PDA

View Full Version : The Internet ruined D&D 3.X, discuss



Mr. Friendly
2008-05-02, 10:43 AM
The title pretty much sums it up.

That without the Internet, 3e/3.5 would be pretty much fine as is, with isolated pockets of problems here and there.

However, because of the rapidity of the internet, broken build combinations and feat combos are known instantly around the world.

It also allows for far greater optimization than a single human would really normally have. With hyperlinked SRDs and forums full of people, one can whip up a character to ruin any campaign in a matter of moments.

Admittedly, part of the problems stem from 3es own internal problems. (Overpowered mages/clerics; weak fighters; etc.) The other bit of cupability though goes to the optimization forums and the like.

At least that's my opinion.

Meat Shield
2008-05-02, 11:04 AM
Its only 'ruined' if you let it be. My group has been together for three years - we've never had to deal with any one player or class overshadow everyone else. We don't have any optimizers, we have role-players. We argue mechanics all the time (doing it for the crusader right now actually), but when it comes down to it, nobody in my group makes anything just to be 'teh uber'. We do it because that is what the character would do.

So, in short, if you want to play it like a video game, then yeah, everyone will go codzilla or wizard. But if you do it to have a good time, to RP, to get together with friends, and to have fun, then no amount of internet will ruin it.

sonofzeal
2008-05-02, 11:07 AM
Define "ruined". I've read most of the classic doom-builds, from Pun-pun and the Omniscificer to Terminator to Nasty Gentleman to all sorts of other crazy stuff (including my own attempt, Jack the Indecisive (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=965552)). And yet, I still enjoy DMing and playing, trying out new themes and ideas and generally having fun rather than breaking the game.

Besides, EVERY system has internal balance issues. Quick example - the reasonably popular Dungeon Siege 1 can be utterly broken by a single Combat Mage / Nature Mage dual classed character with the right mix of buffs, and Dungeon Siege 2 can be broken merely by taking all Fighters. Guild Wars has the Invincible Monk trick, and Flyff has Assists with hyperleveled buffs. You're right that the internet, combined with the size and passion of the userbase, define how quickly these balance issues become "common knowledge", but that's a problem any system that really takes off will suffer from.

Keld Denar
2008-05-02, 11:09 AM
With all due respect, why do you still post here? A post like this is gonna get you probably about 4 pages of flaming before the mods show up to lock it. No offense, I've taken part in a few of your threads that were worth while, but this dead horse has long since stopped twitching. You've already more than completely expressed your contempt of everything you hold in contempt, what more do you hope to accomplish?

Once again, not to flame you, but just curious why you continuously willingly throw yourself into this fire.

SamTheCleric
2008-05-02, 11:17 AM
I disagree.

You want to know what really ruined D&D 3.x?


David Hasselhoff.

http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2007/startracks/070618/david_hasselhoff.jpg

Tokiko Mima
2008-05-02, 11:23 AM
I certainly do not think the Internet is the source of all of 3.X's problems. In actual fact it often leads to fewer problems because things like Monkey Grip and the downsides of TWF versus THW are discussed in detail so DM's don't let players misuse them.

As much as it is a pain that someone can go to the Char Ops board and steal Pun-Pun's build, that requires them to learn how and why Pun-Pun works. This leads to a deeper understanding of the game mechanics which is never a bad thing for a non-malicious player to have. Malicious players will be a problem regardless of their access to Optimization information; having it only means that they have another avenue to act out.

EvilElitest
2008-05-02, 11:34 AM
The title pretty much sums it up.

That without the Internet, 3e/3.5 would be pretty much fine as is, with isolated pockets of problems here and there.



However, because of the rapidity of the internet, broken build combinations and feat combos are known instantly around the world.

Meh, you have a bit of a point there, but only in the way people use it. i mean you right, if it wasn't for the internet, a lot of broken things wouldn't have been noticed. For example, because of the way i run my games, i didn't realize that druids were overpowered, because the people who played Druids tended to do so badly. But that being said, it certainly was the fault of WotC to make hte game so badly in the first place. The effect would have been not so devastating had the interenet not been around your right. to be fair, i've found a lot of great fixes to D&D problems on the internet.




It also allows for far greater optimization than a single human would really normally have. With hyperlinked SRDs and forums full of people, one can whip up a character to ruin any campaign in a matter of moments.
It also leads to a lot more of an elitist group in terms of mechanics. Very interesting idea.



With all due respect, why do you still post here? A post like this is gonna get you probably about 4 pages of flaming before the mods show up to lock it. No offense, I've taken part in a few of your threads that were worth while, but this dead horse has long since stopped twitching. You've already more than completely expressed your contempt of everything you hold in contempt, what more do you hope to accomplish?
Actually, while i doubt Friendly's motives, the question itself is still very interesting. how much has the internet effected both 3E and 4E compared to 2E

Samethecleric has seen the way, let us follow him to enlightenments
from
EE

Archpaladin Zousha
2008-05-02, 11:43 AM
I disagree.

You want to know what really ruined D&D 3.x?


David Hasselhoff.

http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2007/startracks/070618/david_hasselhoff.jpg

:smallconfused: I don't get the joke.

SamTheCleric
2008-05-02, 11:51 AM
:smallconfused: I don't get the joke.

No -real- joke per se... I just wanted to throw something up that was completely random. David Hasselhoff was about as random as I could get. :smalltongue:

EvilElitest
2008-05-02, 11:55 AM
No -real- joke per se... I just wanted to throw something up that was completely random. David Hasselhoff was about as random as I could get. :smalltongue:

As i said



Samethecleric has seen the way, let us follow him to enlightenments
from
EE

SofS
2008-05-02, 11:55 AM
I've considered this idea of the internet making the experience worse, but I've rejected it in favour of the idea that it's all about attitude. I was in a game recently where a few friends disappointed me by both blatant powergaming and their utter and complete failure at it. Their builds were obviously from CharOp boards. I'd read them before. They didn't seem to realize how to make them work, though, especially since the friend that was running it is quite wily and far better at powergaming and thus hard to trick.

The thing is, though, that the internet is not at all to blame for their actions. If they hadn't had the CharOp boards to pinch from, they'd probably have just figured out some other way to beat the CR system. It's really not a very good system, after all.

D&D 3.x is still good fun to play if you have the right players, and the wrong players would make any game unbearable. It's not "ruined" unless you decide that it is.

valadil
2008-05-02, 12:05 PM
I disagree.

You want to know what really ruined D&D 3.x?


David Hasselhoff.

http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2007/startracks/070618/david_hasselhoff.jpg

Screw Hasselhoff. Everyone knows it was really ...

http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w234/cherrycodes/msbg/rick.jpg

I'm sorry, but somebody had to do it.


In all seriousness though, the internet exposed the problem. The problem was there on its own though. How many people actually play the game with builds yoinked from the CharOp boards anyway? I always got the sense that the overall attitude was that yes, a wizard could do all that cheese, but in reality people don't actually play that way except for that one guy who nobody wants to play with anyway.

AKA_Bait
2008-05-02, 12:06 PM
With all due respect, why do you still post here? A post like this is gonna get you probably about 4 pages of flaming before the mods show up to lock it.

Now now, this is a pretty interesting topic. Let's not doom it to destruction.

As for the idea that the availability of information and the ease with which the Web allows it to spread exacerbated mechanincal probems within the 3.5 sysem, that is probably true. I would never even have considered things like the '1d2 crusader' or probably even a fair amount of what is in the Batman guide to Wizards. Blaster wizards and healbot clerics would probably be more prevalent.

However, although some of those things might be downsides, the overall upside of the internet, imo, far outeighed the downside. The fact that there was so much access and distribution of information meant that the 3.x system was explored far more than any other table top system, probably ever. Which means that the weaknesses of the system were more commonly exposed and adjusted to. Also, becaue the depth of the system was much more easily accessable, the options in terms of non-uber builds that are character specific were also much greater than they otherwise would have been.

Finally, were it not for the internet many of the most interesting and best parts of the game would simply not exist. There would certianly not be the huge and wonderful amount of homebrew that now exists. OotS wouldn't exist. The imput that shaped the development of 4e (whether you like the direction the system is going to take or not) wouldn't have existed.

So, no, the internet didn't ruin 3.x. It made it better.

Mr. Friendly
2008-05-02, 12:08 PM
Perhaps "ruined" was a bit too harsh, but I couldn't get "The internet exacerbated problems inherant in D&D 3.X to the point that DMs are required to houserule so heavily and make such sweeping changes that 3.X is barely recognizable as D&D, discuss" to fit in the title bar.


Once again, not to flame you, but just curious why you continuously willingly throw yourself into this fire.

Because the forum rules specifically say that you are supposed to not drag baggage in from one thread to another?

Because I thought this was a legitimate topic?

I can't speak for anyone else, but when we played 1e and 2e people played and stuff happened. This, that, whatever. After everyone got internet connections and more importantly after people started actively looking for websites about D&D and forums, things in our group changed, with every build becoming more and more overshadowing of actually playing D&D.

It got to the point that I had to stop DMing because I couldn't keep up "the arms race" without using such broken and overpowered monsters that a TPK was all but assured.

This situation then gets compounded, because with an escalating power curve like that, more and more characters get killed, which results in more and more wealth put into the party. (though thats a topic worth a whole other thread on its own)

AKA_Bait
2008-05-02, 12:17 PM
It got to the point that I had to stop DMing because I couldn't keep up "the arms race" without using such broken and overpowered monsters that a TPK was all but assured.

This situation then gets compounded, because with an escalating power curve like that, more and more characters get killed, which results in more and more wealth put into the party. (though thats a topic worth a whole other thread on its own)

It sounds to me like you should have had a discussion with them about the power curve problem you experienced rather than just giving up on Dming. Also, try looking for other sources or monsters that challenge the party in nontraditional ways. Counting homebrew, there are a lot of options.

AtomicKitKat
2008-05-02, 12:20 PM
Well, the reason 3.x died as quickly as it did is because of the pace of the world, along with the Internet helping to explode various myths("Wizards are weak. Ever!" "Fighters rock because of all the Feats they get!"), and ultimately, the fact that the designers were already working on 4.0 almost before 3.5 was out the door.:smallfurious:

valadil
2008-05-02, 12:31 PM
Perhaps "ruined" was a bit too harsh, but I couldn't get "The internet exacerbated problems inherant in D&D 3.X to the point that DMs are required to houserule so heavily and make such sweeping changes that 3.X is barely recognizable as D&D, discuss" to fit in the title bar.



I'd rather have a documented set of things that are wrong in DnD than act as GM ignorantly and have 1 or 2 players who have found loop holes bring them into my game, breaking the game. Now if a player says he wants to be a kobold with psionic abilities I know now to let him instead of seeing him ruin one session.

What ruined 3.x was the attitude that players should buy books. Before this edition we operated on the assumption that the DM owned the books, which were sacred text which no player should glance upon lest his eyes be burned from its sockets. Well maybe not that extreme, but it was close. The point is, we couldn't optimize. We could only roleplay. We'd think of a concept and the DM would help us write up that concept based on the game rules. Our barbarians would wield greatclubs because it seemed cool and we never once thought it would be less efficient than a greatsword. But WotC needed dollars and the best way to get dollars would be if everyone at the table bought a copy of each book. Now we all see that greatswords are just straight up better than greatclubs (unless you're really low level where every copper piece counts and you might need bludgeoning damage). My point is that owning so many books has forced us to become more immersed in the rules and we're going to try to optimize according to those rules. Nowadays my group plays DnD when we feel like optimizing and we'll try something new (hopefully that nobody but the DM has played) when we want to play with characters instead of builds.

Fixer
2008-05-02, 12:32 PM
I can't speak for anyone else, but when we played 1e and 2e people played and stuff happened. This, that, whatever. After everyone got internet connections and more importantly after people started actively looking for websites about D&D and forums, things in our group changed, with every build becoming more and more overshadowing of actually playing D&D.
I recall, in 2nd Edition, using Skills & Powers, making an absolutely broken Cleric. It didn't require the Internet at all.

The Internet is not the problem. The problem is the unbalanced system that was not designed nor 'updated' with balance in mind. The fact that people communicate and share information isn't the problem and would happen in a larger group.

Yakk
2008-05-02, 12:36 PM
You could call it the script kiddy effect. :)

There are fewer people who have the time, inclination and talent to build broken builds than there are people who are willing to use broken builds. So the ability for broken builds to be communicated over the internet leads to more broken builds being used.

Ie: the incompetence/lack of time in the people who want to play broken builds "protects" a typical pre-internet group from having broken builds in the group.

If you are playing D&D in the "how tough can my character be against hard DM challenges", then the game generates incentives to power up the characters...

Keld Denar
2008-05-02, 12:37 PM
TBH, me and a few of my friends play Living Greyhawk. LG is wrought with powergamers because of 2 things. A) There is less DM control. The rules of the game are published in the campaign source, and its not up to each DM to say "I don't like spiked chains, so you can't use one". That is left up to the campaign administrators who have done a pretty decent job, but let a couple of things slip through the cracks. and B) Somewhat escalating arms race between the players and the authors. Some authors have a reputation for writing deadly mods with really tough combats (ye shall remain unnamed, Mr Triad member from Wisconsin!) and as such, players tend to invest a goodly amount of time coming up with powerful character builds to compete effectively in the campaign, which makes some authors think they have to write increasingly challenging encounters to which players make increasingly powerful characters. Without the direct face-to-face interaction that a typical DM has with his players, there can be no real Gentlemen's Agreement.

Ah, the Gentlemen's Agreement. "I won't if you won't." There is the answer to a good number of problems with your players. Sure, it takes a bit of maturity, honor, and conviction to hold to it, but it makes for a more enjoyable and relaxing game. In the last home game I played in, the DM gave us the players the ability to choose the parameters of the game. He said, "you can all pick 32 point buy, or all pick 28 point buy, but know that it will impact the difficulty of the game." Guess what? We voted unanimously to play 28 point buy. Sure, the extra 4 points would have helped make stronger characters, but then there would always be an extra bad guy to fight, or an extra magic item in play, or an extra circumstance to bump up the difficulty and complexity just a bit. We picked no Frenzied Berzerkers, and thus no FB were used against us, same with Iot7Vs, Incantrixes, Dervishes, Divine Metamagic, and Mordy's Disjunctions. Shivering Touch kills the wizard just as fast as it kills the dragon.

Did we still make mechanically sound and strong characters? You bet. Did we seek out information and guidance from the masses via the internet? I know I did, and others did as well. Did we cross the line the DM drew in the sand before us? Not on our PCs lives. Was fun had by all, including the DM (one of the best DMs I've EVER played with!)? Oh yes. I still tell stories about the amazingly intricate adventures, the cunningly crafted bosses, the horrendeous frothing swams, and the care and love placed by all into the hobby we enjoy so much. It is a game, not a "my sword is bigger than your sword" contest, and like many other things in life, restraint must be had to maintain enjoyment. Ask any alcoholic.

crimson77
2008-05-02, 12:44 PM
I for one think of the wonderful contribution that the internet has made on gaming. I would not be playing 3.5 if not for the internet and these forums. Furthermore, it has allowed for sharing of ideas and homebrews. While, I do see the negative impact that the internet has by allowing people to discuss how to exploit gaps in the system. However, it is not like the internet caused this to happen. I remember going down to the gaming store and having similar conversations about 2nd edition rules.

I wonder if the problem is really just powergaming. While, 3.x did fix some of the problems, powergaming has been around since the dawn of RPGs. While any system is effected by powergaming, it is not the system that must change it is the perspective of the players. I would say that the internet has added to the accessibility to powergaming options; however, it is still us the players that have to make up our minds as to if we will powergame.

Mr. Friendly
2008-05-02, 12:53 PM
As an addendum:

Another "something bad" is that on more than one occasion we had players cheat by looking up the mods online or talking to people on forums. While thats a problem of the players and one that exists in all forms, it is still at least a related issue.

Telonius
2008-05-02, 12:54 PM
3.X was not ruined by the internet. The system had its weaknesses even in core, and the splatbook explosion made matters worse. The net just pointed out the weaknesses much more quickly. Don't shoot the (instant) messenger.

hamishspence
2008-05-02, 12:58 PM
Lussmaj, that was a pretty good summary. Its really a matter of players and DM, when the synergy is there, and both sides are on the same page, we have fun games. It should be remembered that the whole point is to maximise the overall fun for everyone, players and DM, rather than a single player, or just the DM.

valadil
2008-05-02, 01:07 PM
TBH, me and a few of my friends play Living Greyhawk. LG is wrought with powergamers because of 2 things. A) There is less DM control. ... and B) Somewhat escalating arms race between the players and the authors.

I'd like to add a point C. Because LG was standardized and played among so many players it became a measuring stick of sorts. Everyone has a level 20 wizard who did such and such because the DM allowed blahbitty blah. But not in LG. In LG you play the same mods under the same rules as everybody else. For players who really need to compare their optimizations to that of other players, LG is pretty much the only available platform.

Morty
2008-05-02, 01:18 PM
Also, those Batmans, CoDzillas and the like didn't invent themselves. Sooner or later, as the group becomes more and more experienced, people will notice the D&D's brokenness eventually.

Eldariel
2008-05-02, 01:29 PM
I think Internet serves on the contrary. It lets people know what is broken and therefore avoid the brokenness, making for a more enjoyable experience for everyone. Internet also offers a large number of fixes to the problems; not everyone has the energy to remake the core into a fair version, so luckily others have done it before us.

Not everyone knows how to avoid lame characters that end up not contributing much making the rest of the party frustrated and the player bored. You can get help for your charater builds online. Also, not everyone has time to go through all the splat books and know all the available options, so the internet offers information compendiums that are much faster to read lacking the less useful parts focusing on the important and playable.

Finally, the internet gives people a channel through wish to express their ideas of the set. It's much easier for WoTC to fix what's broken when there's a billion people saying it at their face. It makes errata and future sets more accurate at covering issues and overall helps to making a more enjoyable playing experience.


And important fact to remember is that 3.0 is more broken than AD&D, since many of the balancing factors were removed without anything taking its place, so casters got a huge leap (they used to level slower; now they level just as fast and have the same progression they had before, making them much more powerful when levels) and weapons got unbalanced (weapon speed was a heavy balancing factor for e.g. Spiked Chain; it's gone so now the weapon is easily the best in the game - it's also less realistic that big bulky weapons are just as fast to use as daggers). Also, multiclassing was a new thing they were trying and while it was cool for martial characters, casters had serious issues losing caster levels so it was a failure for casters, making for yet another fundamental issue in 3.0.

Basically, 3.0 is far more broken than AD&D, which is why it's discussed as thus. Internet makes people more aware of it, but actually, known problems are better than unknown ones since you can't avoid what you don't see.

Hal
2008-05-02, 02:02 PM
Actually, I've been very grateful for the net on this one.

I only started playing D&D a bit less than a year ago. At the time, I only had access to the core, and didn't want to sink the money into purchasing tons of splatbooks (my Local Friendly Gaming Store only has a handful of the books, anyhow).

With the net, I was able to figure out how broken some things are, certainly. But on top of that, I was able to learn a lot about the game, how it's played, etc. I've been able to benefit from people with years of experience sharing what works and what doesn't. I was convinced to pick up ToB and Dungeonscape, and haven't been disappointed with the purchases.

So, yeah, people have managed to share the stuff that makes life more difficult. The Internet has done that for every avenue of life. But I've enjoyed the good stuff far more.

Curmudgeon
2008-05-02, 02:30 PM
This is ironic, right, Mr. Friendly? You're using the easy availability of Internet discussions to posit that the easy availability of Internet discussions is a bad thing.

:smallwink:

Mr. Friendly
2008-05-02, 02:40 PM
This is ironic, right, Mr. Friendly? You're using the easy availability of Internet discussions to posit that the easy availability of Internet discussions is a bad thing.

:smallwink:

Yes and no. Obviously I like teh Intartubes as much as everyone else does; however I think in this case it leads to allowing flaws in the system to be found too easily. e.g. One person in group A might see Nightsticks and think: "Whoa that is so awesome! I can turn undead 4 more times!" another in group B sees DMM and says: "Hey, neat I can Maximixe my CLW!" a third in group C says: "Oooooh! I can use Persistant Metamagic to have Bear's Endurance on the Fighter all day!" and they all post on the net where person D says: "Y'know, you could buy unlimited Nightsticks, then DMM Persist everything.." and suddenly DMs cry out in horror...

Telonius
2008-05-02, 02:46 PM
Then WotC should use it to their advantage. They have a willing army of a million nerds, who are just itching to push things past the breaking point. Quality Control that's willing to work for free. Post that sort of thing before you release it, let your minions turn it upside down and shake it, and see if Pun-Pun falls out.

RukiTanuki
2008-05-02, 02:55 PM
My players have no inclination to read up on anything D&D. They reference SRD while playing because they are too cheap to are busy and haven't yet bought the books. (I figure my purchases more than make up for it.) Beyond that, they don't look up anything, other than to read my books to find what they want to play.

We've had problems with D&D 3.x. Those problems are real, actual problems in the game. My players stumbled onto those problems through normal play. We continue playing, and they continue having fun, but I've seen several characters sacrificed in the process, because the game wouldn't let the character be played the way the player wanted.

I feel the internet just made it difficult to discuss the game on the internet without other individuals demonstrating their knowledge by injecting their "PROTIP:" into any mildly relevant discussion. :)

Keld Denar
2008-05-02, 03:03 PM
I'd like to add a point C. Because LG was standardized and played among so many players it became a measuring stick of sorts. Everyone has a level 20 wizard who did such and such because the DM allowed blahbitty blah. But not in LG. In LG you play the same mods under the same rules as everybody else. For players who really need to compare their optimizations to that of other players, LG is pretty much the only available platform.

Actually, this kind of made me think of a point D. LG, and the massive amount of time it takes to get a character from level 1 to level 15 (campaign cap). This provides a kind of natural selection, if you will, for PCs. Characters that are more effective and contribute more to the party with feats and abilities tend to become favorite characters of the player playing them. I know I wouldn't enjoy playing a TWF fighter as much as I enjoy the THF I currently play because my character couldn't fulfil his role (to hit stuff till it stops moving) as well. My primary character Liam can bring the hurt to the table with his melee prowass, and that's what makes him fun. He's effective, even though he's not a red-cloud charger. Comparing him with my friends melee builds, his damage per round is comperable even with variations to build. At level 15, Liam gets 1 extra attack per round with his spiked chain over my friends Uncanny Blow build, which does about 10 extra damage per hit. Over the course of a full attack with full buffs and PA, the damage evens out. Balanced, yet optimized.

Yakk
2008-05-02, 03:04 PM
Pun-pun is less of a problem than the Batman Group-Replacing Wizard.

Because Pun-pun is an explict, obvious, sharp-edged method to break the game. Someone who is pun-pun all the way to the "and then I make myself a God and give myself infinite stats" stage still isn't making the rest of the party redundant.

(That would be an amusing joke to play -- you play pun-pun, but you don't go through with it or every use that ability...)

Batman, meanwhile, exists on a continuum of brokenness. CoDzilla exists on a continuum of brokenness. Ubercharger exists on a continuum of brokenness. Etc.

FMArthur
2008-05-02, 03:06 PM
But the game balance is still skewed even among players lacking many books and things, if less so: a Wizard player who's played a few times and read up on his spell list knows about and has access to spells even from core (well, especially from core) that far outshine anything the burly physical combatants have to offer because they can control the fight with relative ease in CR-appropriate encounters. Fighters are there to clean up the battlefield of drooling, catatonic, paralyzed statless beasts that have no actions, and even then it's only because it's more efficient to save the spells that do that for later. Going on the internet reveals ways to do that obscenely quickly and at lesser cost, but what's there is inherently broken as is.

EvilElitest
2008-05-02, 03:07 PM
Yes and no. Obviously I like teh Intartubes as much as everyone else does; however I think in this case it leads to allowing flaws in the system to be found too easily. e.g. One person in group A might see Nightsticks and think: "Whoa that is so awesome! I can turn undead 4 more times!" another in group B sees DMM and says: "Hey, neat I can Maximixe my CLW!" a third in group C says: "Oooooh! I can use Persistant Metamagic to have Bear's Endurance on the Fighter all day!" and they all post on the net where person D says: "Y'know, you could buy unlimited Nightsticks, then DMM Persist everything.." and suddenly DMs cry out in horror...

Does the internet ruin 3E? As a game, no, WotC ruined 3E, with all of its flaws. That being said, however, it was the internet that ruined 3E as a viable system because its flaws became too obvious for everybody. I predict that 4E's flaws (and i mean balence flaws, no system is perfect, through how many i can't say or how bad) will be exposed pretty quickly and if it is badly handled it might last even less long than 3E.
from
EE

KIDS
2008-05-02, 03:55 PM
I don't think that 3.X died quickly, nor that it was ruined in any way. Quite the contrary in my opinion. As such, internet has nothing to do with it though internet allowed for hundreds of good play by post boards and games that connected the players (or let them flame each other... hehe).

While I see the point of some knowledge misused, more knowledge is IMO always a good thing. So we can blame the internet for a few isolated incidents, but what are we gonna do about it? I sure can't burn it down nor boycott it...

Tokiko Mima
2008-05-02, 04:07 PM
Yes and no. Obviously I like teh Intartubes as much as everyone else does; however I think in this case it leads to allowing flaws in the system to be found too easily. e.g. One person in group A might see Nightsticks and think: "Whoa that is so awesome! I can turn undead 4 more times!" another in group B sees DMM and says: "Hey, neat I can Maximixe my CLW!" a third in group C says: "Oooooh! I can use Persistant Metamagic to have Bear's Endurance on the Fighter all day!" and they all post on the net where person D says: "Y'know, you could buy unlimited Nightsticks, then DMM Persist everything.." and suddenly DMs cry out in horror...

...and ban Nightsticks, solving the problem. The internet creates problems, but then it also solves them. I think this is a glass half empty or half full scenario. Knowledge is a neutral entity: it can be used for good or ill depending on the use its wielder has for it.

People who are going to abuse the rules and ruin games will do so any way they can. People who aren't going to abuse the rules and ruin a game will tend not to do so, no matter how cool Pun-Pun is. DM's just need to keep themselves abreast of the tricks involved in optimization/power-gaming and they can spot it from a mile away. For example, anyone taking one level of Barbarian and using an ACL from Complete Champion is automatically suspicious.

bosssmiley
2008-05-02, 04:12 PM
Then WotC should use it to their advantage. They have a willing army of a million nerds, who are just itching to push things past the breaking point. Quality Control that's willing to work for free. Post that sort of thing before you release it, let your minions turn it upside down and shake it, and see if Pun-Pun falls out.

They seem to be trying that (in however limited a fashion) over at paizo.com with their D&D 3.P alpha releases. Hopefully they'll be able skim off some actual good ideas, rather than just give the loud carpers what they say they want. :smallamused:

Leewei
2008-05-02, 05:05 PM
That without the Internet, 3e/3.5 would be pretty much fine as is, with isolated pockets of problems here and there.

This isn't at all certain. Gaming is a social activity. The broken aspects of the game would be known by all soon enough due to conventions and migration of individual gamers. At best, the internet sped the process up by a couple years.


It also allows for far greater optimization than a single human would really normally have. With hyperlinked SRDs and forums full of people, one can whip up a character to ruin any campaign in a matter of moments.
The degree and efficiency of rules-torquing would be impacted, but note that it only takes a handful of people in the Optimizatioin forums to analyze new releases for abuses. The internet mainly provides faster access to these builds and tricks as noted above.

I could just as easily ascribe the brokenness of 3.x to humanity being too smart, humanity being too prone to dominate rather than playing cooperatively, or else the publishers generally failing to play and balance test their products properly.

horseboy
2008-05-03, 12:03 AM
What ruined 3.x was the attitude that players should buy books. Before this edition we operated on the assumption that the DM owned the books, which were sacred text which no player should glance upon lest his eyes be burned from its sockets... Dude, you're supposed to pass. Quit bogarting. I NEVER found that to be the case in any edition, ever after like MAYBE the first session. If they liked the game, they'd buy and read the book. It makes GMing easier because you don't have to explain every single concept in the game.

Now, did the internet ruin 3.x? No. 3.x was ruined by incompetent play testing. I had figured out the trip monkey before I was done reading the combat chapter. I was dabbling in proto-bat back in 2nd, if I hadn't seen TLN's guide first, I would have figured it out with my first 3.x wizard.

Also, there's the question of "What is cheese?" that needs be asked. After all, different groups have different levels of what they call cheese.

Keep in mind, this is all from someone who played a 1st edition cavalier.

Zocelot
2008-05-03, 08:42 AM
I feel that the main problem with 3.5e is all the splatbooks. Each one introduces new feats, PrCs and spells, which will make any character more powerful. The problem arises because even if 90% of the content of a book is below the power curve, the players can simply choose not to use that content. As a result, every splatbook that exists will only raise the power curve.

Core is still overpowered, and probably thanks to the internet. However, a DM can much more easily familiarize themselves with the problems of Core then reading every splatbook players own.

EvilElitest
2008-05-03, 09:14 PM
I feel that the main problem with 3.5e is all the splatbooks. Each one introduces new feats, PrCs and spells, which will make any character more powerful. The problem arises because even if 90% of the content of a book is below the power curve, the players can simply choose not to use that content. As a result, every splatbook that exists will only raise the power curve.

Core is still overpowered, and probably thanks to the internet. However, a DM can much more easily familiarize themselves with the problems of Core then reading every splatbook players own.

Not so much the splat books as the way WotC handled them. I wish they organized their product better
from
EE

Rutee
2008-05-03, 09:19 PM
I feel that the main problem with 3.5e is all the splatbooks. Each one introduces new feats, PrCs and spells, which will make any character more powerful. The problem arises because even if 90% of the content of a book is below the power curve, the players can simply choose not to use that content. As a result, every splatbook that exists will only raise the power curve.

Core is still overpowered, and probably thanks to the internet. However, a DM can much more easily familiarize themselves with the problems of Core then reading every splatbook players own.

I think the splatbook spam is a problem on its own too, broken or not. Heck, splatbooks are mostly getting more and more balanced, from my understanding. The problem is the massive, massive amount of material that encompasses "DnD". Especially when so much of it can be considered 'necessary', logically or illogically.

EvilElitest
2008-05-03, 09:20 PM
I think the splatbook spam is a problem on its own too, broken or not. Heck, splatbooks are mostly getting more and more balanced, from my understanding. The problem is the massive, massive amount of material that encompasses "DnD". Especially when so much of it can be considered 'necessary', logically or illogically.

Thanks for agreeing with me, like exactly :smallconfused:. that doesn't happen very often

Anyways, as i said, the fact taht WoTC wasn't able to logically organize their own material properly
from
EE

Lord Iames Osari
2008-05-03, 09:32 PM
I agree with the OP completely. Clearly, the ability of people to easily communicate with each other across the globe ruined an otherwise enjoyable product.

Clearly, we have only one option. We must cease using the Internet to communicate with each other about things that we enjoy. [/sarcasm]

SamTheCleric
2008-05-03, 10:13 PM
I maintain that its the fault of David Hasslehoff. Possibly Rick Astley as an accomplice.

Rutee
2008-05-03, 10:15 PM
Rick Astley makes everything better though, so he can't possibly be at fault.

Xefas
2008-05-03, 10:21 PM
This may very well be true, though I don't have much of an opinion either way.

However, I will say that the Internet didn't break the game for my group specifically. We broke it for the most part on accident.

Back in the olden days when my group played 2nd edition, the group consisted largely of Fighters. No one ever rolled well enough to be any of the other bruisers, and that was what they wanted to be. Since all Fighters were basically the same back then, it was quite balanced among the party, though it was a bit annoying for me, because I had to balance my encounters around them not having healing or buffs.

Anyway, so, one of my original guys gets caught up in life stuff and can't play for a large amount of time. While he's away, we switch to 3rd edition and get a couple of new players.

Completely by accident, the players picked out a Wizard, a Cleric, a Druid, and a Sorcerer because those were the characters they wanted to play and for no other reason (we didn't know that the Internet and D&D had been somehow combined at the time). So, we play for a bit, they go from level 1 to 5 or 6.

...and then the 2nd edition guy stops having life problems and can come play again. Well, he wanted to continue with his old character, so he reconstructed him in 3rd edition as a Sword n' Board style Fighter.

By the time that session was over, we knew about the power gap. Ever since that day, the only person to play a Fighter in our group has been that guy. He didn't care that he was basically useless when surrounded by all the spellcasters (the Druid's pet and the Cleric could handle mop-up duty just fine). Though, when Tome of Battle came out, he immediately switched to a Stone Dragon Warblade to keep the same flavor but catch up in the crunch department. That only lasted for 2 sessions, though, before we kicked him out for being a total, unquestionable bastard to everyone for the past few years. But that's not important to the story.

Later on, when we discovered "D&D + the internet" and the CharOp boards, everyone would read them for a laugh ("Haha, a *kobold* just annihilated the universe!") but I don't think it ever even became an issue. Everyone played the character they wanted to play, and a Power Attack, Leap Attack, Shocktrooper, Whatever wasn't it. We still knew the game was broken, though, and we hope 4th edition has largely solved the problem (at least in Core).

EvilElitest
2008-05-03, 10:34 PM
I agree with the OP completely. Clearly, the ability of people to easily communicate with each other across the globe ruined an otherwise enjoyable product.

Clearly, we have only one option. We must cease using the Internet to communicate with each other about things that we enjoy. [/sarcasm]

I'll start my isolation instantly. To my basement and away


Also i second the option on David
from
EE

Collin152
2008-05-03, 10:42 PM
Finally you people begin to realise!
The internet is witchcraft, and all its practitioners are evil!
All of them!

Farmer42
2008-05-03, 10:48 PM
Wait? Rutee and EE just agreed on something. Isn't this one of the signs of the coming Zombie Apocalypse?

But realy, the 'net I believe has only strengthened players. We have a wealth of homebrewing at our fingertips, and if anyone wants to learn, they can for free with the hypertext SRD. And the CharOp boards are actually really nice, especially as a DM. I can look up builds and stop problems before they stop. And if a player seems to be having some problems keeping up, a quick trip to the CharOp boards can give us some suggestions on how to better build the character. Sure, as I've grown as a player and DM I've moved away from D&D, but I do still run it, and the interwebs are nice to have.

sonofzeal
2008-05-03, 10:49 PM
Rick Astley makes everything better though, so he can't possibly be at fault.
I just want to tell you how I'm feeling, got to make you understand that I agree entirely.

Rutee
2008-05-03, 10:51 PM
Wait? Rutee and EE just agreed on something. Isn't this one of the signs of the coming Zombie Apocalypse?

*Checks*

No, we didn't agree at all. Our posts didn't intersect. He finds the organization of information to be a problem, but doesn't seem to find the /volume/ of information irritating. I find the volume of information to be a problem, but don't care either way about the /organization/ of information. We didn't really disagree, we just didn't say anything remotely similar.

Farmer42
2008-05-03, 11:04 PM
I was actually referring to this:


Thanks for agreeing with me, like exactly :smallconfused:. that doesn't happen very often

Anyways, as i said, the fact taht WoTC wasn't able to logically organize their own material properly
from
EE

Either he intended something different, or he was referencing unspoken thoughts.

Rutee
2008-05-03, 11:13 PM
Yeah, but he was /wrong/. Based on his own posts, at least. He might have been referencing things he hadn't mentioned.

wumpus
2008-05-03, 11:14 PM
You can only claimed 3.X "is ruined by the internet" by exploiting the broken parts of the discussion rules. The "RAW or specify houserules" implies that anybody can bring Pun-pun to any game. DM's have to stand around weeping that a straw-DM can't come by and fix the rules banning such obvious brokeness. This certainly isn't the real world, but for most discussions it works. Somehow I don't think that the Giant and the mods (or whoever laid down those rules) designed them with giving "proof" that as-of-yet unseen games are infinitely superior due to lack of Pun-pun.

I suspect that the biggest thing the internet has "ruined" about D&D is premade adventures. If someone publishes one somewhere, an unscrupulous player is certain to be able to pull the complete text after hearing just a few names included. A DM can ban Pun-pun, night-sticks, re-write character sheets enough to balance them out (possibly leaving enough magic swords around to make fighters useful). Re-writing an entire adventure on the fly is another story. I suspect that is why one of 3.Xs big improvements is the CR system for creating and balancing adventures. They understood how the internet threatened D&D, and planned accordingly.

From the sound of the original poster's complaint, it sounds like the internet ruined it for munchkins. A mature power gamer (wargamers and engineers will see the rules as an optimisation problem: there's no getting around it)* will simply learn to fit his character into the group, and possibly take an obvious handicap that he can optimize around. A munchkin doesn't have this option. The internet simply shows a whole batch of ways to break the rules (and lets the DM know as least as many as our munchkin) that the DM can bang away at or not.

This leads us back to the original point. The DM can adjust play balance on the fly, but that is entirely against the point of munchkining. How are you supposed to break the rules to smithereens when the DM simply overrules you and makes you do only finite damage. The "straw-DM" that I mocked earlier is a very real problem - to munchkins. They need a DM that will set out all the rules before they generate a character, so they can optimize it to their heart's content. This is beyond the skill of any known DM, much less one willing to run a munchkin campaign.

Final answer. The internet only broke munchkinism, but that is broken as designed to begin with.

* I define a mature power gamer as one who finds ways to keep himself from breaking the game. A munchkin needs the DM to step in constantly to keep the game intact. I don't claim that any player will fit entirely into either category.

Deepblue706
2008-05-04, 01:24 AM
I believe the rapid flow of thought in regards to balance issues lead to the discovery of the flaws in 3.x. People may have realized a few things were "off", but a global community that contributes to "think tanks", if they could so be called, certainly made things more apparent for a great number of people. Depending on your perspective, then yes, I suppose you could say "The Internet ruined D&D 3.X", since without forums such as these, you would have few (in comparison) discussions on what is optimal and what is not, etc, and fewer would develop as informed opinions on what works and what doesn't.

But, I argue the problem lies mainly with development, whether or not the players were truly aware of the existence of the inherent problems that arise between classes. Even if nobody really knew what was best, I believe that players would still notice occassional screw-ups in the game that would make them feel as if they got the short end of the stick, so to say. I know that when I ran my first D&D campaign (long before I was a member here), there were lots of discussions about how Wizards and Clerics get so much, whereas Fighters and Monks are fairly limited. While this may or may not have been a topic of discussion for plenty of other groups, I know at least a few others had to think along similar lines - or else, nobody would have come to agree on these ideas in the first place!

So, that leads me to believe that while the internet may have delivered lots of "unholy" information that may have affected some games for the worse, it was not the true cause of any such ruination of D&D 3.X - it was merely something that quickened any progress to that end. Perhaps there may have been plenty more groups out there, that believe Wizards are by no means supreme, and that Clerics and Druids are weakling classes, etc, were there no internets to enlighten them about their potential power under the game's RAW, but it would not change the fact that the game has some failings, and were these failings to not exist, then nobody would be having this discussion.

Of course, you cannot expect a perfect system, and discussions regarding balance are unavoidable. However, I think that, given as much time as we have with 3.X, the general conclusion is that the game needs great revision - I think WotC may agree, considering the upcoming release of 4th edition. The internet may be responsible for moving along the idea more quickly, but I believe the problems of the system were simply waiting to be discovered, and not artificially created by groups of people that came to agree that X, Y and Z were "bad", or that they'd have been categorically ignored had nobody had access to the internet. I believe any status that D&D would have had without the internet would be temporary, just as it was with it - the only difference being in amount of time lapsed before reaching a loathsome end.

Grommen
2008-05-04, 10:05 AM
Humm...

People bought the books. Read the material inside them and posted what they saw on the internet, thuss leading to other people buying books, and reading them. This made the makers of D&D more money, and caused the price of their stock to rise and give out dividends to their shareholders.

Nope 3.x and the internet are not broken in anyway what so ever. They make the game maker money. So the game can't be broken because it does what it was supposed to. Sell books and make money.

Unless you think it's about perfect game balance and out of the box play ability. For that you need to play computer games. :smalltongue: (Note sarcasim here!)

It's simply up to you and your friends what you allow and how much. Their is enough material already generated for D&D that it will take a lifetime to ever come close to totally exploring it all. I can't possibly possess the entire rule set of D&D. My players come to me and show me things they want to do and I'll make a change here or there. We talk about it for a bit and then we move on. If the changes don't work, we tweak them again.

The only thing the internet did was allow all of us from all over the world to gather together and discuss the game and how it can be used and abused. Before we would gather at gaming conventions and gaming stores in person and spread the home brewing information. It just took a bit longer to do, however it was more personal seeing people face to face. Information is not bad. Just what you then do with it that is good or bad.

EvilElitest
2008-05-04, 10:38 AM
Don't worry Farmer, apparently we are disagreeing again, about our disagreeing with each other,:smallconfused:........

don't worry the world is saved, even when we agree with disagree with each other. Its an endless cycle.

don't tell Tengu


*Checks*

No, we didn't agree at all. Our posts didn't intersect. He finds the organization of information to be a problem, but doesn't seem to find the /volume/ of information irritating. I find the volume of information to be a problem, but don't care either way about the /organization/ of information. We didn't really disagree, we just didn't say anything remotely similar.

No i was actually moving along with your point. You disliked the volume of the information, and that went along with my saying that hte volume of information is a problem because of the lack of organization. If D&D 3E was more organized, we would have less splat books. True Wotc would make less money


And we can both agree on something, um Samerai are overpower
There, how can we possible disagree on that Rutee my good friend :smalltongue:




Finally you people begin to realise!
The internet is witchcraft, and all its practitioners are evil!
All of them!.
About time, i've been saying that for years. I hate them, everything about them. Particularly the arrogant ones. With the misspelled names. And the historical avaters. And their god damn egomanisim. hate them all
from
EE

Xuincherguixe
2008-05-04, 11:46 AM
I disagree.

All the Internet has done is make it easier to notice the flaws that already exist. By discovering them, something can be done about them.

And, possibly even more useful, people have come up with some good alternatives to some of the underpowered classes.

EvilElitest
2008-05-04, 11:50 AM
I disagree.

All the Internet has done is make it easier to notice the flaws that already exist. By discovering them, something can be done about them.

And, possibly even more useful, people have come up with some good alternatives to some of the underpowered classes.

Which is even more interesting because if you use this forum along, you can basically fix a lot of 3E's problems
from
EE

Fawsto
2008-05-04, 12:07 PM
@ OP

I guess it is a valid perspective. At least ever since I was introduced to D&D forums my eyes were opened to the system problems. Although I am not a munchkin (I like to Optimizate to fullfil my character's hole, but not overpower to break the game, I always liked it, long before I joined the boards), I've learned enough to see how to break things down, I understood the power of the full casters... I mean, I've, like everybody, been trough and thorough with all that stuff. Due to this I've started some heavy homebrewing to correct everything I could. This, for instance, is turning my game into something based on D&D but a little different. You could call this "Ruin".

My perspective? My Game is D&D with less flaws. The most the DM and the Players understand the mechanics and everybody can have dialogues about it, it becomes easier to fix the flaws and perfect the game. It takes a long time, but these Boards helped to begin everything.

Brickwall
2008-05-04, 12:15 PM
I can see why you would think that. However, you neglect to account for the fact that munchkins existed way before 3.x and D&Ds massive internet popularity. With the internet, DMs have an easier time spotting them, because exploits are noted and lauded as such. The group munchkin is gonna have a hard time BSing his way out of the fact that his build made the Top 10 Game-Breakers of the Month list. Also, players who have difficulty making effective characters can easily access knowledgeable people who can help them make characters who will make the game more fun.

Whatever the internet did to D&D, it was far from ruination.

Talyn
2008-05-04, 12:22 PM
I admit, I sort of agree with the OP.

Why? Because the lack of internet saved our 3.5 game. Seriously.

I ran the D&D game for the better part of a year at a military academy. Of our group of 7, (6 plus me) only 3 had played any kind of table top RPGs before. The two veteran players and I sat down before it all started and we basically came up with the "gentleman's agreement" that was mentioned before... specifically, I would run the game because both of them were engineers and couldn't be bothered with all the extra work (I was Poli Sci), and they wouldn't break my game.

Fact is, I can't be bothered to keep up in the arms race - a "well-played" (and I use quotation marks deliberately, because I firmly believe that optimization hurts role playing) wizard could kick my ass, challenge-wise. I wouldn't be able to create a decent challenge for him.

This being said, of the four new players, two were frustrated creative-types who wanted theme characters, crunch be damned (I love these players), one just wanted to be as cool as freaking possible, and one was a wannabe-munchkin. Luckily, the wannabe-munchkin was really, really BAD at it, which meant that I could indulge him without damaging either the group dynamic or my episodic, monster-of-the-week campaign.

I shudder to think of what would happen if my munchkin friend had spent a couple of hours on this board, or worse, the WotC official boards. I wouldn't have been able to deal with the hideous bastard-offspring unstoppable killing-machine character he would have created - and if I tried to pull the same "gentleman's agreement" that I had done with my veteran players, he either wouldn't have gone along with it (which means either my campaign ends or I kick him out of the group, both of which are bad because he was a friend away from the table) or hewould not have had any fun, because dammit, he wanted to win.

Maybe that's my fault as a DM - the idea of looking through a dozen splatbooks to make a powerful character is just not fun for me, and I sure as hell didn't have time or the inclination to build a campaign designed to challenge the players who did.

Eclipse
2008-05-04, 12:25 PM
The internet didn't ruin D&D, it just exposed flaws already in the system. As has been said before, this is due to things slipping through the cracks during playtesting, and more and more rules coming out that didn't get referenced with a chain of 5 other rules that are all fine on their own, but together, they all make you more powerful than every other player.



That said, core is also fairly unbalanced, with fighters, monks, and barbarians at the low end of the power curve, and wizard, clerics, and druids at the top. However, I've basically come up with a system I use for DMing. I start by allowing only the three original 3.5 books. Anything the players want to use from those books is fair game.

From there, I tell them they can use things from any other book, provided they get approval from me first. Then, I look over their build, and ask them exactly how they intend to use it. If it's obviously more powerful than a wizard or cleric, I tell them no and offer suggestions to tone it down into playability. My reasoning is that even if it seems on the power level of a wizard or cleric, it might be more powerful in ways we haven't noticed, and likewise, if it's obviously more powerful, there's likely something non-obvious to make it broken. Incidentally, I've never had to ban a character for being more powerful than a wizard or cleric in my groups.



As a final point, D&D is much better enjoyed as a team game, rather than an arms race. It was designed as a team game, not a game for all the players to oppose each other. If players focused on playing the game as it was designed to be played, rather than overshadowing the rest of the party, many of these problems would be mitigated. Of course, this also requires the GM to play the game as intended, as well as a sizable level of trust between the players and the GM to do so.

Eldariel
2008-05-04, 12:57 PM
Eclipse: Since Wizard and Cleric are two of the five most-powerful-right-out-of-the-box classes in D&D, all about tied overall, it's no surprise that you don't have to ban anything. If that's the level you wish to play on, it's of course all fine.

Xuincherguixe
2008-05-04, 01:14 PM
Which is even more interesting because if you use this forum along, you can basically fix a lot of 3E's problems
from
EE

Well yes and no. There are a lot of good people here, but it's all a bit too disorganized. What would be most useful is if a bunch of these things could come together.

In theory, a "fixed" D&D probably could come out of here. But there would be a lot of disagreements, if not outright hostility. So such a thing probably couldn't happen.

I've seen lots of good suggestions, but I'd have a hard time finding them if I was looking for them.

A lot of the forumers could probably write better books than WoTC.

John Campbell
2008-05-04, 01:14 PM
The original premise is basically just an argument for security by obscurity, and as any hacker can tell you, that's no security at all. If too many people are finding out that your game is broken, the solution is not to try to prevent them from finding out, it's to not make a broken game.

The whole thing is squarely WotC's fault. If you introduce a bunch of new powers and abilities, make the power curve faster and easier to climb, implement what looks to be (judging by commentary in the 4E advertising they've been selling) a deliberate policy of removing limitations on using those powers and abilities, bribe players to buy books with ever more new powers and abilities, and then hand the whole mess to a new generation of gamers who cut their teeth on Magic: The Gathering (also WotC's fault!) and so tend towards indiscriminate rules-lawyering and viewing the whole thing as an adversarial optimization contest... well, this is what happens.

EvilElitest
2008-05-04, 01:22 PM
Well yes and no. There are a lot of good people here, but it's all a bit too disorganized. What would be most useful is if a bunch of these things could come together.

In theory, a "fixed" D&D probably could come out of here. But there would be a lot of disagreements, if not outright hostility. So such a thing probably couldn't happen.

True, but if we had a sub forum for making "D&D 3.7 or the 'new' 4E" i think you could get a pretty good system
from
EE

Xuincherguixe
2008-05-04, 01:44 PM
True, but if we had a sub forum for making "D&D 3.7 or the 'new' 4E" i think you could get a pretty good system
from
EE

This discussion got me thinking. It might be imposing too much work, but an organized set of threads might be a good idea.


There could be one that's a collection of the best alternate classes (there's a lot that need refinement), another of house rules, and so on and so forth.

The idea is that there wouldn't be any discussion about them in those particular threads, but new ones could be made.


It may or may not be appropriate. Especially if it's not actually legal.

SexyOchreJelly
2008-05-04, 02:04 PM
No set of rules for the game is going to be perfect. 3.5 is at least a fun system.

That said, stuff like Book of Exalted Useless Crrrrap just disgraces me. Tempting players to be good by giving them enormous power? That's like Darth Vadar with a halo around his helmet. "I can give you power Luke... just take the vow of poverty! Tempting you with power isn't evil!"

Anyway... 3.5 is what i'm sticking with. (Without Book of Exalted Toilet Paper).

Rutee
2008-05-04, 02:06 PM
It may or may not be appropriate. Especially if it's not actually legal.

It's questionable, at best. Which means the boards will, in all probability, not allow it; They unconditionally disallow completely legal, unquestionable quotation of books, so...

Vazzaroth
2008-05-04, 03:26 PM
My group and I have talked about this. Before we found GitP, our primary out-of-town gaming community, we had so many wrong notions about the game. We abused Monkey Grip. We allowed Multi and many shot to be used at once. We applied Dex modifier to Damage with bows.

I like to think of people who havn't joined an online community as in the dark ages. I know we all feel enlightened.

Also, talking about the spread of broken things, DnD gets a special thing almost no other game does (Table top in general I mean), a human moderator with ultimate power. In other words, the game is as broken as a DM allows.

EvilElitest
2008-05-04, 03:38 PM
This discussion got me thinking. It might be imposing too much work, but an organized set of threads might be a good idea.


There could be one that's a collection of the best alternate classes (there's a lot that need refinement), another of house rules, and so on and so forth.

The idea is that there wouldn't be any discussion about them in those particular threads, but new ones could be made.


It may or may not be appropriate. Especially if it's not actually legal.

Actually, i've been considering such a project for years now, until finals came had my homebrew compendium (see sig) going and all




That said, stuff like Book of Exalted Useless Crrrrap just disgraces me. Tempting players to be good by giving them enormous power? That's like Darth Vadar with a halo around his helmet. "I can give you power Luke... just take the vow of poverty! Tempting you with power isn't evil!"

What are you talking about? BoED is most likely the best book, with the possible exception of ToB and OA. And my beating kittens to death with it doesn't change that (damn kittens :smallfurious:)

1) you don't have to take vow of poverty, it is an option. Not a requirement.
2) THe idea is that being good is now actually rewarding, if you act like a saintly person. No "ends justifies the means" or "for the greater good" it actually confronts a lot of issues
3) It finally makes hte paladin code a lot more clear
4) and it and BoVD have the best way of handling fluff in 3E

It is broken if you DM doesn't enforce exalted ruels however
from
EE

mithrandir86
2008-05-04, 04:35 PM
Actually, i've been considering such a project for years now, until finals came had my homebrew compendium (see sig) going and all



What are you talking about? BoED is most likely the best book, with the possible exception of ToB and OA. And my beating kittens to death with it doesn't change that (damn kittens :smallfurious:)

1) you don't have to take vow of poverty, it is an option. Not a requirement.
2) THe idea is that being good is now actually rewarding, if you act like a saintly person. No "ends justifies the means" or "for the greater good" it actually confronts a lot of issues
3) It finally makes hte paladin code a lot more clear
4) and it and BoVD have the best way of handling fluff in 3E

It is broken if you DM doesn't enforce exalted ruels however
from
EE

I would have to agree. Without the added rules of the BoED, every character with the exception of the Paladin could rationally perform evil to avoid dealing with long-term problems.

The Bartender is evil? Better not take the chance, and stab him the next time he brings the drinks. The tribe of Orcs sometimes raises too many children, and they raid the town for supplies every few winters? Better not take the chance and kill them down to the last child.

Not to mention, Wizards casting evil (yet awesome) spells, like Avasculate.

The Exalted feats introduce power at a cost of actually being subject to ethical questions.

EvilElitest
2008-05-04, 04:48 PM
I would have to agree. Without the added rules of the BoED, every character with the exception of the Paladin could rationally perform evil to avoid dealing with long-term problems.

The Bartender is evil? Better not take the chance, and stab him the next time he brings the drinks. The tribe of Orcs sometimes raises too many children, and they raid the town for supplies every few winters? Better not take the chance and kill them down to the last child.

Not to mention, Wizards casting evil (yet awesome) spells, like Avasculate.

The Exalted feats introduce power at a cost of actually being subject to ethical questions.

Thank you. I like the idea that in order to get ethical powers, you need to be a really good person. Brings up the issue of it is easier, a lot easier to be evil or at least apathetic. Also it says that you can't use torture to obtain infomation from evil people
from
EE

Eclipse
2008-05-04, 04:58 PM
Eclipse: Since Wizard and Cleric are two of the five most-powerful-right-out-of-the-box classes in D&D, all about tied overall, it's no surprise that you don't have to ban anything. If that's the level you wish to play on, it's of course all fine.

I'm aware of that. I do run fairly powerful games. I'm going with the premise that wizard and cleric is the upper limit of what power should be in D&D. There would be a few things to ban outright, such as pun-pun cheese, which most DM's would ban regardless anyway.

Another that comes to mind is to either ban Dweomerkeeper or nerf it's ability to use spells as spell like abilities. I don't want wishes, miracles, resurrection , and the like to be cast with no xp cost or material cost as appropriate to the spell, which the Dweomerkeeper's ability allows it to do. There are a few other cheesy things I've seen that I'd have cause to ban.

However, your point is taken that banning is rare because I chose powerful classes to compare everyone else to. I have a hard time justifying banning core material. Though I should make a distinction that I meant I compare builds to a wizard built using the core three books only. I know that doesn't reduce the power a whole lot, but it does reduce it a bit. As a result, most wizards and clerics are stuck in core or very close to it in my games, while less powerful classes and variations of those classes are not, as the other books help them catch up in power.

I hope I explained that better this time around.

Cuddly
2008-05-04, 06:57 PM
I feel like the internet changed the way we, as gamers, look at the system. It points out a bunch of holes in the system that I know I wouldn't have picked up on otherwise (trying to drown someone back to zero from negative hp, for instance). It also shows that the real power with mages are the save-or-dies. My first forays into D&D were with barbarians. All I cared about was dealing lots of damage; that's what the whole group cared about. Hitting something with grease or solid fog didn't actually do anything; why pass up perfectly good spells like fireball or lightning bolt?

Culturally, though, I think it has gone a long way in working to divorce the rule set from the fluff. Most of the really broken things on the CO boards incorporate more D&D books than my group owns. It all works under the assumption, that, if it's out there, we can use it. There's a very large sense of entitlement the internet has given players. If it's in a book, then by golly, it can be on my character sheet! This, I believe, is a product of divorcing the mechanics from the actual game. Virtually every build on the CO boards attempts to totally cut out the DM by following RAW as strictly as possible. The sanctity of the RAW is largely a byproduct of the internet, where there is no DM.

Zocelot
2008-05-04, 07:37 PM
The amount of content of sourcebooks is a serious problem to start, and the internet compounded the problem into a singularity. Instead of needing access to every sourcebook, you can easily ask for help with a build, and people who do have the sourcebook will list the feats for you. As such, anyone who has access to the internet has every sourcebook, which we can all agree is a major problem.

Rutee
2008-05-04, 07:47 PM
Culturally, though, I think it has gone a long way in working to divorce the rule set from the fluff. Most of the really broken things on the CO boards incorporate more D&D books than my group owns. It all works under the assumption, that, if it's out there, we can use it. There's a very large sense of entitlement the internet has given players. If it's in a book, then by golly, it can be on my character sheet! This, I believe, is a product of divorcing the mechanics from the actual game. Virtually every build on the CO boards attempts to totally cut out the DM by following RAW as strictly as possible. The sanctity of the RAW is largely a byproduct of the internet, where there is no DM.

I think it's less that it's a byproduct of the internet, and more what happens when you get a large group of players (DMs are players, of course) together without an actual game to discuss these things in the context of. Of course,t he Internet has given us this circumstance, but it didn't have to be the internet.

That said, you're still correct on the root cause of the problem (Divorcing fluff and mechanics), and that without making all these builds for no reason, and then sharing them, with all the assumptions that go into it..

Cuddly
2008-05-04, 08:17 PM
I think it's less that it's a byproduct of the internet, and more what happens when you get a large group of players (DMs are players, of course) together without an actual game to discuss these things in the context of. Of course,t he Internet has given us this circumstance, but it didn't have to be the internet.

The internet is entirely unique in its ability to connect tens of thousands of people who are interested in the same things with very little transaction cost. I'm not really sure what would have given us this circumstance, otherwise.
Everyone psychically linking minds in a mass D&D communique? Crafting epic spells in our basements and garages?

Miles Invictus
2008-05-04, 09:42 PM
The amount of content of sourcebooks is a serious problem to start, and the internet compounded the problem into a singularity. Instead of needing access to every sourcebook, you can easily ask for help with a build, and people who do have the sourcebook will list the feats for you. As such, anyone who has access to the internet has every sourcebook, which we can all agree is a major problem.

We can agree, but we don't. Core D&D itself is unbalanced; anything based off of it that does not correct this will also be unbalanced. Blaming splatbooks (which are based on Core D&D) is therefore pointless.

...Actually, will you explain why large numbers of splatbooks are a problem at all?



I believe that exposing the cracks in the D&D ruleset, as the internet has helped do, is a good thing because it allows us to correct the flaws in the original design. Putting that aside, however, consider the myriad other ways that the internet has helped D&D. It has given us a number of great comics that stir interest; it has given us places to find new creations and publish our own; it has allowed us to find other players from around the world. If you look at the big picture, the internet has helped D&D more than it has hurt it.

Cuddly
2008-05-04, 09:47 PM
Because more splatbooks exponentially increases the level of brokenness. Shivering Touch, for instance, or assay spell resistance. Or both of them together. Persistent spell + metamagic reducers. Planar Shepard.

Aquillion
2008-05-04, 10:18 PM
Define "ruined". I've read most of the classic doom-builds, from Pun-pun and the Omniscificer to Terminator to Nasty Gentleman to all sorts of other crazy stuff (including my own attempt, Jack the Indecisive (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=965552)).I'm surprised nobody pointed it out to you in that thread [EDIT: Oh, wait, I see someone did...], but that trick is really old (and has been roundly rejected, though I can't recall why off the top of my head.) You weren't even using it to its real extent -- the really nasty trick would be to take, say, Cerebremancer (Psion / Wizard), then immediately start taking levels of Psychic Theurge (Cerebremancer / Wizard). At this point you are now gaining two levels of wizard casting for every level you take in Psychic Theurge. Of course, there's no need to stop there -- you could take Mystic Theurge (Psychic Theurge/ Druid), then Arcane Hierophant (Mystic Theurge / Psychic Theurge). Every AH level you take now gives you +4 wizard levels, +2 psion levels, and +1 druid levels. Oh, and also some advancement to your druid abilities. With Wizard 3 / Psion 3 / Druid 3 / Cereb 1 / PT 1 / MT 1 / AH 9, by level 20 you end up casting as a level 46 wizard, a level 24 psion, and a level 13 druid, with the Wild Shape abilities of a level 12 druid to boot. Since few games go to level 20, as many people are fond of pointing out, note that you'll already be casting as a level 14 wizard by level 12, and it only gets more absurd from there.

The 'pure' way of doing it, which people proposed way back when MT was first published, was simply to specify "Mystic Theurge" on both sides of your MT progression for each level past the first, advancing the level of Mystic Theurge you gained previously. This doubles your advancement speed after each level, so you go:

Level 6: 3/3
Level 7: 4/4
Level 8: 6/6
Level 9: 10/10
Level 10: 15/15
Level 11: 21/21
...and so on. Needless to say, nobody really thinks it works, but you can approximate it (at a slightly less insane power curve, though still insane) with all the different dual-progression classes invented since.

EvilElitest
2008-05-04, 10:19 PM
The internet is entirely unique in its ability to connect tens of thousands of people who are interested in the same things with very little transaction cost. I'm not really sure what would have given us this circumstance, otherwise.
Everyone psychically linking minds in a mass D&D communique? Crafting epic spells in our basements and garages?
I'm for that, no dial up
from
EE

Miles Invictus
2008-05-05, 02:28 AM
Because more splatbooks exponentially increases the level of brokenness. Shivering Touch, for instance, or assay spell resistance. Or both of them together. Persistent spell + metamagic reducers. Planar Shepard.

What do you mean? Splatbooks gave us the healer, samurai, spellthief, soulknife, and truenamer! If anything, splatbooks reduce the level of brokenness, because so many of the options are less powerful than archivists and clerics and wizards!

Let me rephrase: Singular add-ons are not representative of the whole. You're cherry-picking your examples and undermining your argument as a result. I would believe you if you could demonstrate that most material in most splatbooks is broken, rather than one or two things from each book.

poleboy
2008-05-05, 02:43 AM
I think your argument is a bit flawed in that you assume that the players are in control of the game. All it takes to remove the flaws of 3.5 is an experienced DM with a really big nerfbat.

horseboy
2008-05-05, 02:50 AM
It's not can it be fixed, but is the amount of time you have to spend pruning with the nerf bat and then rebuilding it really worth it when other systems need so much less work.

Zocelot
2008-05-05, 07:12 AM
What do you mean? Splatbooks gave us the healer, samurai, spellthief, soulknife, and truenamer! If anything, splatbooks reduce the level of brokenness, because so many of the options are less powerful than archivists and clerics and wizards.


Although it is true that splatbooks give us crappy classes, nobody actually plays those classes. Players pick and choose the really powerful stuff and leave the crap behind.

Keld Denar
2008-05-05, 09:10 AM
A mature power gamer (wargamers and engineers will see the rules as an optimisation problem: there's no getting around it)*

Hmmm, what happens when one is both an engineer AND a wargamer? Are we doomed? Is it Doomy Doom (TM)?



* I define a mature power gamer as one who finds ways to keep himself from breaking the game. A munchkin needs the DM to step in constantly to keep the game intact. I don't claim that any player will fit entirely into either category.

A reiteration of the Gentleman's Agreement. Players should respect the DMs wishes of the level of play, but the DM should listen to and work with the players in their character design and developement.

To the poster who said that even though he had one in place, he couldn't keep up, you really didn't assert it. If you don't have the time or skill to keep up with your players, request that the players tone it down. If they don't, then they aren't respecting the agreement afterall, and you don't even have the agreement in place, except in word. Voice your concerns, and make sure they are heard. The only alternative if your players won't accept a reasonable request on behalf of someone doing a majority of the work(DMing) is to find a new group or players. If you aren't having fun, why bother?

Swordguy
2008-05-05, 09:30 AM
All right, I'll throw my hat in the ring...

The internet has clearly brought a LOT of good things to the game. And, yes, it's been able to expose a lot of loopholes and weak points in the rules. The primary downside, as I see it, has been that because the broken rules seen to be generally all people talk about on the internet, people, especially people new to D&D or RPGs in general, become more likely to think that optimized characters are the only correct way to play D&D. After all, that's evidently all people are discussing, right?

What's not stated (it's understood as sort of an unwritten rule - which is easy for people to miss by accident) is that a great deal of CharOp is a largely theoretical exercise - people don't play with the 1d2 crusader, or pun-pun, or even Batman necessarily. They see people discussing them ad nauseum on forums like this one and feel that because "all those other people on teh intartubes are using them, then by Ghu, I can too!", without regard for the power level of their game. Why? Cause it's all they're being exposed to.

Overall, I feel that the internet, and the move toward organized, large-scale character optimization have produced a similar effect to the TV Tropes Wiki. There's a large number of positive aspects, to be sure. Instant rules feedback and a better understanding of the game mechanics are a great thing. But just as TV Tropes will ruin your life (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TVTropesWillRuinYourLife), I have an increasing feeling that the Internet will ruin your game, because sooner or later somebody will get the idea to try out of one those theoretical game-breaking builds in a regular game, and the DM has a crappy choice between not letting the guy play (and thus ticking off a friend - which is something that EVERYBODY who claims "the DM can just not allow something" ignores) or starting the D&D arms race that will end in a broken game, broken group, and hurt feelings all around.

Miles Invictus
2008-05-05, 12:05 PM
Although it is true that splatbooks give us crappy classes, nobody actually plays those classes. Players pick and choose the really powerful stuff and leave the crap behind.

... :smallannoyed:

What you quoted was a sarcastic way of making the point I explicitly stated afterwards: the extreme ends of the balance scale are not good indicators of balance. If your splatbook has three brokenly good feats, three brokenly bad ones, and twenty that are roughly in the middle of the power curve, it's still a useful resource.

Swordguy:

CharOp forums don't exist in a vacuum -- they're alongside other forums that emphasize DMing and roleplaying and so forth. People who aren't intentionally trying to break the game are likely to get exposed to other aspects of the game, through simple exploration.

Regarding the "DM's crappy choice", why can't the DM just say "No, this build is too powerful, play a different one."? A player too immature to handle that is going to be a problem regardless of his character.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-05, 12:31 PM
Hmm. Some people mentioned the Gentleman's agreement. Did anybody notice that was the Cold War prelude? Personally, I think I wouldn't like playing URSS vs USA.

Frosty
2008-05-05, 12:46 PM
The internet didn't ruin 3.x The splatbooks didn;t ruin 3.x

The Player's Handbook did. Serious, the most imbalance happens in Core.

Rutee
2008-05-05, 12:54 PM
The Player's Handbook did. Serious, the most imbalance happens in Core.
I think people overspeak how 'easy' it is to notice Save or Suck being better. Especially since in other threads, they will claim things like "A new player sees Meteor Swarm and goes OMG! 32d6!"

What the internet did is bring it to the forefront of everyone's mind, because it allows a buncha nerds to talk to each other. While it didn't specifically have to be the internet in a theoretical sense, it's certainly the easiest way to bring a huge group of people together in a way that allows them to meaningfully communicate.

Oslecamo
2008-05-05, 01:46 PM
Someone once said rules are created to be broken. As far as rules created by humans go, he was quite right.

There are no truly broken mechanics. There are, however, truly broken players.

If a player wants to break the game, he's gonna breack it, no matter how much the creators of the game tried to balance it. He's gonna search for the holes. He's going to find them. He's going to create new ones if needed. He'll annoy the other players and everybody will lose in the end if he isn't stoped.

This is aplayable not only to D&D but to all games ever created. Sports are so broken when one of the sides gets special substances to enanche their performace and the arbiters are corrupted. Chess is so broken if you put a pro playing against a newbie. There is always ways to abuse the rules.

No game is perfect. This is why we have the DM, to polish the imperfections that the players may discover.

Now, the internet did ruin D&D 3.x, but for a completely diferent reason.

The internet ruined D&D 3.X because it spread all those fake rumours that D&D is completely degenerated and it's totally impossible for a player to have fun if they aren't playing the ultimate wizard/cleric/druid/archivist/artificer of DOOMMMMM!

Because, surely, the only way to have fun in D&D is if your character can breack holes in reality and kill gods at lv1, nuff said...

I'm sick of seeing players coming to the forums asking advice for their fighter/bard/sorceror character who specializes in monkey grip and geting swarmed under a ton of flames saying how he's a complete noob and he should play a planar sheperd and destroy the campaign at level 8 with some infinite loop, because obviously you're not playing D&D right if you're not trying to destroy the campaign the DM worcked so hard to prepare.

Mind you, I actually saw people who claim they play with infinite loops of power and they say they like it, and went as far as "rebalacing" the game by making all the classes stronger in almost all senses.

But then, I've seen a certain guy make a certain statement wich basically doesn't mean anything at all, yet he has a legion of internet fans that claim that his words are of pure enlightment and anyone who disagrees with them should be smited mercilessly. Fortunetely he seems to don't be a part of this forums.

So, the internet ruined D&D because there are a bunch of guys who have nothing better to do than critisize D&D left and right in the net (despite playing it), aparently because they got DM smited at home when they tried to destroy their own campaigns.

And right now, they're already worcking in seeking holes in 4e, and failing it, they create them. Just like in 3e, they twist the english of the rules in horrible ways untill they get it to mean what they want it to mean.

However, if all the players just want to have good fun, then the game will worck just smoothly.

John Campbell
2008-05-05, 01:52 PM
... :smallannoyed:

What you quoted was a sarcastic way of making the point I explicitly stated afterwards: the extreme ends of the balance scale are not good indicators of balance. If your splatbook has three brokenly good feats, three brokenly bad ones, and twenty that are roughly in the middle of the power curve, it's still a useful resource.

Except that it's not the average value that determines whether a book contributes to the brokenness of the system. It's the extreme. Players who are interested in mechanical optimization will simply ignore the brokenly bad options and the decent ones and build a character with the brokenly good ones. And the simple presence of more options means that things interact in ways that the designers didn't forsee - especially when the system is as huge and complicated as D&D 3.x has become - and so it becomes possible to build synergies with things that aren't broken on their own, but become broken in combination.

And in some ways, having only some of the content be broken is worse than if all of it were. If all of it's broken, you end up with a ridiculously munchkin game, but everyone's ridiculously munchkin, so that's okay if you're into that kind of thing. But when you have the players who are interested in optimization playing Pouncing Schlock-Trooper Initiates of the Seven Veils, and the ones who aren't playing Two-Monkey-Grip Fighter-Monks with Toughness, that's a recipe for hard feelings.

Illiterate Scribe
2008-05-05, 01:54 PM
tl;dr

Strawman/misrepresentation, much?

Oh right. Exaggerating for effect.

AKA_Bait
2008-05-05, 02:11 PM
The internet ruined D&D 3.X because it spread all those fake rumours that D&D is completely degenerated and it's totally impossible for a player to have fun if they aren't playing the ultimate wizard/cleric/druid/archivist/artificer of DOOMMMMM!

Wow, I must be even less cool than I thought. I was even left out of that rumor mill...


I'm sick of seeing players coming to the forums asking advice for their fighter/bard/sorceror character who specializes in monkey grip and geting swarmed under a ton of flames saying how he's a complete noob and he should play a planar sheperd and destroy the campaign at level 8 with some infinite loop, because obviously you're not playing D&D right if you're not trying to destroy the campaign the DM worcked so hard to prepare.

Mind you, I actually saw people who claim they play with infinite loops of power and they say they like it, and went as far as "rebalacing" the game by making all the classes stronger in almost all senses.

I'm sorry but... what bloody forum have you been reading? I have never noticed much of that on here. The closest I've ever seen to any of that on these boards is 'well, that class really is just mechanically underpowered, why don't you play a x and reflavor it to keep your character concept'?


But then, I've seen a certain guy make a certain statement wich basically doesn't mean anything at all, yet he has a legion of internet fans that claim that his words are of pure enlightment and anyone who disagrees with them should be smited mercilessly. Fortunetely he seems to don't be a part of this forums.

Humm... did this fellow pen a fallacy which is techincally an axiom?


So, the internet ruined D&D because there are a bunch of guys who have nothing better to do than critisize D&D left and right in the net (despite playing it), aparently because they got DM smited at home when they tried to destroy their own campaigns.

And right now, they're already worcking in seeking holes in 4e, and failing it, they create them. Just like in 3e, they twist the english of the rules in horrible ways untill they get it to mean what they want it to mean.

However, if all the players just want to have good fun, then the game will worck just smoothly.

So, the internet ruined D&D because there are some immature posters and jerks out there? That stuff didn't ruin, or even impact at all, any of the games I play in. At worst, it gave me and my oldest friend (also on these boards) stuff to laugh about or discuss over a beer.

Illiterate Scribe
2008-05-05, 02:17 PM
Wow, I must be even less cool than I thought. I was even left out of that rumor mill...

I'm sorry but... what bloody forum have you been reading? I have never noticed much of that on here. The closest I've ever seen to any of that on these boards is 'well, that class really is just mechanically underpowered, why don't you play a x and reflavor it to keep your character concept'?

Humm... did this fellow pen a fallacy which is techincally an axiom?

So, the internet ruined D&D because there are some immature posters and jerks out there? That stuff didn't ruin, or even impact at all, any of the games I play in. At worst, it gave me and my oldest friend (also on these boards) stuff to laugh about or discuss over a beer.

You see, I love these boards. You can get a sniffy, snarky remark in, and then within minutes someone's come along backing up your point with a decent, actually argued piece.

{Scrubbed}

Craig1f
2008-05-05, 03:29 PM
For the sake of argument, and without having read more than about the first dozen posts, I'm going to argue the opposite point.

I started playing DnD less than a year ago, with a group that included two people who just didn't care, two people who were capable, but not optimizers, and two all-out power gamers.

The net allowed me to whip up a decent character without any books, that allowed me to enjoy the game and be useful. Without the net, I would have ended up with a Samurai. As a new player, I was VERY attached to my first couple characters.

Now that I'm capable of building my own characters without any help, I have a greater tendency to create interesting less-optimized characters, and I'm less worried about them dying. I can still use the net to build a powerhouse.

Additionally, some of us like to build characters without having to put in the effort of a full time job. The net allows you to build your character, and then be done with it, and not think about DnD until game night. "Allows" being the operative word, because I still obsess over my characters.

Grommen
2008-05-05, 05:41 PM
You have restored my faith in gamer kind Oslecamo. Good points. Good points.

Swordguy... Thanks for pointing out that some people still play the game normally and don't actually attempt to make god characters. I was also operating under the impression that the majority of people posting here did exactly the opposite of what you suggest. Meaning that they expected to be allowed to play the most over balanced, super powered characters ever devised by the Galactic SNERT Consortium.

Yaye their is hope yet!

Illiterate Scribe
2008-05-05, 06:07 PM
You have restored my faith in gamer kind Oslecamo. Good points. Good points.

Swordguy... Thanks for pointing out that some people still play the game normally and don't actually attempt to make god characters. I was also operating under the impression that the majority of people posting here did exactly the opposite of what you suggest. Meaning that they expected to be allowed to play the most over balanced, super powered characters ever devised by the Galactic SNERT Consortium.

Yaye their is hope yet!

{Scrubbed}

Rutee
2008-05-05, 06:10 PM
EDIT:Have we been trolled?

{Scrubbed}

Illiterate Scribe
2008-05-05, 06:12 PM
{Scrubbed}

You may be right.

Damn, the NERD RAAAAAAGE is spreading. We need something to hold it off!

Swordguy
2008-05-05, 06:13 PM
{Scrubbed}

If trolling is asking a legitimate question that you simply happen to disagree with him about, then yes, I suppose that's trolling.

Or you should realize that other people can have opinions that differ from yours, and are even allowed to express them! Gasp!

After all - you had the option not to post here.

EvilElitest
2008-05-05, 06:13 PM
{Scrubbed}

he has a history of that?
That guy? or are you implying somebody else




If trolling is asking a legitimate question that you simply happen to disagree with him about, then yes, I suppose that's trolling.

Or you should realize that other people can have opinions that differ from yours, and are even allowed to express them! Gasp!

After all - you had the option not to post here.
Say it aint' true

from
EE

Illiterate Scribe
2008-05-05, 06:14 PM
If trolling is asking a legitimate question that you simply happen to disagree with him about, then yes, I suppose that's trolling.

Or you should realize that other people can have opinions that differ from yours, and are even allowed to express them! Gasp!

After all - you had the option not to post here.

learn2define 'troll', please. You'll be wonderfully enlightened.


he has a history of that?
from
EE

Not that I am aware of. I was, like Oslecamo, exaggerating for rhetorical effect. :smallbiggrin:

Swordguy
2008-05-05, 06:16 PM
learn2define 'troll', please. You'll be wonderfully enlightened.

Troll:


Trolls walk upright but hunched forward with sagging shoulders. Their gait is uneven, and when they run, their arms dangle and drag along the ground. For all this seeming awkwardness, trolls are very agile.

A typical adult troll stands 9 feet tall and weighs 500 pounds. Females are slightly larger than males. A troll’s rubbery hide is moss green, mottled green and gray, or putrid gray. The hair is usually greenish black or iron gray.

Trolls speak Giant.

:smalltongue:

Rutee
2008-05-05, 06:17 PM
If trolling is asking a legitimate question that you simply happen to disagree with him about, then yes, I suppose that's trolling.

Or you should realize that other people can have opinions that differ from yours, and are even allowed to express them! Gasp!

After all - you had the option not to post here.

Check his recent posts and my edit. He has claimed, in threads where people are, for whatever reason, discussing caster dominance, that Casters aren't really overpowered and you have to be addled to think they are, as well as violently opposing claims that DnD wasn't balanced.

In another thread, on the first page, even, he has celebrated DnD's imbalance as a design feature, praising it.

Further, I find it odd that despite having a minority opinion in the thread, seemingly, (Which means, obviously, that there are many who's opinions do not match mine), when I confirm that, in my opinion, one singular person who's motives are already called into question by another, is a troll.. you then proceed to claim that I say "If you disagree with me, you must be a troll".

Edit:
Was valanced? Wasn't balanced.
Re Edit: God dammit, can I not type today?
"As well as violently claiming that DnD wasn't balanced" -> "As well as violently opposing claims DnD wasn't balanced"

Illiterate Scribe
2008-05-05, 06:17 PM
Troll:

stuff

:smalltongue:

Goodness gracious, he's right!


Etymology
Origin uncertain; compare Old French troller (“to quest, to wander”) (modern French trôler) and Middle High German trollen (“to stroll”)

to troll (third-person singular simple present trolls, present participle trolling, simple past and past participle trolled)

(intransitive) To saunter, especially in order to find a sexual partner
I am trolling for custom, said the actress to the bishop.

(fishing) To entice fish with bait; to fish using a line and bait or lures trailed behind a boat.

EvilElitest
2008-05-05, 06:23 PM
Check his recent posts and my edit. He has claimed, in threads where people are, for whatever reason, discussing caster dominance, that Casters aren't really overpowered and you have to be addled to think they are, as well as violently claiming that DnD wasn't balanced.

In another thread, on the first page, even, he has celebrated DnD's imbalance as a design feature, praising it.

Edit:
Was valanced? Wasn't balanced.

I get him mixed up with somebody else a lot sadly, was he on LK vs. Sauron?
from
EE

Cuddly
2008-05-05, 08:07 PM
What do you mean? Splatbooks gave us the healer, samurai, spellthief, soulknife, and truenamer! If anything, splatbooks reduce the level of brokenness, because so many of the options are less powerful than archivists and clerics and wizards!

Let me rephrase: Singular add-ons are not representative of the whole. You're cherry-picking your examples and undermining your argument as a result. I would believe you if you could demonstrate that most material in most splatbooks is broken, rather than one or two things from each book.

If characters were randomly generated, you'd have a point. But they aren't, so you don't.


I'm sorry but... what bloody forum have you been reading? I have never noticed much of that on here. The closest I've ever seen to any of that on these boards is 'well, that class really is just mechanically underpowered, why don't you play a x and reflavor it to keep your character concept'?

Because virtually every thread involving someone asking what to play goes like this:
"Play a wizard."

Maybe they want to actually play a rogue/assassin and not have to reflavor a wizard, even if a wizard would actually make a better assassin at higher levels?

Zocelot
2008-05-05, 08:14 PM
Because virtually every thread involving someone asking what to play goes like this:
"Play a wizard."

Maybe they don't want to actually play a rogue/assassin and not have to reflavor a wizard, even if a wizard would actually make a better assassin at higher levels?

I'm going to have to agree with AKA_Bait on this one (not that I don't usually). Have you ever actually read the forums? There is usually one idiot who suggests playing a wizard, but the rest of the community is pretty helpful in character optimization.

Cuddly
2008-05-05, 08:50 PM
I'm going to have to agree with AKA_Bait on this one (not that I don't usually). Have you ever actually read the forums? There is usually one idiot who suggests playing a wizard, but the rest of the community is pretty helpful in character optimization.

I'm actually blind, illiterate, and don't know english. It is merely by chance that the keys I pound correspond with the words I quote.

EvilElitest
2008-05-05, 09:26 PM
I'm actually blind, illiterate, and don't know english. It is merely by chance that the keys I pound correspond with the words I quote.

your doing a good job so far. But didn't you also lack hands?
from
EE

Mushroom Ninja
2008-05-05, 09:38 PM
I do not think that the interwebs "ruined" D&D.

Sure they make a bunch of really ridiculous builds, but in truth, who plays them? If somebody makes a infinite damage crusader and seriously brings it to their group to play, it'll get off one infinite damage loop before getting vetoed by the DM and the rest of the group. It's no fun to play with broken-ridiculous PCs, so nobody plays them. (at least in my experience)

Roland St. Jude
2008-05-05, 10:05 PM
Sheriff of Moddingham: Please abide by the Forum Rules (which expressly include not calling other posters trolls). Please keep the discussion friendly and on-topic.

Deepblue706
2008-05-05, 10:19 PM
your doing a good job so far. But didn't you also lack hands?
from
EE

You underestimate the potential power of one's nose, which is obviously what Cuddly has harnessed. With finely-honed smelling capabilities, you can intuitively hit anything you need to with deadly precision. You just kind of have to think of something, and it does the rest.

I once witnessed one man kill another through use of nose, alone.

EvilElitest
2008-05-05, 10:22 PM
You underestimate the potential power of one's nose, which is obviously what Cuddly has harnessed. With finely-honed smelling capabilities, you can intuitively hit anything you need to with deadly precision. You just kind of have to think of something, and it does the rest.

I once witnessed one man kill another through use of nose, alone.

Oh gods, Cuddly is Brache? NOoooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

I thought the infamous nose assassin was dead, defeated in my death trap

but if he isn't dead, oh gods no
from
EE

Oslecamo
2008-05-06, 09:48 AM
In case it wasn't clear enough, my last post was refering not only to these forums, but also other gaming forums, specially the Wotc forums, to wich I've been a member for a lot more time than these forums.

I've seen a little from everything, from claiming that infinite efreet wish loops are actually ok, hundreds of "class fixes", list of banned spells, list of banned feats, fusing other gaming systems, that you should only play a class if it was able to do anything and everything, etc, etc.

But in the end of the day, we could see at the Wotc forums that fighters were still be played side by side with wizards(and more than once it was the wizard player who come to the boards asking for advice on how to put their wizards on the same level of the fighter), plenty of sorcerors still liked their fireballs, DMs came asking for advice against uber grapling moncks and not every druid player knew what a fleshraker is.