell too strong as it has way to many applications, it grants great bonuses to natural armour, natural weapons, and extra modes of movement.

Did you just allow winged elves in your game? the arcane caster now has flight even as a humanoid at level 3.

And this is just the action applications, it is also the ultimate disguise spell.


If you have interest in posting a defence for the sepll then i would like to read it to see if the general opinion is to harsh.

[Z3ro]

People find the spell too strong as it has way to many applications, it grants great bonuses to natural armour, natural weapons, and extra modes of movement.

Did you just allow winged elves in your game? the arcane caster now has flight even as a humanoid at level 3.

And this is just the action applications, it is also the ultimate disguise spell.


If you have interest in posting a defence for the sepll then i would like to read it to see if the general opinion is to harsh.

But this is exactly what I'm talking about. Is the spell powerful compared to comparable 2nd and 3rd level spells? Without a doubt. But by no means is the spell "broken". It doesn't give the caster an "I win" button, which is what broken generally means.

[oxybe]

depends on what needs to be won. 30 minutes is more then enough time to skip town under a disguise. or if you need to, go around, over, through or under an obstacle.

it might not beat a fight by itself, but unless you're in a pure "FIGHTFIGHTFIGHTFIGHT" scenario, it's the wizard's ultimate swiss army knife: low enough level that he can prep two or three uses per day, long enough duration to last an encounter or two and has enough uses that he never feels bad preparing it.

[ScionoftheVoid]

But this is exactly what I'm talking about. Is the spell powerful compared to comparable 2nd and 3rd level spells? Without a doubt. But by no means is the spell "broken". It doesn't give the caster an "I win" button, which is what broken generally means.

A Fly speed at level three could be argued to be an "I win" button, though the fact that bow damage is still actually useful weakens that argument.

[Tyndmyr]

Broken: Something that does not work.

There you go. This is why truenamer is described as broken, cause it's so bad, and tainted scholar is described as broken for being so powerful.

[ericgrau]

a defence for the sepll then i would like to read it to see if the general opinion is to harsh.
There's actually a thread on that spell, tangent handled: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=176558

[bloodtide]

I've never had much 'broken' things in the games I run.

As I understand the term, a player do a thing or two and ruin a game. For some reason Broken Supporters think the DM should just sit back and say, oh well if that is in the rules you just broke the game..here is you sign.

And I just never got that. Even if a player came up with a crazy broken idea, they just don't work in a campaign. And I also run a very high powered game(not to mention a killer game). So no 'broken druid' has ever taken over the world.

Yet so many Dm's just let broken stuff go. And I just don't get why they don't fix the tiny little broken bits.

[Tyndmyr]

Meh. Broken stuff is easy to avoid. If a player tries something ludicrous, like pun-pun, then they are not really big on the whole teamwork thing. Most players might want power, but they want to play the game still. They don't want it broken.

So...decent people just sort of avoid breaking stuff because it's not really fun.

[Coidzor]

Agreed, and throw the Truenamer in there too.

Truenamer they never finished...

[Psyren]

Truenamer they never finished...

Hence it being broken :smalltongue:

[JaronK]

I try to differentiate between overpowered (stronger than I'd like in my games, or significantly stronger than other options it should be balanced against) and broken (either does not function, or will cause the game to stop functioning). Genesis is broken... if you cast the spell once with the right Planar Traits, you become effectively a god and completely unstoppable. Nothing can challenge you anymore. Planar Binding is usually broken... the ability to get infinite wealth makes most games unplayable. Alter Self is overpowered... it makes you too strong for lots of challenges and is too obvious a spell choice.

But it's a losing battle. I don't like it == broken in many people's minds.

JaronK

[Doug Lampert]

But this is exactly what I'm talking about. Is the spell powerful compared to comparable 2nd and 3rd level spells? Without a doubt. But by no means is the spell "broken". It doesn't give the caster an "I win" button, which is what broken generally means.

I'd go with "overpowered" being more appropriate than "broken". It's very strong for a second level spell, but it doesn't break the game, and its not unusable or incomprehensibly written.

Take out the Polymorph line of spells, and insert Alter Self as level 5 (in a game with all the monster manuals and books) or 4 (core only) and it would be fine not too bad. You'd take it sometimes, but not always, and you wouldn't build characters around it.

[Vladislav]

A Fly speed at level three could be argued to be an "I win" button, though the fact that bow damage is still actually useful weakens that argument.
Level 1. Precocios Apprentice. Admittedly will fail 30% of the time, but still scary.

[molten_dragon]

To me, broken means that if used as intended, it ruins the fun of someone at the table. This can be because it's too powerful, or not powerful enough. Therefore, what is broken depends on the kind of game we're playing and the players involved.

[nedz]

For me Broken means that it would result in an unbalanced party; which it is very hard to write encounters for.

[ScionoftheVoid]

Level 1. Precocios Apprentice. Admittedly will fail 30% of the time, but still scary.

Until you get downed by single shot from a bow. 9 hp is the max without traits or Toughness for a level one Wizard, 6 is more usual. Anyone using a bow presumably has a. all the time in the world to hit you, b. Rapid Shot and/or c. Sneak Attack, possibly getting you before you get the spell up. It's good, but not broken at level one except for out-of-combat stuff, in which case you used it all you can for the day to bypass a Climb, Balance or Swim check. Good, but not great. And you used one of a max of two (discounting flaws, which actually matter at level one) feats on this trick.

[Gametime]

Part of it probably comes from the fact that the phrase "broken" isn't exclusive to D&D and that it has different meanings in different gaming communities. In the Magic community, for example, the word "broken" has always (as far as I can tell) meant "overpowered;" I've never seen it used to describe a card simply not working correctly, or being so weak as to be functionally useless. Part of that is because a trading card game has different paradigms for balance than a roleplaying game, but I think it might be part of the reason why "broken" isn't consistently used to mean broken.

[Grommen]

Broken lines, broken strings
Broken threads, broken springs,
Broken idols, broken heads,
People sleeping in broken beds.
Ain't no use jiving,
Ain't no use joking,
Everything is broken.

-----Kenny Wayne Sheppard-----

What shocks me is that people here seem to think that 3.0 is the first ever 'broken' edition of a game EVER!

Every RPG ever has been abused in some way or another. That is why you have this magical person known as (DM, GM, Storyteller, GOD). They fix what they thinks broken.

[Callista]

Yep. 3.5 has a few "broken" elements, but it is probably the most stable system of its size in existence. Note that I said "of its size", because that is primarily the reason why so much 3.5 ed stuff is abusable: The sheer variety of material available allows an exponentially increasing number of combinations, and some of those combinations, sooner or later, hit infinite power.

The existence of these combinations does not make the system unplayable, or even anywhere near unplayable. We could role-play without rules altogether, not even coin flips, just free-form, and that wouldn't automatically turn into god-moding--even though technically there's nothing preventing yourself from declaring your character has just become all-powerful. Free-form RP is the most abusable system in existence, and yet it's still used.

D&D "breaks" during the same circumstances that free-form RP "breaks": When someone specifically sets out to become ridiculously powerful and overshadow everyone else--in essence, godmoding. No system can stop that from happening. Even worse, the more difficult you try to make it to create Pun-Pun, the less flexibility the non-asshat players get for their characters. You simply can't create a system as huge as D&D 3.5 while still preventing every possible abusive build; but you don't have to. You just have to create a system that's balanced during normal play.

Just because the system can become overpowered doesn't mean it's broken. The actual question is: In the hands of a sensible player and a sensible DM, is the power level unbalanced? I say, no. It isn't.

So, yes. You can break D&D. But it does not break during normal usage, and that's good enough for me.

[oxybe]

relying on the end user, the GM/group in this case, to fix broken things is bad design, be it tabletop RPGs, videogames or any product.

Rule 0 and houseruling should ideally be used to personalize a game, not be there to simply make the game playable.

being able to abuse a system is one thing. any system with variables that can be modified based on choices the end user makes. any system that gives choices that can be compared and a better one picked. almost any system can be abused.

making it unplayable or forcing the end user to fix the designer's mistakes is another issue altogether.

[Caphi]

words

I think this is a misconception. All the famous "broken" things in D&D3 are the result of singular, poorly designed or poorly thought out game entities. Truenamer 20's infinite gate. Really, gate in general. Celerity. The Incantatrix's Metamagic Effect. The Ur-Priest's spell progression. Shock Trooper. Wings of cover. Genesis. Even the power of Pun-Pun himself hinges entirely on the idea that a PC could gain access to a single ability, Manipulate Form.

[Aquillion]

Every RPG ever has been abused in some way or another. That is why you have this magical person known as (DM, GM, Storyteller). They fix what they thinks broken.The problem is that the DM's job is already busy without having to worry about evaluating every single spell or power in their game. When I DM, I want to use a system that's going to make things easier for me, not one that's going to make things harder for me -- playing the ref is, I think most people will agree, the least fun part of being a DM. When you have to play the ref for the rules themselves and not just for your players? That's not fun at all.

On top of this, it isn't always obvious that something's broken. When a player feels that they've discovered some clever solution to a problem, using powers that you've been allowing until now, suddenly telling them "sorry, I've decided that's overpowered and am taking it away" is not fun for them. Even if the smile and nod, it still disrupts the game to tweak things like that during play -- and what if their whole build was based around something that looked balanced at first but turned out to be overpowered as you played?

It's too easy to think of it as just a problem of people deliberately "abusing" the system, like the only thing wrong with D&D is pun-pun. This isn't the case; the most serious problems with the rules are not hidden loopholes that require deliberate abuse before they matter, but flaws and imbalances that can arise from everyone trying to play the game normally, with nobody intending to 'abuse' anything.

Players are supposed to use their powers intelligently, generally. The game is partially about strategy. Putting the DM in a position of having to say "that strategy is too good, I'm going to take it away" is bad for the game, especially for players who like to approach it strategically. That's why it's better for the game to be as balanced as possible in advance -- so players can come up with clever tricks without worrying over whether they're too clever or if they've made something too powerful.

I mean, if you've got a group of new players opening the book for the first time, "I want to play a wizard!" or "I want to play a druid!" is not inherently abusive. Playing that character intelligently is not inherently abusive. But if you do that, you can easily overshadow the guy playing the Monk or Fighter (compounding this is the fact that a wizard who chooses bad spells or a druid who chooses a bad shape can make another decision later on -- a fighter who picks bad feats is screwed without DM intervention.)

Can a perfect DM fix this? In theory, yes. But the more time they spend fixing it, the less time they have to run a fun and interesting game, or to design interesting things to put into their game. And it's very very easy for a DM to slip up (look at the huge numbers of DMs that ban psionics because they think it's broken, but still allow untweaked wizards and druids!)

[Callista]

I think this is a misconception. All the famous "broken" things in D&D3 are the result of singular, poorly designed or poorly thought out game entities. Truenamer 20's infinite gate. Really, gate in general. Celerity. The Incantatrix's Metamagic Effect. The Ur-Priest's spell progression. Shock Trooper. Wings of cover. Genesis. Even the power of Pun-Pun himself hinges entirely on the idea that a PC could gain access to a single ability, Manipulate Form.Um... you might want to re-read what I said. I actually think we agree: Only if you are deliberately setting out to break the system does it actually break.

[JaronK]

Yep. 3.5 has a few "broken" elements, but it is probably the most stable system of its size in existence. Note that I said "of its size", because that is primarily the reason why so much 3.5 ed stuff is abusable: The sheer variety of material available allows an exponentially increasing number of combinations, and some of those combinations, sooner or later, hit infinite power.

Combos aren't the problem. When you break things on purpose, whatever, you meant to do it and the DM can just say "stop that." It's very different when you simply have an ability that breaks the game, and it's perfectly logical to use it... the obvious example I like to use is someone casting Teleport to get to where the team is supposed to go, thereby bypassing the adventure the DM had planned... when the player had no idea the ship they were supposed to take was going to be attacked by marauding merfolk or whatever. Consider how lame Lord of the Rings would have been if Gandalf had teleported the party to Mount Doom. And yet, if being Gandalf simply gave you the power to do that, why on earth wouldn't you? In character you're being forced to grab the Idiot Ball.


D&D "breaks" during the same circumstances that free-form RP "breaks": When someone specifically sets out to become ridiculously powerful and overshadow everyone else--in essence, godmoding. No system can stop that from happening.

False. D&D breaks when your character simply has the ability to solve the situation in a way the GM doesn't want, but it's the perfectly logical thing to do. The game is no longer "what would my heroic fantasy character do in this situation?" Instead it's "what does the GM want me to say in this situation?" Not fun.

And more balance systems solve this all the time. You have to go out of your way to break Shadowrun, for instance. I don't think anyone can break A|State. Dresden Files? Only if the DM forces it on you.

Pun Pun isn't the problem. Pun Pun is a hilarious combination of abilities, but nobody ever accidentally messed up a game with Pun Pun. The problem is random imbalance. The problem is the Druid's doggie being more useful than the Fighter. The problem is than any Wizard with Planar Binding would, if he weren't holding the Idiot Ball, just get infinite wishes right away.

JaronK

[Callista]

If any of the systems you mentioned had as much material as D&D does, they'd be easy to break too.

If you're making a heroic fantasy character who comes with a "Win Game" button and would logically push it, that's just as bad as Pun-Pun. Worse, because it's sneaky enough to look like a legitimate character at first glance.

Regarding Planar Binding and infinite wishes: What's logical is that when your wizard sends that first creature back after getting his first Wish, he's going to have its PO'd (and probably much stronger) buddies on his case. Very shortly thereafter, possibly within one or two rounds: Wizard paste. An extraplanar creature is not a class feature; it has a mind of its own, and it will not be happy that your character is trying to gain ridiculous amounts of power.

[Gametime]

Um... you might want to re-read what I said. I actually think we agree: Only if you are deliberately setting out to break the system does it actually break.

The game may only break if you specifically set out to do it, but it can easily become very unbalanced without any intentional effort. A druid turning into a bear isn't exactly powergaming. Neither is a druid picking a wolf companion. Neither is a druid casting spells. However, a druid who does these three things - who uses the druid's three most obvious class features in arguably the simplest way possible - will solve problems more easily than almost any other class in the PHB.

The game doesn't break just because one class can accidentally stomp all over another class's efficiency, but a game that's twisted into a pretzel isn't much more fun than one that's snapped in two.

[JaronK]

If any of the systems you mentioned had as much material as D&D does, they'd be easy to break too.

Core D&D is broken. Shadowrun has been around for many many years (it's up to fourth edition) and in fact has about half as many 3rd edition books as D&D has 3.5 books. Yet it's nowhere near as broken as D&D was in core, even with all books included.


If you're making a heroic fantasy character who comes with a "Win Game" button and would logically push it, that's just as bad as Pun-Pun. Worse, because it's sneaky enough to look like a legitimate character at first glance.

Ah, so everyone who plays a Wizard is "just as bad as Pun-Pun?" In fact, they're so sneaky even they didn't realize what they were doing. Truly insidious.


Regarding Planar Binding and infinite wishes: What's logical is that when your wizard sends that first creature back after getting his first Wish, he's going to have its PO'd (and probably much stronger) buddies on his case.

Why? What would anger them? You just did the Efreeti a huge favor, after all.


Very shortly thereafter, possibly within one or two rounds: Wizard paste. An extraplanar creature is not a class feature; it has a mind of its own, and it will not be happy that your character is trying to gain ridiculous amounts of power.

Why not? In fact, it doesn't even know that you are gaining ridiculous power. All it knows is that it just made a TON of money with very little effort. After all, you treated it with respect, and then wished for two Candles of Invocation with your first two wishes, under the deal that if it granted your first two wishes to satisfaction in a way that you felt honored the letter, spirit, and intent of the wish, you would give it 12,500gp worth of easily tradable funds using the third wish. You then wish for two chests of gold, such that the sum total of the value of the chests is exactly 25kgp. Then you give him one chest. Remember, Efreetis can't use their wishes on themselves, but they do love gold.

For what reason would the Efreeti come after you in one or two rounds with all his friends? And why on earth would he even know where you are? This sounds like classic "the player did something I didn't expect, so rocks fall everyone dies" mentality. Nothing is out of character, but if the Wizard does the perfectly logical thing (that he'd certainly think of with his genius level intellect) the GM will pull some nonsense like having a bunch of super powerful Efreeti friends auto locate him and smite him in one or two rounds. This forces the Wizard to hold the Idiot Ball (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/IdiotBall) and means the player is indeed now thinking "what does the GM want me to do right now" instead of "what would my character do right now." Congratulations, game broken. We didn't even have to cast the spell. By even telling your players exactly what you just said in the thread, you broke the game, because it's no longer a role playing game. It's a players guess what the GM's story says game. That's just not the same.

JaronK

[Grommen]

Well then, so much to say.

First off, if you feel Shadowrun is balanced, your not playing it with my people. Wizards have it hard their. However my players have found the "I win" spells, cybered out monsters of doom. Hell any slug on the street can get their paws on an Assault Cannon and just run wild. I have to spend far more time balancing my Shadowrun games.

I don't know why people think that DM'ing 3.5 is so hard. Someone posted about a paragraph of the most broken things. One paragraph. Whow.....BANED! It was that simple.

Now sure anyone can stumble across something game breaking. However after a few times of "I win" they should have the common enough sense to stop doing it. It's not grabbing the idiot ball, it's called Self Control. A trait sadly lacking in America these days. Just because you can, has never meant that you should. It's like running a red light a 3 am on a deserted road. Sure nothing bad will most likely happen. But still. Should you?

However this is off the topic and quickly turning into yet another flame out on the merits of what all is messed up with games.

I'm going to have to agree that the term "broken" is in fact overused and well, "broken"

[Z3ro]

I'm going to have to agree that the term "broken" is in fact overused and well, "broken"

Boo, my good sir. Boooooo.

[Gametime]

It is somewhat disheartening to play a druid and realize that you are overpowered simply by virtue of turning into a bear and having a predatory animal companion.

When the issue is that the wizard needs to ignore some problem spells, it's not a huge deal. When the issue is that the druid needs to ignore at least one or two of his major class features, there's a problem, and it's not one that can be dismissed as players "lacking self-control."

[oxybe]

simply banning some things doesn't fix the game though. at best it's a small ad-hoc'ed fix.

at worse you're crippling the players.

grappling/tripping/disarm & similar mechanics are broken in 3.5 in my eyes. the mechanics aren't intuitive and unless you're facing a constant stream of armed humanoids against 4-legged, large+ sized, claw-beasts you need to REALLY specialize to be effective against it.

other things aren't game-breakingly powerful, but are still clearly overpowered, like alter self. it's a level 2 spell that lasts 10 minutes per level (a half hour when you get it) and is a veritable swiss army knife of versatility.

dropping a ban hammer without knowing exactly why something is broken, the math & the theory behind it, is one of many reasons i seriously read over and question many houserules some DMs put out as "fixes" that don't fix anything and just create an extra hoop or two to jump through.

[Gnaeus]

To me, broken means that if used as intended, it ruins the fun of someone at the table. This can be because it's too powerful, or not powerful enough. Therefore, what is broken depends on the kind of game we're playing and the players involved.

Another workable definition of broken in this context is "so overpowered that there is no mechanical reason NOT to take X option", or the reverse "so underpowered that there is no mechanical reason TO take X option". Cleric/Druid/Wizard are not broken in this context. There are reasons to play a wizard (or even a sorcerer, or a beguiler, or a TOB class, etc) over a druid. They are "balanced" not in the sense that they are equal, but in the sense that they are likely to be good at different things.

Monk, OTOH, is "broken" in the sense that there is no mechanical advantage to playing more than 2 levels of monk over similar options, like Swordsage. There is really no mechanical advantage to playing more than 2 levels of monk AT ALL. Likewise, there are feats that are broken (Why WOULDN'T you take Natural Spell, what 6th level druid feat can REMOTELY compete with it in power and flexibility), Spells that are broken, lots of PRCs that are broken (Planar Shepherd, Green Star Adapt) etc... If an option is so strong/weak that it cannot be meaningfully compared with other things of its type, it is no longer really an option.

[Aquillion]

Now sure anyone can stumble across something game breaking. However after a few times of "I win" they should have the common enough sense to stop doing it. It's not grabbing the idiot ball, it's called Self Control.My wizard knows Teleport. I, as a player, saw the Teleport spell in the core book and said "oh, that's so cool! I can go anywhere in a blink! I'm totally going to learn it and make it one of my main spells!"

There's nothing wrong with that. The core book says that it's fine to play a teleporting wizard. That's what the spell is there for.

If my wizard has to stop and say "hmm, does the DM want us to instantly teleport there? Or does he want a long trip?", that's a sign that the game is broken, because I'm being forced out of my character to make decisions. That's not a fun way to play the game. (It is, literally, forcing me to metagame.) This shows that Teleport is broken, at least in many games and in many situations.

It's not a matter of me being exploitative. I'm not using Teleport in any particularly strange ways. All I'm doing is using the powers the book says I have in a reasonably logical (not even particularly cunning, just straightforwardly logical) fashion -- no different than the fighter who says "hey, I have a +3 sword, imma gonna swing it."

If the game breaks as a result of people using their straightforward normal powers in a straightforward normal fashion, that's a sign that the game itself is broken. It's not the players' faults, it's the game's fault.

[bloodtide]

I've never seen Teleport as broken, or even a problem. If fact I can only see it as a 'broken problem' in a low magic game.

Point 1-The wizard needs to know where to teleport too..they don't know where to go, they are not going anywhere.

Point 2-Even if the know where to go, The Black Tower, if they have never been there, then they can't teleport there. (and blocking scrying is easy).

Point 3-Even if they figure out where to teleport too, it's east enough to block areas so you can't teleport in....so they are stuck teleporting into a trap.

Point 4-Naturally, plane hopping also gets away from teleports.

Point 5-The bad guys can teleport away too.

[Doug Lampert]

Um... you might want to re-read what I said. I actually think we agree: Only if you are deliberately setting out to break the system does it actually break.

No. Build a bard who wants to be good at diplomacy and thinks he should ALWAYS try to negotiate first because it's in character.

The game breaks at level 2. IT CAN'T AVOID IT. That whole CONCEPT is disallowed because unless you deliberately self nerf you'll rule the world at level 2 or so.

That wasn't deliberate.

Put a Druid in a party with a fighter. It breaks at level 1.

Put a cleric who thinks he's a warrior of God, not a healbot, into the game (from personal experience, if you INTRODUCE someone to the game with 3.x and the PHB that's what they'll think a cleric is, the healbot idea is cultural to people who've been playing for a long time). The game breaks around level 9 if he plays intelligently.

The FIRST thing any intelligent six year old thinks to do with a wish is wish for more wishes. The candle of Invocation lets you, and that's the OBVIOUS use of the item if you know the rules.

It does NOT require deliberate action to break the game, it requires deliberate action to NOT break the game.


Likewise, there are feats that are broken (Why WOULDN'T you take Natural Spell, what 6th level druid feat can REMOTELY compete with it in power and flexibility),

Leadership wants a word with you. Is it better to be able to cast spells as an animal, or to be an animal with a friend who casts spells? Tough decision. If I'm trying for powerful feats from core then Druid is the ONE AND ONLY class where there's any serious question about the level 6 feat. Mind, the level NINE feat then becomes a trivial choice as I'd just take the other one.

DougL

[Callista]

Things don't have to be absolutely equal in power. They just have to be equal enough to be fun. Ask the guy playing the monk in our group if he's having fun. He'll be too proccupied with grappling everything in sight to answer.

[bloodtide]

No. Build a bard who wants to be good at diplomacy and thinks he should ALWAYS try to negotiate first because it's in character.DougL

How does a bard with diplomacy break the game?

[Half-Orc Rage]

Don't you need a "clear mental picture" to teleport somewhere? So if you teleport you pretty much need to have been there or have a really good description of it. There's a lot of factors that go into it, if your wizard has never been there before you can't just snap your fingers and bring the party.

[Callista]

How does a bard with diplomacy break the game?

Diplomacy has a flat DC instead of an opposed check, and while the DC is high at first level, by 5th level you can reliably make a hostile NPC helpful quite quickly. Soon after that you can reliably make rushed checks to do it in a full round. This gets boring quickly because everything with a mind and a shared language can be befriended that way.

The problem can be solved by using opposed checks of some kind, so that the 5th level bard can no longer charm the balor that the party's supposed to be running from, but can still pacify the orc warlord they're negotiating with. I like the method they use for opposed Diplomacy checks when the BoED talks about changing someone's alignment through diplomacy; it's an opposed check modified by HD.

[bloodtide]

Diplomacy has a flat DC instead of an opposed check

Oh, I forget that not everyone uses Monte Cook's Diplomacy.http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?otherd20_Diplomacy

[Callista]

Yeah, there are a lot of alternatives for diplomacy. I'll admit I was blindsided the first time someone maxed out Diplomacy in my game, though; I had to give all those nameless mooks personalities and motivations! In the long run, it was a good thing for me because I now think about who my villains are a great deal more. Still, it's a flaw that's easily dealt with.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

I agree that some power imbalance is usually fine in-game. Even Polymorph often works out IME, because the wizard usually polymorphs the Rogue into a hydra, or the fighter into a war troll, instead of hogging the spotlight himself. It really is the planar binding/calling/candle of invocation line that ruins everything. Along with Genesis, Astral Projection, and N other tricks I missed, where N is large, but still. Get rid of the Planar Binding line and items associated it in core and you've postponed the broken apocalypse until about level 15.

[Roderick_BR]

In the past, broken was meant in the literal way; a broken game was one that wouldn't function as intended or wouldn't let you play at all. Hence, broken.
Exactly! The tem "broken" was added to overly overpowered stuff, because it can break a game. See a wizard, for example, meeting an important boss, and one-shooting him with some combination the DM didn't thought out, and can't get the boss out of it without heavy DM fiat, making it look like a bad plot hole, or a "scripted battle", where the boss is immune to anything for no reason.

[Callista]

I agree that some power imbalance is usually fine in-game. Even Polymorph often works out IME, because the wizard usually polymorphs the Rogue into a hydra, or the fighter into a war troll, instead of hogging the spotlight himself. It really is the planar binding/calling/candle of invocation line that ruins everything. Along with Genesis, Astral Projection, and N other tricks I missed, where N is large, but still. Get rid of the Planar Binding line and items associated it in core and you've postponed the broken apocalypse until about level 15.Yep, and the polymorph works better on the fighter, too. Polymorphed creatures keep the fighter's BAB, and it's silly for the wizard to polymorph himself when he could be doing it to someone with a higher BAB.

Planar Binding doesn't actually have to be banned if you remember that the creatures aren't created--they're summoned. If you ask a demon for something and he doesn't like what you're asking, then he might have to comply with your request, but nothing stops him and his buddies from coming after you later. (Also, if you don't try to chain Wishes. That's just godmoding.)

[The Big Dice]

The FIRST thing any intelligent six year old thinks to do with a wish is wish for more wishes. The candle of Invocation lets you, and that's the OBVIOUS use of the item if you know the rules.
Earlier editions of D&D had built in limitations on Wishes. The description of possible Wish effects specifically said that wishing for more wishes would lock you into a time loop. For all eternity, you would be Wishing for more Wishes. And nothing else, as you were locked into a loop and couldn't wish you'd never wished for more wishes.

Though I suppose someone who knew what had haopened to you could Wish that you'd never Wished for more Wishes.

[bloodtide]

See a wizard, for example, meeting an important boss, and one-shooting him with some combination the DM didn't thought out, and can't get the boss out of it without heavy DM fiat, making it look like a bad plot hole, or a "scripted battle", where the boss is immune to anything for no reason.

This might be why I don't get much 'broken' stuff in my games. So the wizard kills the 'important boss'....it's not a big deal. He is just one boss of many or such. Then the big important boss comes out. Or he was just a paw all along. Or even he just dies....big deal, it's one less boss.

Plus, as a high powered and high magic world, 'death' does not matter all so much...as the boss can be back quick enough.

[Callista]

You may try to use a wish to produce greater effects than these, but doing so is dangerous. (The wish may pervert your intent into a literal but undesirable fulfillment or only a partial fulfillment.)If you start messing around with Candles of Invocation, the DM has every right to have the spell summon one which currently happens to be in the claws of the Tarrasque. Considering that the spellcaster knows what he intends to do with the Wish, the spell should also "know" and come to the conclusion that, yes, getting infinite wishes is more powerful than duplicating an 8th-level wizard or sorcerer spell.

[olentu]

If you start messing around with Candles of Invocation, the DM has every right to have the spell summon one which currently happens to be in the claws of the Tarrasque. Considering that the spellcaster knows what he intends to do with the Wish, the spell should also "know" and come to the conclusion that, yes, getting infinite wishes is more powerful than duplicating an 8th-level wizard or sorcerer spell.

That is not technically an applicable section since creating a magic item out of nothing falls under the effects for which the quote does not apply.

But of course the DM can do whatever he wants and kill you for any thing at all regardless of what spell is being cast.

[doctor_wu]

Yeah making a fake boss in a deathtrap that is promised to be revived can stop the teleport problems. Oh guess what you met a fake boss you scry on the wrong person and teleport into a deathtrap yeah does that sound smart.

Also chaining wishes is just stupid and what fun is that. When he wishes for more wishes give him so many candles of invocation that they crush him to death and then The BBEg loots him and gets too many wishes. Pun pun would probably get boring to play after a while.

[Callista]

Yes. Yes, he can. And killing your PC for trying to obtain infinite wishes is well within the non-asshat reach of any DM's authority.

[olentu]

Yes. Yes, he can. And killing your PC for trying to obtain infinite wishes is well within the non-asshat reach of any DM's authority.

I think that falls quite firmly under the "asshat" area of DMing as opposed to just banning the use and not killing the character.

[Z3ro]

Put a Druid in a party with a fighter. It breaks at level 1.


This is exactly what I'm talking about. The game is not broken when a fighter and druid are in the same game at level 1. It is still a game. Yes, the druid is effectively two characters, making him more powerful than the one fighter character, but it's still a game. You don't have an "I win" button, you just have an extra guy.


Exactly! The tem "broken" was added to overly overpowered stuff, because it can break a game. See a wizard, for example, meeting an important boss, and one-shooting him with some combination the DM didn't thought out, and can't get the boss out of it without heavy DM fiat, making it look like a bad plot hole, or a "scripted battle", where the boss is immune to anything for no reason.

This is much closer to what I'm talking about. Depending on the one-shot it might be broken. If it's just taking advantage of a weakness I don't think I'd call it broken. If you have a stick that you point at any enemy and they die, that's probably broken.

[Endarire]

Regarding teleport (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/teleport.htm), you get it at a level where the world is your adventure site. No longer are you "stuck in a dungeon" or limited to one nation or region.

A Cleric9 gets plane shift (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/planeshift.htm). A Wizard9 can get teleport. Suddenly, the group has a lot more options.

[Gnaeus]

If my wizard has to stop and say "hmm, does the DM want us to instantly teleport there? Or does he want a long trip?", that's a sign that the game is broken, because I'm being forced out of my character to make decisions. That's not a fun way to play the game. (It is, literally, forcing me to metagame.) This shows that Teleport is broken, at least in many games and in many situations.

It's not a matter of me being exploitative. I'm not using Teleport in any particularly strange ways. All I'm doing is using the powers the book says I have in a reasonably logical (not even particularly cunning, just straightforwardly logical) fashion -- no different than the fighter who says "hey, I have a +3 sword, imma gonna swing it."

If the game breaks as a result of people using their straightforward normal powers in a straightforward normal fashion, that's a sign that the game itself is broken. It's not the players' faults, it's the game's fault.

To respond to this this in a slightly different way, this isn't a Teleport problem, it is a DM problem. Does your DM make your level 9 party fight a dozen kobolds with no class levels in straight toe to toe battles. Do his level 9 dungeons include spike traps that are DC 10 and do 1d6 damage? Probably not, because those encounters are not appropriate to the powers and abilities of your group. If the DM can't deal with teleport, he isn't doing his job. There are dozens of ways to challenge a teleporting party, many of which have already been mentioned.

Encounters/plots which do not take the parties abilities into account will USUALLY be either way too hard or trivially easy, and "overland trek" is no different. When my group doesn't teleport, we summon 4 Phantom Steeds and travel at a speed of 240 with Air Walk. Any threat that can't match our speed or stop us somehow... isn't a threat at all. The good DM learns that quickly and adapts.

[rubycona]

I remember a mess with my husband, when I was DMing. I fussed at him for powergaming, and he swore he'd build a character that wasn't broken. He tried, he honestly did, and took a lot of silly combinations, interesting spells, as a straight cleric, with some Spell Compendium spells.

How I glared at him when he one-hit my green dragon boss at level 6.

He was trying to avoid obvious combinations, but it's his nature to try to act intelligently. Combining things is logical. IE, you mix rapid shot and precise shot, these feats work great together. That combo is okay, but other combos aren't, and it's easy to miss.

Most recently, he's tried building a rogue/fighter/wizard/cleric/mystic theurge. He's positive there's nothing he can do to accidentally break that. I'm rather inclined to agree XD

Still, if it's in your nature to play smart, and you have to actively fight to avoid breaking the game, there's a problem.

[Callista]

I think that falls quite firmly under the "asshat" area of DMing as opposed to just banning the use and not killing the character.You don't ban Planar Binding entirely, though. You ban overpowered uses of Planar Binding. You ban Wish chains and Hulking Hurlers that can throw the Moon at the Sun. You ban infinite power loops. And if people try them, you exercise your prerogative as DM to say, "Yeah, sorry, but I don't let people god-mode in my game. Your character's dead."

In a sensible group, though, it never comes to that. You're talking about DMs being wrong for banning people who try to play Pun-Pun... well, what about the guy who actually tried it as a character instead of a theoretical optimization experiment?

[Z3ro]

I remember a mess with my husband, when I was DMing. I fussed at him for powergaming, and he swore he'd build a character that wasn't broken. He tried, he honestly did, and took a lot of silly combinations, interesting spells, as a straight cleric, with some Spell Compendium spells.

How I glared at him when he one-hit my green dragon boss at level 6.

He was trying to avoid obvious combinations, but it's his nature to try to act intelligently. Combining things is logical. IE, you mix rapid shot and precise shot, these feats work great together. That combo is okay, but other combos aren't, and it's easy to miss.

Most recently, he's tried building a rogue/fighter/wizard/cleric/mystic theurge. He's positive there's nothing he can do to accidentally break that. I'm rather inclined to agree XD

Still, if it's in your nature to play smart, and you have to actively fight to avoid breaking the game, there's a problem.

This, especially at level 6, is not broken. I'm assuming he didn't teleport in, one-shot the dragon, and teleport out (that would be broken). They still had to fight there way to the boss before they could kill him. One-shots are usually a case of failing a save or targeting a weakness, neither of which prevents the game from being a game. Overpowered? Yes. Broken? No.

[AstralFire]

You don't ban Planar Binding entirely, though. You ban overpowered uses of Planar Binding. You ban Wish chains and Hulking Hurlers that can throw the Moon at the Sun. You ban infinite power loops. And if people try them, you exercise your prerogative as DM to say, "Yeah, sorry, but I don't let people god-mode in my game. Your character's dead."

In a sensible group, though, it never comes to that. You're talking about DMs being wrong for banning people who try to play Pun-Pun... well, what about the guy who actually tried it as a character instead of a theoretical optimization experiment?

You're not being a jerk as a DM to stop someone from doing it, but I haven't seen a non-metagame, non-homebrew reason to not wish for a candle of invocation to get more wishes. I think this is an issue.

[Thrawn183]

I find the discussion on teleport interesting. The first campaign I ever played started at level nine and finished at level thirteen. We started in the northern portion of a country, traveled to the capital in the center of the country and then traveled to the border of the country south-east of the country we started in. This took us a whole semester playing once every week for about eight ours straight. If we had used teleport, we could have done this in three sessions easy, two if we really, really pushed it.

I think this is why so many DM's dislike the spell.

[olentu]

You don't ban Planar Binding entirely, though. You ban overpowered uses of Planar Binding. You ban Wish chains and Hulking Hurlers that can throw the Moon at the Sun. You ban infinite power loops. And if people try them, you exercise your prerogative as DM to say, "Yeah, sorry, but I don't let people god-mode in my game. Your character's dead."

In a sensible group, though, it never comes to that. You're talking about DMs being wrong for banning people who try to play Pun-Pun... well, what about the guy who actually tried it as a character instead of a theoretical optimization experiment?

So like I said sure you ban overpowered things but really I have seen people completely new to the game come up with this kind of stuff (seeing how some of it is rather obvious) and it is rather sort of a jerk move to say "Yeah, sorry, despite doing something well within the rules, perfectly reasonable in character, that I have never even mentioned in discussion about the game or in houserules, and could easily ban without arbitrarily killing your character. I am going to make a houserule that says your character is dead."

Sure perhaps if I had talked to them before about it I might kick them out games that I run (perhaps let them back in after a while) but killing the character is meaningless if they are trying to ruin the game and unnecessarily spiteful if it is an honest mistake.