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

[Tvtyrant]

you just keep missing the point.

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

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

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

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

Edited out for being jerky~

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

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

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

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

[Da Beast]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Benefits

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

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

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

[Tvtyrant]

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

[Eloel]

Wizards and sorcerers get a familiar each. Obviously broken.

[Thiyr]

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

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

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

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

also

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

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

[Edhelras]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

[Kurald Galain]

I can never understand that mindset either.

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

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

[Awnetu]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's broken if you have to fix it.

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

High Levels suck, I agree, so no comment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[BeholderSlayer]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Big Dice]

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

I would agree with you but for a few things. Namely, Bards are a class that is also a paticular function in society. And they probably should have been called Minstrels, but that's a different set of issues. Clerics are also defined by what they do in game as well as being a class. Same for Paladins and of course Barbarians. Both of which get a specific set of roleplaying limitations in exchange for having a particular class.

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

[Eldariel]

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

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

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

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

Same for Paladins and of course Barbarians.

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

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

[Sir Giacomo]

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

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

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

- Giacomo

[dsmiles]

LG Cleric could be a Paladin just as well.

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

[The Big Dice]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Making a paladin without using the Paladin class isn't making a Paladin. Note the capitalisation, by the way. You can be a samurai without being a Samurai.

[dsmiles]

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

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

[The Big Dice]

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

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

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

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

[Tvtyrant]

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


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

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

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


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

I did up above. Rather then derail this thread further about the stats of buffed clerics vs buffed fighters, send me a PM and I will show you the stats involved.

[Eldariel]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Making a paladin without using the Paladin class isn't making a Paladin. Note the capitalisation, by the way. You can be a samurai without being a Samurai.

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

[dsmiles]

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

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

[The Big Dice]

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

Why does a Barbarian need to read anyway?

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

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

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

[Il_Vec]

Why does a Barbarian need to read anyway?

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

[dsmiles]

Why does a Barbarian need to read anyway?

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

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

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

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

[awa]

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

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

[The Big Dice]

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

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

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

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

[BeholderSlayer]

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

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

[Tyndmyr]

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

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

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

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

[Awnetu]

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

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

- Giacomo

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

@ The Big Dice,

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

[Gametime]

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

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

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

- Giacomo

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

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

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

[dsmiles]

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

*GASP!*

How dare you use logical thinking!

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

[Tyndmyr]

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

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

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