The Reason for Imbalance in D20

[Deepblue706]

Having once regularly played M:TG in the past, I kinda knew this before reading up about it. So, I'm not really phased by this - its just an explicit example of how WotC is composed of a bunch of ********s.

[Collin152]

EDIT:Actually, point me to ANY game wich doesn't reward the players for having experience in it.

THE game.
More experience you have, the more likely you are to lose.

[Flickerdart]

Am I the only person who likes playing a Blaster wizard? They're the person to turn to when it comes down to laying down the hurt on a mob, after all, and like hell I'm going to let the Fighter and Rogue take off small bits of enemy HP when I can hit the baddies with a Maximized Fireball or two before they even walk over to melee range. Battlefield control for me means Wall of Ice on one side, Wall of Ice on the other, and a corridor of Delayed Blast Fireballs in between, World War I style.

[EvilElitest]

Am I the only person who likes playing a Blaster wizard? They're the person to turn to when it comes down to laying down the hurt on a mob, after all, and like hell I'm going to let the Fighter and Rogue take off small bits of enemy HP when I can hit the baddies with a Maximized Fireball or two before they even walk over to melee range. Battlefield control for me means Wall of Ice on one side, Wall of Ice on the other, and a corridor of Delayed Blast Fireballs in between, World War I style.

well you can like it, sadly it is an underpowered way to go
from
EE

[Charity]

I am half convinced this is just an after the fact cover up for crappy game design.

In a purely competative (and lets not forget collectable) game like MtG there is a purpose to imbalance between cards and combo's.
In a role playing game players are supposed to be a team, hell even the DM is on side as it were. We just paid cash money for second rate never to be utilised content, how is that good? For every pat on the back you are giving to your clever gamers you are giving a slap in the face to the rest of your players (no doubt to be referred to as idiot gamers)

Oh noes !

WOTC wants the players to learn how to thinck for themselves!

They wanted us to develop our minds! How dare they to do this? All games should be made in such a way you could pick your character abilities at random and do whatever crosses your mind during the game and don't be crippled at all!

Sheesssh, rewarding the players who use their brains, how much more evil can they be?

(Had readed that ages ago. And I totally suport it)

Just because you might consider yourselves in the former catagory, doesn't make the implied sneering at what is possibly the large majoity of their customers any more palletable.

Poor show if true, pathetic cop out if not

[Nebo_]

Am I the only person who likes playing a Blaster wizard? They're the person to turn to when it comes down to laying down the hurt on a mob, after all, and like hell I'm going to let the Fighter and Rogue take off small bits of enemy HP when I can hit the baddies with a Maximized Fireball or two before they even walk over to melee range. Battlefield control for me means Wall of Ice on one side, Wall of Ice on the other, and a corridor of Delayed Blast Fireballs in between, World War I style.

No, you're not. Killing stuff is almost always fun, it's just that there are so many options that are better.

well you can like it, sadly it is an underpowered way to go

Only compared to what else a wizard can do. And we know who your post is from, you don't have to tell us Every. Single. Time.

[The_Werebear]

I'm not surprised at all.

I just am really glad for ToB, which does a pretty good job of making all the roles insane monsters in combat.

However, I do have to say that so long as everyone is consistent on the power level, it can still be fun. My players meet and discuss their builds together to make sure everyone can contribute equally, and they know I operate under one primary rule that they are explicitly told: Start core and expand however you want. But anything you access, I access. If they stick with sword and board and blasty wizard's that's what they'll face. If they break out CoDzilla, ToB, and Batman, you can bet that the enemies will use it against them. And they know I am one of the better optimizers in the group.

I have yet to have a game that unbalanced when I told them that.

Maybe I just have especially nice players.

[Chronos]

Am I the only person who likes playing a Blaster wizard? They're the person to turn to when it comes down to laying down the hurt on a mob, after all

And just how many enemies can you hit with one fireball? A blaster druid can blow away a few hundred thousand enemies with a single spell.

[Ascension]

I must say I'm actually surprised by this one. While I wasn't so sure about the bigger faults, I figured the feat recommendations and such in the book were just the product of naivete or insufficient playtesting. The thought that they were put there to intentionally screw people who followed their recommendations... That burns me up. The Toughness example in particular annoys me. I mean, sure, it's pretty obvious if you take a closer look at the feat lists that it's terribly subpar, but to think that when they recommended it in the book they were doing so with the knowledge that it was subpar...

I don't know how much say the other authors of the PHB had in this, so I'm not going to blame them... yet... but Monte Cook just lost favor in my eyes.

[sonofzeal]

Actually, does anyone notice that the two quotes say subtly different things? The latter seems to be saying "some choices are better than others, smart players can tell the difference, and this selection process will enhance the experience for them." The former seems to be suggesting that "you've got to plead CharOp for help or spend weeks and weeks pouring through rulebooks or all your gamer buddies will laugh at you". I mean, I can see where he's comming from, but those aren't really the same thing. Half of my gamer buddies are still playing with Timmy Cards, and everyone manages to have fun anyway.

Also, it appears they're talking about subtle balance issue (for example, how Trip and Sunder are almost invariably better than Disarm, and how Mithril Bucklers can be worn by wizards for free), rather than the big issues of Fighters sucking, Wizards and CoDzillas ruling, etc. I do think WotC screwed up on those issues, but I do believe that was an accident. On the other hand, I'm fully in favour of some approaches being better than others - half the fun for me as a player is finding new builds and figuring out what works best.

Basically, I think there's a difference between "better/worse" and "broken". I think there's a lot of broken content, but I think what they're talking about is the better/worse catagory, and I support them in that.

[LibraryOgre]

1-Natural spell wasn't in 3.0

Not in the core, but it was in Masters of the Wild.

[Pronounceable]

Actually, point me to ANY game wich doesn't reward the players for having experience in it.

Russian roulette.
...

I'm not moved. The inherent DnD imbalance is because of the playtesters issue stated above. And WotC's need of producing splatbooks (which for some inexplicable reason always aim to one up the core) doesn't do wonders for balance either. This is just the icing on the cake.

And a touch of elitism does wonders for one's ego. Publishers are people too.

[purepolarpanzer]

It's been said, but I will reiterate. Feats and spells having some that suck and others that rock? Not a problem. Entire classes being sucky, no matter how you run them? Lame. (And, again, I doubt this is what Monte Cook meant, but it still needs saying. Over and over again.)

[Tengu]

EDIT:Actually, point me to ANY game wich doesn't reward the players for having experience in it.

Suicide bombing.

[Cuddly]

Suicide bombing.

Not an earthly one, anyway.

[Reinboom]

Suicide bombing.

Even that is rewarding with enough skill.

"For the Overmind!"



On the article...
Some decisions were just a bit too stupid. I mean, really... I don't see a significant amount of stuff in the books played, ever. They are just wasted space. Even the 'bad players' know to avoid some of the stuff.
If you are going to make crap in books, at least perfume it.

[Behold_the_Void]

Here's my thoughts after reading that.

1) D&D is a cooperative, not competitive game.

2) Believe it or not, a lot of new players actually DO listen to advice given in a rulebook and expect it to, you know, be marginally useful. Intentionally going out of your way to dupe new players into picking bad options is not a good way to promote a game.

3) Every inch of space you wasted with those crappy feats, options, and bogus design suggestions could have instead been used for better and more interesting character options or even clarifications on certain rules write-ups so as to not make them confusing and easily exploitable.

4) Don't do that again, it's stupid.

[Kompera]

It's been said, but I will reiterate. Feats and spells having some that suck and others that rock? Not a problem. Entire classes being sucky, no matter how you run them? Lame. (And, again, I doubt this is what Monte Cook meant, but it still needs saying. Over and over again.)

/signed

There is a huge difference between the types of "intentionally "sub-optimal" options" represented in D&D 3.5.

Power Attack plus Two-Handed Weapon is more potent than Power Attack plus sword and board.
Spiked Chain plus a huge investment in feats gives a Fighter a lot of options and potent advantages in combat.
Two-Handed Sword is marginally better than Battleaxe by the numbers.

All of the above are Easter Eggs that a skilled or experienced player can use to make their character more effective than the character of the player sitting next to them who hasn't yet figured these things out.

But, selecting Monk or Fighter as your character class being an intrinsically inferior option to selecting a Wizard/Sorcerer/Druid/Priest as your character class, that's not an Easter Egg for the skilled players to find. What it is is not just poor, but incompetent game design.

[snipped]WotC's need of producing splatbooks (which for some inexplicable reason always aim to one up the core) doesn't do wonders for balance either.

That's called escalation. What better way to ensure that your latest addition to the game is purchased, than to make owning it provide an advantage to those who purchased it? It's been done by many other companies before, probably most famously by Games Wreckshop who re-release the same games every few years and then publish rules for special units in their house organ White Dwarf which are more potent than anything in the core game, as well as a steady stream of supplements containing new races, weapons, leaders, and units all more potent than those published in the core system. It wrecks the game over time, and so they are forced to do it all again after the cycle of supplements has been exhausted yet again. Of course since this is their business model they don't mind at all that the imbalance they deliberately craft into their games over time forces a reboot. They want to sell you the new release of the core rules again, after all.

[tyckspoon]

/signed
Of course since this is their business model they don't mind at all that the imbalance they deliberately craft into their games over time forces a reboot. They want to sell you the new release of the core rules again, after all.

I think selling you the new redesigned model set to go with the rules update is more central to their business model. Especially since they started selling the core rulebooks separate from the starter game kits.. you get a $50-$60 hardback copy of the rules that they hope leads into hundreds of dollars of model purchases.[/tangent]

[The Necroswanso]

Fighting hard, fighting on for the steel / Through the wastelands evermore / The scattered souls will feel the hell, bodies wasted on the shore

I'm just curious who couldn't figure it out on /some/ level. I don't think they meant for entire classes to suck, but..

Shame on you. You gain three negative levels for that. (worst band ever BTW. PM me if you want real reasons why)

Anyway: OMG? Could it be true that WoTC created something that truly only benefits those willing to go out of their way to 'master' it?
I quit MTG because it practically only cattered to the "hardcore" crowd. I like to beleive D&D is innocent. So, in that fasion, I am going to remove all the information gained from this thread from memory.

[Reel On, Love]

And WotC's need of producing splatbooks (which for some inexplicable reason always aim to one up the core)

man what

You realize that clerics, druids, and wizards are all core, right? Of the Big Five classes, three are from the core book.

While we're at it, Shapechange and Polymorph (the only spells so strong WotC gave up on them) are also core. And core has multiple arbitrarily-high-power loops.

There is no book (except Serpent Kingdoms, which gave us Pun-Pun) that is worse balanced than Core.

[Mewtarthio]

You realize that clerics, druids, and wizards are all core, right? Of the Big Five classes, three are from the core book.

While we're at it, Shapechange and Polymorph (the only spells so strong WotC gave up on them) are also core. And core has multiple arbitrarily-high-power loops.

Outside of core, we have greater celerity and PrCs like the Incantarix and the Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil. Splatbooks aren't the cause of the imbalance, but they have a nasty tendancy to exacerbate things (with a few exceptions, of course).

[Reel On, Love]

Outside of core, we have greater celerity and PrCs like the Incantarix and the Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil. Splatbooks aren't the cause of the imbalance, but they have a nasty tendancy to exacerbate things (with a few exceptions, of course).

Sure, we do. And Greater Celerity is nice, but it's no Gate. Incantatrix is ridiculous, but it's still not arbitrarily high-powered, which is what stuff like planar-binding efreets, Gate chains (especially via Candle of Invocation), etc are.

Of course core + splats has more broken and more overpowered. My point is just that Core is more broken than any single other book. Any two or three, even.

[sonofzeal]

There is no book (except Serpent Kingdoms, which gave us Pun-Pun) that is worse balanced than Core.

Complete Champion.

But in general, I do agree. The power of splatbooks is not that they're instrinsically stronger than core, it's that they multiply the options available for players to cherrypick out of. Rare indeed is the book that is fundamentally more powerful than Core (ToB is the only other example I can think of, and that's if you ignore casters), but players are always going to choose the options that work the best for their character. Easy example - the Urban Ranger is basically equivalent in power to the normal Ranger, but anybody who chooses that variant will chose it because it makes their particular character better. If it was standard, and the classic Rangerwas the variant, the same would happen with it only showing up when it improves the particular character in question. So, by offering two equivalent ways of doing the same thing, you've increased the power available to players because they can choose the version that synergizes best with their concept. Not that options are a bad thing; the alternative is everyone playing a Commoner with the same stats, same feats, and same gear. And nobody wants that.

[pasko77]

"It's not a bug, it's a security feature!"

I love you :)

"It's not a bug, it's an undocumented feature" has REALLY been used in a place i used to work.
(yes, it is a major company, no i'm not telling the name)

[Kompera]

I think selling you the new redesigned model set to go with the rules update is more central to their business model. Especially since they started selling the core rulebooks separate from the starter game kits.. you get a $50-$60 hardback copy of the rules that they hope leads into hundreds of dollars of model purchases.[/tangent]

I sees a tangent, I runs with it. :)

I quit playing GW games when I purchased a pile of their miniatures which were being offered for sale at their eponymously named store. Hey, they never had a sale before, I dropped a bundle. I even remarked on the unprecedented sale to the two clerks in the store. "You guys never run sales, what's up?" "Oh, nothing really." I then spent hours painting my new miniatures. And then I showed up to play in one of their evening games hosted in their stores. And was told that they had released a new miniature line and that no one could play with the "old" miniatures in their store. Regardless of the fact that they had been purchased there.

They got me, but that was the last cent I've ever spent on a GW product and the last time I set foot in one of their stores. I even like their paints but found a different manufacturer to avoid spending another dime on GW products. And I tell this story to all of my gaming friends, to attempt to dissuade them from taking the GW hook.

[Reel On, Love]

Complete Champion.

Except not. It can't compete with the Infinite Titan Gate Chain, or just with infinite Wishes.

But in general, I do agree. The power of splatbooks is not that they're instrinsically stronger than core, it's that they multiply the options available for players to cherrypick out of. Rare indeed is the book that is fundamentally more powerful than Core (ToB is the only other example I can think of, and that's if you ignore casters)

Candle of Invocation. Which leads to infinite Gate chains or infinite Wishes. 'nuff said. And why would you ignore spellcasters?

, but players are always going to choose the options that work the best for their character. Easy example - the Urban Ranger is basically equivalent in power to the normal Ranger, but anybody who chooses that variant will chose it because it makes their particular character better. If it was standard, and the classic Rangerwas the variant, the same would happen with it only showing up when it improves the particular character in question. So, by offering two equivalent ways of doing the same thing, you've increased the power available to players because they can choose the version that synergizes best with their concept. Not that options are a bad thing; the alternative is everyone playing a Commoner with the same stats, same feats, and same gear. And nobody wants that.

Except that the Urban Ranger is just a Ranger designed for an urban setting. Normal D&D games don't tend to take place mostly in cities. The Urban Ranger for an urban game just brings the ranger back up to where he'd normally be.

But, yes. Splatbooks tend to raise the average power--but that's for the best; a Core + CWarrior game is more balanced than a Core-Only game, for example.

[Ascension]

2) Believe it or not, a lot of new players actually DO listen to advice given in a rulebook and expect it to, you know, be marginally useful. Intentionally going out of your way to dupe new players into picking bad options is not a good way to promote a game.

3) Every inch of space you wasted with those crappy feats, options, and bogus design suggestions could have instead been used for better and more interesting character options or even clarifications on certain rules write-ups so as to not make them confusing and easily exploitable.

These two comments are essentially a much better worded version of what I was trying to say earlier. I don't mind a little lack of balance, I don't mind the PHB not spelling out the most optimal combinations possible for you, but this stuff... this is annoying.

[bosssmiley]

Matthew quoting T. Foster: "...by Monte Cook's own admission, they included a bunch of intentionally "sub-optimal" options and advice in the 3.0 rulebooks as a way to encourage "rules mastery" among the player-base..."

That sounds like nothing more or less than a load of face-saving baloney to me. I'm always inclined to believe in c**k-up rather than conspiracy though.

The more likely explanation is that the designers of 3rd Ed. were pulling in two or three different conceptual directions and that their conflicting visions of the game system resulted in a downright kludgy mess. A simple case of "Too many cooks..."

Exacerbating this you had:

1) a probably less-than-rigorous playtest regime, which sounds (at least from anecdotal evidence) like the players were working under the assumption that 3rd Ed was going to play much more like 2nd Ed than it actually does.

2) the bloody mess that was the 3.0 to 3.5 update (druid vs. ranger 'balance', Skip's raging Sorcerer-phobia, and the balls up with the Diplomacy DCs table in the 3.5PHB, along the deliberate obfuscation of what CR actually means in the 3.5DMG, all spring to mind here)

3) rules sprawl combined with WOTC's downright lazy 'rush it out; reap the profit' playtesting and editing.

*Intentional* imbalance in Core D&D? Pull the other one!

Interesting insight though. Cheers

[Falrin]

Well, first I think the initial idea has some 'flaws'.

Creating an 'unbalanced' game so people can grow through experience and creativity sound as a nice base for the game, but they take it wrong. People that are exeperienced and creative should get better within the system by using superior tactics, not by useing superior 'cards' and knowing what cards are trapped .

Nevertheless this is more a personal feeling and I can see this work for a particular type of game, something like munchkin maybe.

But then they make one of the most horrifying mistakes I've seen for a while. It looks like they take the mindset of a collectors, PvP game and project this on a 'sharing', teambased game where balance is prefered.