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

[Gametime]

As an example, look at Gate abuse. The munchkin says "I can drag incredibly powerful celestial creatures away from whatever they're doing by force, then make them do as I want." The smart DM then asks "So how many solars have to die fighting for you before they get a bit unhappy and come say hi?"

You know, this example gets brought up a lot. I believe you are the third poster in this thread alone to say "Oh-ho! You think you can abuse Gate, but really it has consequences!"

So let's grant that Gate might result in angry angels coming after you. That still doesn't fix any of the other ridiculous spells available to a wizard. Polymorph. Time Stop. Solid Fog. Enervation. Foresight. Contingency. Greater Shadow Evocation. Greater Shadow Conjuration. Summon Monster Whatever. Plane Shift. Teleport.

Every one of those spells is capable of trivializing an encounter at the least and a campaign at the worst.

I also love the incongruity between this thread and the "How to kill a Tier 1 character" thread. If you believe that thread, wizards are impossible to kill because they spend all day every day living on a private demi-plane poly-morphed into a Dire Tortoise surrounded by guards, and spending most of their high level spell slots buffing and preparing to flee if attacked. If you believe this thread, wizards are all powerful because they can spam buffs, debuffs, spells that mimic skill monkeys, divinations, battlefield control, SoD/L/S, and then shape change into a melee monster and clean up.

No one is claiming that wizard are always this powerful. We are only claiming that they can be this powerful. Wizards are entirely capable of doing everything you just listed. Will they, in actual games? Very unlikely. But they can, and that possibility is why the game system is broken even though actual games may not be.

People just seem to ignore them or call them "houserules". And I simply do not know why - since we all agree on the outcome:
- there should not be characters throwing around infinite wishes
- there should not be characters outshining others constantly
- etc.

Honestly, Giacomo, I don't know if you just didn't see my post or you ignored it or you didn't understand it, but this is the exact sort of thing I was addressing. Let me try again.

Wanting the rules to be balanced does not make them balanced. Thinking that the rules should be a certain way does not make them a certain way. The argument from undesirable consequences is not a valid logical argument, and it is in fact a fallacy.

If your argument stood on its own merits, then we would not dispute your interpretation of the rules. But the fact that your interpretation most closely aligns with what we want to be the case has nothing to do with whether your interpretation is accurate!

Consider the following argument:
1. If global temperatures rise, then many cities would be flooded.
2. Cities being flooded is bad.
Therefore, global temperatures will not rise.

That is clearly an absurd argument, and it is the exact sort of justification you insist on offering.

I admit that the infinite wish thing is a theoretically broken thing for the game and an oversight of the designers. But it is so easily detected and also in the game so absolutely unlikely to ever come up, since someone needs such a high enough knowledge check (in the 100s or so) to know about this particular ability (note: granting wishes without XP cost is very, very, rare). Why should the most interesting information be the first to be handed out? "useful information" is fairly neutral - so this particular information should be handed out randomly or after half of the total information is revealed.

Again, I have no idea whether you're just ignoring my posts accidentally or willfully, but I've already calculated the actual maximum knowledge DC to discover that a genie grants wishes. "AC" is not a special ability or vulnerability. Neither are ability scores. They are not valid pieces of information to give from knowledge checks. The claim that the knowledge check could easily get into the hundreds, according to the rules, is blatantly false.

If you want to contest that, at least contest it openly instead of just asserting the same thing over and over again without addressing the counterarguments people bring up. I've rarely agreed with you, Giacomo, but I've always respected you. This is the first thread where I've seen you repeatedly ignore counterarguments in favor of just spouting off the same thing over and over, and it's quite aggravating.

[Tvtyrant]

And the infinite wish thing as well as the infinite leadership/broken companion thing simply are not good examples for 3.5 core being broken because they (should) never come up.

- Giacomo

Weirdly I agree with Giacomo. The argument over the rules thing is about wish is silly, since in the rule it flat out states that the DM makes the rules. The argument that not following the rules and using house rules isn't playing 3.5 is silly; the use of house rules is a rule of 3.5. Even the prestige classes we all love to abuse come with the suggestion that you run it past the DM first, since the DM is the rules.

yes, if we ignore the rule that the DM has control of the game, the game is broken. However once you start cherry picking rules you are no longer playing 3.5.

[Mystic Muse]

You have to look at a system without the intervention of the DM because the way a DM will affect the game will be different depending on the DM. for example, I can't go into a thread and say "Who cares if Shapechange is overpowered. It's not allowed anyway" Because that's not the way the game as a whole works. It's a houserule of mine which isn't valid in a discussion on Rules as written.

EDIT:as others have said, just because something can be fixed, doesn't change the fact that it needed to be fixed in the first place.

[Kurald Galain]

But what I can't for the life of me get is why they try so darn hard to tell everyone else why and how the game is broken, and why we are all silly for somehow not seeing this.

Because brokenness can be worked around if you know where it is.

Most DMs don't want their campaign ruined by a single spell by accident, and most players don't want to completely upstage another player at the same table by accident. This is why we tell DMs that if they don't want the wizard to one-shot the BBEG dragon, they should ban Shivering Touch; and why we tell players that if they don't want their druid to completely upstage the party monk, then here's some play advice to prevent that from happening and keep the game fun for everyone.

Knowledge is half the battle.

[olentu]

Weirdly I agree with Giacomo. The argument over the rules thing is about wish is silly, since in the rule it flat out states that the DM makes the rules. The argument that not following the rules and using house rules isn't playing 3.5 is silly; the use of house rules is a rule of 3.5. Even the prestige classes we all love to abuse come with the suggestion that you run it past the DM first, since the DM is the rules.

yes, if we ignore the rule that the DM has control of the game, the game is broken. However once you start cherry picking rules you are no longer playing 3.5.

Now I know this is reiterating what has already been said but I think this bears repeating.

So you are talking about using rule zero to change the rules. Again if one needs to change the rules with house rules to keep them from being broken then they rather are broken in the first place.

[Ormur]

If you're arguing about whether core is broken or just imbalanced I'd say it's broken because even though you fix the obvious loopholes, nerf a few spells and create your version of RAI instead of RAW core is still imbalanced.

There are all sorts of things my groups would never allow in play but the difference between a wizard and a fighter would still make the fighter seem useless at higher levels and very limited at lower levels, especially in core only. That's why after all the fixing we still have to adjust our play styles to the imbalances of D&D (mostly core) by either specially designing every encounter to challenge everyone or simply mandating that the players stay within a single tier of each other.

It works but only by houseruling the brokenness away and then picking the internally balanced options among the merely unbalanced.

[Chambers]

Core isn't balanced. I didn't say it was, so...

Right. I was responding to your question of why people (or at least why I) argue this. Didn't mean to insinuate that you thought core was balanced.

Kyuubi

Sure.

[Sewercop]

Imo core is broken. That does not mean every group will see broken combos in play. But core itself are broken due to the options available in it. The higher level you get, the more you see of it. But some things presents themselves pretty early.. Druid anyone?
Chain wishing? Presented itself in the very first group we played.

We have a simple rule in every game we play, you break it once. Then we fix it.
That actually works pretty good. Not 100%, but close enough.

Player imbalance are way worse than class imbalance. That presents itself more often. And even more often in 3.5 due to its inherited imbalance.

When you need buffs,items or gm fiat to keep up with the other players its my definition of broken, and that happens around 7-12. That assumes that all the players optimize to an equal level.

The right players together can have fun on every level, all being equal. It just do not happen in my groups.

But yeah, its broken. It baffles me that people actually say its not.

[awa]

druids are better tan fighters this does not require unusual interpretations of the rules it just notices that a druid has a buddy (who may or may not be a bear) who is as good as many fighters as a class feature, who can transform into a monster (wich may or may not be a bear) who is as good as many fighters. and still has full casting and on top of all that a large number of slightly useful non combat abilities and more skills.

the druids potential power might not be as high as the wizard but its average power is still far greater than a fighters and because its abilities are so simple its harder for people to make up excuses of why its balanced

[Tiki Snakes]

It's good to know that I'm a super-genius, able to make 70 to 100 knowledge checks. (Everyone in my neck of the woods knows genies grant wishes, who'd have thought it was a sign that we are all super high level and so on?)

Two things;
Firstly, the knowledge check isn't even a problem. Over 9000 you say? Not an issue. I don't need to roll and confirm that Genies grant wishes. If I am allowed to have heard that Genies do, infact, exist, even in the sense of stories and so on, then I can believe what I want about them. I believe that Genies, generally speaking, will likely be able to grant wishes.
I can do this indipendant of all outside input. Doesn't even have to be right.
Now, If I later gain access to Gate, I may choose to test this belief.
Either, it turns out that yes, who knew, Genies really do grant wishes!
Or they can't, because the DM doesn't want them to. Ah, Fiat, good to know, and I can move on. Likewise, if the DM is that certain about avoiding this, maybe I won't even be allowed to have heard of Genies at all. Good for him. There's no guarantee they even exist in any particular setting.
But in a relatively generic one, I just summoned a Genie and kickstarted my 'wish economy'.
Worth a shot, I'd say.

Secondly, don't you think the idea that you might need to perform epic skill checks to receive basic information about a creature is a little wonky? I understand that low level commoners are unlikely to have heard of many hilariously common creatures. By Raw, a Commoner with 10 int and no knowledge skills, has slightly below a 50/50 chance to have any idea what this strange creature could possibly be -

Spoiler

Show

But then, I'm hazy with the knowledge check thing, because as far as I can see the check to identify / know some stuff about genies is as low as 20, and that's for Noble (wish casting) Djinn (Or Efreeti). So perhaps I'm missing something and the check for identifying that strange creature in the spoiler should be higher.

[Mikal]

Firstly, chill. It's a game. The sorcerer did not know how to make things slippery and never had a reason to innately know that. Because that doesn't make sense.

So in other words he has the spell, yet has no way of knowing what it does. Do fighters also have to test each type of weapon they own before they realize what weapon gets the bonus from their weapon focus feat?

I said the next part with a indicating that it was a joke.

Ah. Jokes are usually funny, probably why I didn't catch that.

My example had the rogue strike the killing blow but not do it all. He couldn't have done that if alone. That's like saying the net does all the work in scooby doo traps. Scooby and Shaggy need to lure the monster into them and Freddy and the others need to do other things. But if Freddy just tackled the monster and the others hauled the body out of there, teamwork would not be had.

Huh, weird since the example quoted just had the rogue doing the work and had nothing else whatsoever.

But I see what you're saying. Other characters should be bait so your personal favorite class can take it out, rather then being efficient and end the fight quickly. Got it.

Efficiency is meh IMO.

Your opinion so far has left a lot to be desired.

As an example, look at Gate abuse. The munchkin says "I can drag incredibly powerful celestial creatures away from whatever they're doing by force, then make them do as I want." The smart DM then asks "So how many solars have to die fighting for you before they get a bit unhappy and come say hi?"

Smart Player: "As the creature actually doesn't die in those situations, and is likely not to be defeated, this is a moot point. Sorry to rain on your parade, "Smart" (make sure to include finger quotes here) DM."

The people on this thread will no doubt moan about that being Rule 0/DM fiat/picking on the poor casters/evidence that you are "fixing" the game so it must be broken etc but it's not. RAW says you can do something, not that there will never be consequences for it.

You miss the point. If the DM has to do DM Fiat/Rule 0/insert excuse here, then the rule/concept being changes is BROKEN.

It's like... saying that your car isn't broken and runs just fine. Sure you have to use pantyhose to replace a fan belt, fill it with water every 2 miles cause the radiator leaks, you're driving on replacement tires, and you use plastic bags for your back window cause it was broken. But the car is just GREAT.

It's not. In both cases.

I also love the incongruity between this thread and the "How to kill a Tier 1 character" thread. If you believe that thread, wizards are impossible to kill because they spend all day every day living on a private demi-plane poly-morphed into a Dire Tortoise surrounded by guards, and spending most of their high level spell slots buffing and preparing to flee if attacked. If you believe this thread, wizards are all powerful because they can spam buffs, debuffs, spells that mimic skill monkeys, divinations, battlefield control, SoD/L/S, and then shape change into a melee monster and clean up.

That's the beauty of a wizard in 3rd edition. They can easily do either, or with a bit of work, both.
Their versatility is their greatest strength. And the greatest reason why fighters are boned.

As a character you probably have an idea about which creatures are weaker/stronger. You probably don't have a great idea about were the line of I-die-instantly-if-I-try-to-gate-this-in is. And you don't get a second try as a character either. Its over the second a solar tosses you into a sphere of annilation.

Yeah, cause the paragons of goodness, the Solars, are known for tossing wizards into spheres of annihilation. ...Right.

I don't why some of you guys are so hostile to posters like Sir Giacomo, who is essentially trying to defend the integrity of a game we all are fond of, and have probably had many fun times playing.

Because he's... wrong.

[Yuki Akuma]

Gate calls creatures.

Creatures that are called actually die if you kill them.

Any Solars you call with Gate will die if they are killed.

[Starbuck_II]

Gate calls creatures.

Creatures that are called actually die if you kill them.

Any Solars you call with Gate will die if they are killed.

I'm assuming the player isn't making the Solars die for a bad cause, Solars dying for a good cause is a good thing.
Solars like dying for good causes.

They like Good.

[Yuki Akuma]

They really would prefer not to die at all, though.

[awa]

if your sending a solar into a fight against something evil that could conceivably kill it the solar should just not be stupid and call in some of his solar buddies for back up.
even then solars dying in combat should be pretty rare they really are quite powerful.

a level 17 caster is summoning a monster that by cr should be an overpowering fight for his entire party as back up. any monster that can kill the solar can probably also so wipe a level 17 party with little difficulty so not summoning it would left you being dead.

[Jan Mattys]

Stuff written in very confrontational style

It all depends on what you mean with "broken".

Can D&D be broken on purpose? Yes. Hell yes.

Can D&D be broken accidentally by the average party controlled by an average DM? Not sure. I'd say "no" till at least mid-high levels.

Does D&D work well enough for the great majority of players (who are not optimizers), with an average DM to take care of the most obvious problems the system has? Yes. Hell yes. The game's popularity is a strong indication that the answer is Yes.

So, what do you mean with broken?
If you mean that it has heavy flaws that can be potentially exposed, you are right.
If you mea it is so intrinsecally wrong that one must at any given time exert extreme control over it or it will regularly go fubar, then no. Hell no.

[Gametime]

It's good to know that I'm a super-genius, able to make 70 to 100 knowledge checks. (Everyone in my neck of the woods knows genies grant wishes, who'd have thought it was a sign that we are all super high level and so on?)

To be fair, it's not valid to assume that what we know as a culture would be common knowledge in a D&D setting. Most D&D worlds lack the social media that have spread modern knowledge of genies, and whether their capabilities were commonly known would depend on whether or not they were the subject of local folklore... which comes down to the DM.

Two things;
Firstly, the knowledge check isn't even a problem. Over 9000 you say? Not an issue. I don't need to roll and confirm that Genies grant wishes. If I am allowed to have heard that Genies do, infact, exist, even in the sense of stories and so on, then I can believe what I want about them. I believe that Genies, generally speaking, will likely be able to grant wishes.
I can do this indipendant of all outside input. Doesn't even have to be right.
Now, If I later gain access to Gate, I may choose to test this belief.
Either, it turns out that yes, who knew, Genies really do grant wishes!
Or they can't, because the DM doesn't want them to. Ah, Fiat, good to know, and I can move on. Likewise, if the DM is that certain about avoiding this, maybe I won't even be allowed to have heard of Genies at all. Good for him. There's no guarantee they even exist in any particular setting.
But in a relatively generic one, I just summoned a Genie and kickstarted my 'wish economy'.
Worth a shot, I'd say.

The problem with that is that you know "genies" grant wishes. There's nothing in modern cultural knowledge that suggests only special genies grant wishes, but that is, in fact, the case in D&D. Given how rare noble djinni are, you'd be incredibly unlikely to snag one, and you'd probably conclude (after getting a normal djinn) that genies granting wishes is a myth.

You could try for an efreet, but since they're generally portrayed as pretty nasty in folklore I have to assume you'd rather not, as someone educated about genies through stories.

[Kurald Galain]

To be fair, it's not valid to assume that what we know as a culture would be common knowledge in a D&D setting. Most D&D worlds lack the social media that have spread modern knowledge of genies,

I have Wikipedia on my crystal ball, thank you very much

[Sir Giacomo]

Lyceios made some good points, but I'd still go a step further and again say: core is not broken.

How rarely will an infinite wish chain come up in the game when you truly apply the rules? How much of the rules offer this loophole? Like 0.0001% of all the rules provided? And this makes the whole game broken? I do not think so.

(btw again to illustrate how unlikely the infinite wish thing is, the DC for knowing about a particular ability or vulnerability of a 10 HD genie is 20 + 5 for each additional useful bit of info. A creature has I'd say about a hundred different information bits that are useful, so the DC can get to the 500s, no problem.
The skill description does not talk about special abilities (= extraordinary, spell-like and supernatural), but about a different category called "special powers or vulnerabilities". Low AC is a vulnerabiltiy. Flying is a special power, as is burrowing. Tremendous Strength is a special power, and low INT or DEX is a vulnerability. A low will save is a vulnerability, Spell Resistance a special power. And so on and so on.)

Some more details on what I think by replying to Gametime's post...

You know, this example gets brought up a lot. I believe you are the third poster in this thread alone to say "Oh-ho! You think you can abuse Gate, but really it has consequences!"

Yes it does, as outlined by the spell. It involves a powerful npc, so the DM should play it appropriately in reaction to the "willing or unwilling" part in the spell description. Calling puts the creature into actual danger. Think about what your wizard would do to an npc who just called him somewhere into danger to do his bidding. Don't you think you would react somehow afterwards?

So let's grant that Gate might result in angry angels coming after you. That still doesn't fix any of the other ridiculous spells available to a wizard. Polymorph. Time Stop. Solid Fog. Enervation. Foresight. Contingency. Greater Shadow Evocation. Greater Shadow Conjuration. Summon Monster Whatever. Plane Shift. Teleport.

Every one of those spells is capable of trivializing an encounter at the least and a campaign at the worst.

No one is claiming that wizard are always this powerful. We are only claiming that they can be this powerful. Wizards are entirely capable of doing everything you just listed. Will they, in actual games? Very unlikely. But they can, and that possibility is why the game system is broken even though actual games may not be.

OK, let us have a closer look at these "allegedly so broken" spells, that also got flung around several times already in this thread, and which seem to push people to believe that non-casters have no chance whatsoever to keep up with that.
Polymorph: as I already illustrated above, this spell benefits non-casters more than casters. The wizard can use it in a subpar way to turn himself for combat into a meleeing creature, but it is hardly broken or creating big class imbalance, it would usually be just stupid for a wizard to do so. Next.
Time Stop: I already replied to that above. Powerful (it's 9th level!) spell, but not a "win" spell. Indirect attack methods result in similar damage output in combat like that of the non-casting classes. Outcome: a draw, nothing broken. next.
Solid Fog. Good, but hardly broken. Opponents can move out of it in 2 rounds with mundane methods. (and they get total concealment and thus protection vs all targeted spells besides). The improved trip feat at that level can sometimes get similar levels of combat control - as can get magic items available for that level (eversmoking bottle...). Mind you: it IS versatile, it CAN be way more powerful, but it is not there all the time. Unlike most of the non-caster abilities. Next.
Enervation. Great. People get penalities when hit. On their turn, they smash the wizard. Plus, rays are foiled by tower shields (only targeted spells get through there), total concealment and magical protection fairly easily. It is a powerful attack, but it can be countered. Next.
Greater Shadow Conjuration. Weaker than the normal conjurations, but faster. Highly versatile. You get out creatures weaker than the damage/combat performance of what your non-caster friends are. Useful for many situations, but hardly game-breaking or unbalancing. Next.
Summon Monster. Stronger monsters than the above shadow versions, but taking a full round. Again much weaker combat performance than what your non-caster friends do at those levels. Wizard over 5 rounds of combat chooses to summon this thing, it does good damage for 4 rounds. Non-caster pcs in the group do their great damage for 5 rounds (and yes, I know, a caster can continue to cast after summoning - it changes little). Nothing game-breaking as far as I can see. Next.
Plane Shift. Easily obtainable via magic items in case it is necessary. Or get an npc to cast it. It is very useful, but nowhere do I see anything game-breaking that one of the characters in the group has got the means to get to that particular adventure (next time it's another one's turn to be the plot hook). As for escaping from other planes? There are various methods. That wizards and casters have it more at their disposal is nothing game-breaking to me. In fact, quite a few outer planes are assumed to wreak havoc with the magic standards, so it may well be useless. Next.
Teleport. Not 100% safe to use; limits to traveling when you do not know where you are going. And ah, yes, it is only 49,000 gold away from the non-casters.

And that is it? That is supposed to show that the game is broken?
Come on!
All of these spells can achieve remarkable things, but non-casters still retain a similar game impact through either duplicating the spells outright with items or their impact with the stuff they can do at the respective levels (meaning, a fighter doing 300 damage per round at level 17 is as fearsome as a wizard achieving the same with 7 delayed blast fireballs cast during a maximised time stop).
What the real problem is: from mid-levels onward, the game gets very, very difficult to play for all (in particular for DMs). Many DMs apparently just continue as in the first levels, with the caster pcs among the only ones around in the campaign to cast spells (apart from some powerful npcs or opponents). And most opponents are played in a way as if teleport, plane shift, scrying would not exist. How many BBEGs in your games have used forbiddance to obstruct the usual "2 encounters done, let's teleport back to reload the spellcasters" tactic? How many would use creatures that can detect invisbible heroes? How many real tough magic traps are used? How many use simple concealment tactics that thwart the majority of a pc wizard's arsenal while his blind-fighting non-caster friends would carry on?
I would whole-heartedly agree that the typical standard fantasy game is most supported by DD 3.5 core for levels 1-8. Conan, Lord of the Rings, Earthsea, Arthurian Knights, you can play all of this in those levels best (hence the success of E6!). Beyond that, a differently challenging scenario beckons.
And this scenario as envisioned by the core rules is full of high-level magic used, with spells, items and combinations thereof with other class abilities. And magic in particular - not just spells - is what makes higher-level games so challenging also in core.
Challenging and difficult? Yes.
But broken? No.

Honestly, Giacomo, I don't know if you just didn't see my post or you ignored it or you didn't understand it, but this is the exact sort of thing I was addressing. Let me try again.

Wanting the rules to be balanced does not make them balanced. Thinking that the rules should be a certain way does not make them a certain way. The argument from undesirable consequences is not a valid logical argument, and it is in fact a fallacy.

If your argument stood on its own merits, then we would not dispute your interpretation of the rules. But the fact that your interpretation most closely aligns with what we want to be the case has nothing to do with whether your interpretation is accurate!

Consider the following argument:
1. If global temperatures rise, then many cities would be flooded.
2. Cities being flooded is bad.
Therefore, global temperatures will not rise.

That is clearly an absurd argument, and it is the exact sort of justification you insist on offering.

Such a kind of metaphore can applied to anyone not agreeing with what you say.
I prefer to use arguments and facts instead.
Example: People around here argued that the core rules are broken because somewhere an unlimited wish combo is readily/unavoidably available to every player character.
I outlined the many hindrances to this in the rules like
- getting a gate spell effect in the first place (candle of invocation available from around level 8 when using wbl guidelines; otherwise it is there from level 17!)
- learning about this combo in the first place when the knowledge skill description EXPLICITLY delegates that decision to the DM.
A highly theoretic possibility of a game breaking down does not mean it the whole game is broken in practice.
Thinking about it, Chess is maybe broken since white always wins as it moves first. It is a theoretical possibility. Still, it is very good game and this kind of brokenness never came up in practice so far.

Again, I have no idea whether you're just ignoring my posts accidentally or willfully, but I've already calculated the actual maximum knowledge DC to discover that a genie grants wishes. "AC" is not a special ability or vulnerability. Neither are ability scores. They are not valid pieces of information to give from knowledge checks. The claim that the knowledge check could easily get into the hundreds, according to the rules, is blatantly false.

No it is not, and I did not ignore your posts. In fact, I repeatedly answered to this - as I believe absurd - genie thing already. Sometimes with what I post I try to answer the essence of many posts at once.

If you want to contest that, at least contest it openly instead of just asserting the same thing over and over again without addressing the counterarguments people bring up. I've rarely agreed with you, Giacomo, but I've always respected you. This is the first thread where I've seen you repeatedly ignore counterarguments in favor of just spouting off the same thing over and over, and it's quite aggravating.

Then I am sorry - I did not want to aggravate you.
And I hope I have addressed the counterarguments by now. If not, let me know.

- Giacomo

[Fawsto]

The 3.5 brokeness is, in a great deal, theoretical.

This means that most players do not seek to break the game.

This means that most abuses that we talk about will not get past the DM.

Some classes are, however, completely umbalanced by nature. The usefulness of a Druid is possibly greater than of a Fighter. They can be equal if the degree of optimization brings them closer.

[Aharon]

@Giacomo, Gametime
Are you seriously arguing that a noble genies ability to use ropes is a special power or vulnerability?

Please elaborate on this, I'm not really sure wether you mean that seriously. It doesn't take up a lot of space - just post each ability that would warrant a +5 increase in the DC in your opinion, please.

[Knaight]

To drag up an older point made concerning self balancing (that is somehow still relevant 7 pages later):

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

...

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

If the system was designed with some degree of basic competence, then you wouldn't automatically overshadow someone with certain concepts. A battle mage should be able to coexist with a warrior without rendering it irrelevant, and if you have to give up that concept because the system makes it more powerful with an implicit setting where they are equal, then the system has failed.

As for the caster being a somewhat academic class, there might as well be other archetypes that are functional as well. Though it doesn't do a very good job as an academic class as anything actually related to academics (research for instance) is hand waved away. We know exactly how far a lightning bolt goes and how much damage it deals, but the process of research, tools involved, etc? Not a mention. Look at Ars Magica by comparison, the rules are actually written to make mages academic, and they do.

[Gametime]

@Giacomo, Gametime
Are you seriously arguing that a noble genies ability to use ropes is a special power or vulnerability?

Please elaborate on this, I'm not really sure wether you mean that seriously. It doesn't take up a lot of space - just post each ability that would warrant a +5 increase in the DC in your opinion, please.

Here's what I posted on the subject, back on page 2:

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

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

The exact limits to "special powers and vulnerabilities" is debatable; arguably, air mastery and darkvision both qualify, the former more likely than the latter. That still leaves us with a maximum DC 80 knowledge check, well below the "hundreds" Giacomo keeps throwing around with absolutely no mathematical proof.

(btw again to illustrate how unlikely the infinite wish thing is, the DC for knowing about a particular ability or vulnerability of a 10 HD genie is 20 + 5 for each additional useful bit of info. A creature has I'd say about a hundred different information bits that are useful, so the DC can get to the 500s, no problem.

Let me try this one more time.

NO IT IS NOT.

The knowledge check is DC 10 + HD + 5 for each special power or vulnerability. The phrase "useful information" only applies in the context of a monster's special powers or vulnerabilities because, according to the sentence right before where that phrase crops up, that's what the skill can be used to identify! If you're going to take the phrase "useful information" in a vacuum and pretend that it can just reveal anything, then there's no reason to even assume the "useful information" has to apply to the monster! By that interpretation, I could easily argue that succeeding on a Knowledge check to identify a kobold reveals to me that Earth's gravity causes a falling object to accelerate at a rate of 9.8 meters per second per second - because, after all, that is useful information.

tl;dr The phrase "you recall another piece of useful information" is meaningless without context. The context immediately preceding it limits the information to "special powers or vulnerabilities." That's it.

The skill description does not talk about special abilities (= extraordinary, spell-like and supernatural), but about a different category called "special powers or vulnerabilities". Low AC is a vulnerabiltiy. Flying is a special power, as is burrowing. Tremendous Strength is a special power, and low INT or DEX is a vulnerability. A low will save is a vulnerability, Spell Resistance a special power. And so on and so on.)

"Vulnerability" is very clearly defined within the rules. Vulnerability to x means you take 50% more damage from x. There's no reason to assume the word is used any differently here.

"Special powers" is admittedly more vague, but aren't you the one who always promotes common sense readings of rules? You think birds flying is a "special power?" Really? You think having muscles is a "special power?" You think really good eyesight is a "special power?"

Frankly, that's absurd. It's at least as absurd as arguing that called creatures will never seek revenge, which is a line of thinking you yourself frequently ridicule. We're probably not going to get any farther with this line of discussion, but hopefully you can see why I think it is ridiculous to interpret every physical, mental, and magical property of every single creature ever as "special."

One last thing on the subject. Let us assume that you are correct, and every single facet of information about a creature can be given by a knowledge check, at increasingly difficult intervals. What you are proposing is essentially that DMs never give their players actually useful information about creatures. I mean, what do you tell them about a dragon when they identify it? Probably that it flies, right? After all, if they've identified the creature with wings, they can probably figure that much out.

But now you've already given them their 10 + HD information, so they don't get any more unless they beat the DC by 5. What you've done is arbitrarily inflate the Knowledge DC by adding in useless little tidbits that should be obvious to anyone who sees the bloody creature, without needing to recognize it. Now it takes a DC 15 + HD check to know that dragons use any sort of magic, or breathe energy, or what have you. But wait! Dragons have high natural armor! That's a special power, right? Increase the DC to know about their actual abilities by another 5. Make sure you tell them about the high AC early, since the scales should make it pretty obvious! Oh, and they have a low touch AC. That's a vulnerability! Another 5 to the DC to know about breath weapons.

What we end up with is one of two situations. The first is that you can't know a dragon breathes fire until you make a check of about DC 30 + HD, which is ridiculously high for a check to discover the iconic ability of dragons. The second is that you find out about the useful stuff early, but then higher knowledge checks start revealing stuff like "dragons can fly!" and "dragons have high AC!" when anyone who sees a giant, winged, scaled beast should be able to figure out that much.

For someone who promotes common sense as a good way to interpret the rules, I can't imagine why you'd be satisfied with reducing the Knowledge skill to a useless pile of sludge.

Polymorph: as I already illustrated above, this spell benefits non-casters more than casters. The wizard can use it in a subpar way to turn himself for combat into a meleeing creature, but it is hardly broken or creating big class imbalance, it would usually be just stupid for a wizard to do so. Next.

If a wizard can obsolete a fighter with a spell, then it doesn't matter if the fighter is even better with the buff. What matters is that the wizard contains all the power of the fighter, plus other spells on top of that. If a wizard and a fighter are in a team, yeah, the wizard should buff the fighter. But that's not the issue. The issue is that a wizard contributes more to the fighter, whether by buffing himself or by buffing the fighter, than the fighter does.

So we agree that wizard + fighter > wizard, and wizard > fighter. Glad we can come to some agreement.

Time Stop: I already replied to that above. Powerful (it's 9th level!) spell, but not a "win" spell. Indirect attack methods result in similar damage output in combat like that of the non-casting classes. Outcome: a draw, nothing broken. next.

The most powerful use of Time Stop is not damage. It is much more potent to take the time to buff yourself up, or to create an environment that the target cannot easily escape.

If wizards and fighters are of equal power, then a Time Stopped wizard is two to five times as powerful as a fighter in any given round.

Solid Fog. Good, but hardly broken. Opponents can move out of it in 2 rounds with mundane methods. (and they get total concealment and thus protection vs all targeted spells besides). The improved trip feat at that level can sometimes get similar levels of combat control - as can get magic items available for that level (eversmoking bottle...). Mind you: it IS versatile, it CAN be way more powerful, but it is not there all the time. Unlike most of the non-caster abilities. Next.

Opponents can move out of it and do nothing else for those two rounds. So... yeah, it's like Improved Trip, if Improved Trip didn't require any attack roll to hit, and didn't require an opposed check to work, and didn't require you to be in melee range, and could hit multiple enemies at once, and was useful for twice as long for the same investment of time, and could be combined with other relevant battlefield control spells to increase its effective duration while still not requiring any attack rolls or checks to work.

So yeah. Totally like Improved Trip except leagues better, which is the point.

Summon Monster. Stronger monsters than the above shadow versions, but taking a full round. Again much weaker combat performance than what your non-caster friends do at those levels. Wizard over 5 rounds of combat chooses to summon this thing, it does good damage for 4 rounds. Non-caster pcs in the group do their great damage for 5 rounds (and yes, I know, a caster can continue to cast after summoning - it changes little). Nothing game-breaking as far as I can see. Next.

Wait, wait, wait. So you are saying that casters can't do anything useful for four rounds? Seriously? Has your point suddenly changed to "casters are drastically underpowered?" Do you honestly believe that the four to eight spells a caster can through out over four rounds of combat are so useless that they do not change the comparison at all?

You keep saying core classes are broadly balanced. If that's true, then a wizard's contribution and a fighter's contribution to the same fight should be broadly equal. If that's true, then a wizard's contribution plus some other monster's contribution to the same fight should be higher than the fighter's, assuming that the Summoned Monster's contribution is at all higher than the wizard's one round of casting.

And if that's not true, it means Summon Monster is a terrible spell and should never be used, which itself means that core isn't all that balanced. So... yeah, either Summon Monster makes the wizard better than the fighter or it's a waste of ink. Neither outcome speaks particularly well to the issue of "core balance."

Teleport. Not 100% safe to use; limits to traveling when you do not know where you are going. And ah, yes, it is only 49,000 gold away from the non-casters.

So you think having something available all the time is the same as having to pay fifty grand every time you want it.

That's... interesting.

Such a kind of metaphore can applied to anyone not agreeing with what you say.
I prefer to use arguments and facts instead.

...Not really. There's a reason it's a logical fallacy. I'm not just making this stuff up; it really is logically fallacious to say that because I don't want X to happen, X doesn't happen.

What you are saying is that core is balanced because it would be bad if it was not balanced.

What we are saying is that core is not balanced, and that is bad.

When you say things like "Why do you argue that core is broken, when we agree that it shouldn't be?" you are appealing to undesirable consequences. That is not a valid argument to use in arguing against a particular truth about the state of the world.

When I say "core isn't balanced," I'm not asking anyone what they want core to be. I'm describing it as I see it. There's no appeal to desired consequences.

[Aharon]

@Gametime
I apologize, I misread Giacomo's post and thus got the wrong impression you agreed with him. That teaches me not to read too superficially

[Sir Giacomo]

@Gametime:
You mean "Vulnerability to Energy" which is a specific term. This is not what is written in the skill description.

Having said that...

@Giacomo, Gametime
Are you seriously arguing that a noble genies ability to use ropes is a special power or vulnerability?

Please elaborate on this, I'm not really sure wether you mean that seriously. It doesn't take up a lot of space - just post each ability that would warrant a +5 increase in the DC in your opinion, please.

OK, here we go...
Noble Djinn special powers
1) They are more powerful than normal djinn,
2) they are strong as efreeti.
3) They can fly
4) in fact, they can fly perfectly
5) Their skin is unnaturally tough
6) They are humanoid-looking, but large
7) Their fists are as powerful as heavy maces
8) Need I go on? I have not even reached the section of special abilities and common feats yet...

Noble Djinn vulnerabilities
9) They are part of the air element
10) They disdain physical combat
11) Their will save is not high enough to withdstand powerful charms
12) They have no spell resistance, unlike most outsiders
etc...

Enough to put the DC already at 70, without the special abilities and feats, nor mention of how well the djinn can do in reflex and fortitude saving (can it be poisoned? etc.).

Yup. Sounds like that wish thing is a bit hard to access unlike the DM is very, very nice.

- Giacomo

PS/Edit: Good night, all!

[Psyren]

Yup. Sounds like that wish thing is a bit hard to access unlike the DM is very, very nice.

You might as well openly fiat a circumstance penalty onto the DC with rule zero than try to passive-aggressively disguise it like that. Artificial separations like "they can fly/they can fly perfectly" are simply the DM being spiteful. More to the point, having to resort to measures like that to fix the system proves it is broken.

[Starbuck_II]

@Gametime:
You mean "Vulnerability to Energy" which is a specific term. This is not what is written in the skill description.

Having said that...



OK, here we go...
Noble Djinn special powers
1) They are more powerful than normal djinn,
2) they are strong as efreeti.
3) They can fly
4) in fact, they can fly perfectly
5) Their skin is unnaturally tough
6) They are humanoid-looking, but large
7) Their fists are as powerful as heavy maces
8) Need I go on? I have not even reached the section of special abilities and common feats yet...

Some of these suck. They aren't special powers.
To remove the sucky ones:
Noble Djinn special powers
1) they can fly perfectly
2) Their skin is unnaturally tough (DR?)

So you listed 2 powers. Than tried to weasel out 5 more?

Noble Djinn vulnerabilities
1) Their will save is not high enough to withdstand powerful charms
2) They have no spell resistance, unlike most outsiders

Again, only 2 of them are vulnerabilities.

Please, stop pretending a false vulnerability is a vulnerability.

You said they distain combat but listed as a power their fists...one of these is not like the other.

[Knaight]

Noble Djinn special powers
1) They are more powerful than normal djinn,
2) they are strong as efreeti.
3) They can fly
4) in fact, they can fly perfectly
5) Their skin is unnaturally tough
6) They are humanoid-looking, but large
7) Their fists are as powerful as heavy maces
8) Need I go on? I have not even reached the section of special abilities and common feats yet...

1) More powerful is not a special power by any means. Power is something everyone has to some extent, general variation is not special.
2) So, now we have two entire points to place their power on a general scale. Even if power level was somehow special, it need only occupy one power. If everyone has a power level from 1 to 20, having a 14 is not special, merely different from an 8, and the same as another 14. If everyone else has a power level from 1 to 20, and something is a unique 21, then it is special.
3) Magical flight could be considered a special power, because not everyone has it.
4) Everything with flight falls somewhere on a spectrum of power again, the specifics of where something is on a shared spectrum isn't special.
5) This is D&D. Skin toughness variation is just another one of those things everyone has. Not always enough to warrant mechanical representation, but to some extent.
6) So, being humanoid looking is special now? As is size?
7) Again, striking power is within a shared scale, and not even exceptional.
8) You have also provided a grand total of 1 valid point.

Lets evaluate the knowledge skill for understanding people, using a similar narrowness shall we. I'll use myself as an example.
1) I'm taller than the average male.
2) My friend (Name not given) is my height.
3) I can ride a bike.
4) Not only can I ride a bike, I can ride a bike on black ice.
5) My skin isn't punctured by falling pine cones, but a sharp knife would probably do it.
6) I have longer hair than normal.

Oh look. Even assuming 1 hit die, I'm at a DC 46 knowledge check to get any information that is even slightly useful. You can contort the rules this way, but it renders knowledge skills completely useless, so its just broken there instead of breaking in regards to wish access.

Noble Djinn vulnerabilities
9) They are part of the air element
10) They disdain physical combat
11) Their will save is not high enough to withdstand powerful charms
12) They have no spell resistance, unlike most outsiders
etc...

Yup. Sounds like that wish thing is a bit hard to access unlike the DM is very, very nice.

9) Vulnerabilities? This is description.
10) Prefer not to engage in melee is not a vulnerability. Its somewhat useful information, you know that challenging one to a duel in melee is probably safe, but its not as if there is some fragility there that would qualify as a vulnerability.
11) Will save is a metagame term, but weak willed would qualify as a vulnerability (strong willed however would not qualify as a special power).
12) Valid.

So, 3, not 12, and even then the knowledge skill is already losing potency. A very impressive check gets "flying creature easily affected by spells."

[olentu]

I don't really see why you guys are bothering. If the check is too high then to find out the information the in character thing to do would be to pull one up and ask it. Either way one gets the information desired.

[Lamech]

But in a relatively generic one, I just summoned a Genie and kickstarted my 'wish economy'.

Calling Efreeti is likely to fail for a number of reasons.
1) They don't cast the wish spell. They do something else that gives wishes. For this two work we need to assume that the Efreeti wish has the same "safe list" as the wish spell.
2) The Efreeti is the wish caster; if you wishes for a candle you better be careful that the Efreeti doesn't a you a candle in your brain or do it by teleporting you into a dragon lair.
3) Even if we assume the Efreeti wish has a safe list and the Efreeti can't chose the minor details such as how you get your candle, the Efreeti has slaves. It is fully capable of making those slaves wish for various things. Such as say... a) contingency in case it is ever gated out. b) A few symbols of friendship to charm any would be enslavers. c) a dimensional lock to keep it from actually falling into the gate.

Firstly, the knowledge check isn't even a problem. Over 9000 you say? Not an issue. I don't need to roll and confirm that Genies grant wishes. If I am allowed to have heard that Genies do, infact, exist, even in the sense of stories and so on, then I can believe what I want about them. I believe that Genies, generally speaking, will likely be able to grant wishes.

Saying my character just happens to believe key things that he shouldn't really know is pretty much metagaming. Know he might have heard stories about genies granting wishes, but they probably won't be accurate about the kind of genie. And he will also have heard demons/devils/various unique creatures/non-existant creatures can grant wishes. No way he a character with out knowledge checks will know a genie can grant wishes.

Secondly, don't you think the idea that you might need to perform epic skill checks to receive basic information about a creature is a little wonky? I understand that low level commoners are unlikely to have heard of many hilariously common creatures. By Raw, a Commoner with 10 int and no knowledge skills, has slightly below a 50/50 chance to have any idea what this strange creature could possibly be - [picture of a dog]

Umm... a dog has a HD. That makes it a dc of 11. You need to be trained to make that check. So yes knowledge checks are screwed up. But we are talking about raw being broken. You can't say by raw is broken if you need to make a house-rule to make it so.

Yeah, cause the paragons of goodness, the Solars, are known for tossing wizards into spheres of annihilation. ...Right.

If an unknown person tries to kidnap and enslave you do you a) fight back or b) go along with it? If someone kidnaps your friend from his home will you stop the kidnapper? In DnD if someone comes up and dominates a party member what is your response? Solars kill evil beings, and creatures they see do evil. If you kidnap a solar they will smite you down.

I'm assuming the player isn't making the Solars die for a bad cause, Solars dying for a good cause is a good thing.
Solars like dying for good causes.

They like Good.

They would much prefer to only die for a very important cause. Killing a handful of evil creatures isn't worth losing a solar. They can do that every damn day at 0 risk with their wish.