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

[olentu]

Well for one Gate and Wish cost xp. Plus there's a ton of ways a DM could easily shut that down.

Gate states that a "unique being" cannot be controlled. Well if you want to get technical no two beings are 100% alike and one can easily argue that therefore any creature that doesn't have a non-existence intelligence score is unique, even if the others are only unique on a mental level.

Wish...seriously? Literal Genie much? Jackass Genie more? Face it, if you're using that spell and ruining the other's fun the DM can EASILY screw you over. Not to mention the Xp cost on both spells.

Time Stop is a tad harder to work if you don't know how speed works. Since it does not actually stop time but actually speeds everything up to the point where the others are frozen. Well aging much? One can easily argue that casting the spell ages the mage a fair bit. In hackmaster all 3 of these spells actually do age you 5 years. Gate spam? Well, hope you enjoy dying of old age.

Shall I say needing to modify the rules to fix their brokenness rather means they are broken.

[Morithias]

Shall I say needing to modify the rules to fix their brokenness rather means they are broken.

The rules themselves are poorly written, but not broken in themselves. As I said before, they would be no problem if people showed restraint.

People constantly complain, almost everyone on here has complained at some point about monks, La, wizards, fighters, tob, etc.

Has it really never occurred to anyone to just...stop using it? Or use it more wisely? Like maybe using a time stop spell to delay a series of buff spells instead of summoning 4 solars. Or using the gate spell for it planar shift use instead of a dues ex machina. Or maybe not using wish for breaking the game, and rather for fixing stuff that would normally be beyond fixing. Like say restoring the city that just got genocided by the Big Bad's Supernova Expy attack.

[olentu]

The rules themselves are poorly written, but not broken in themselves. As I said before, they would be no problem if people showed restraint.

People constantly complain, almost everyone on here has complained at some point about monks, La, wizards, fighters, tob, etc.

Has it really never occurred to anyone to just...stop using it? Or use it more wisely? Like maybe using a time stop spell to delay a series of buff spells instead of summoning 4 solars. Or using the gate spell for it planar shift use instead of a dues ex machina. Or maybe not using wish for breaking the game, and rather for fixing stuff that would normally be beyond fixing. Like say restoring the city that just got genocided by the Big Bad's Supernova Expy attack.

I think not using the broken rules to break the game has occurred to many people. But you know having to choose not to use some of the rules because they will break the game rather means that those rules are broken.

[nyarlathotep]

The rules themselves are poorly written, but not broken in themselves. As I said before, they would be no problem if people showed restraint.

People constantly complain, almost everyone on here has complained at some point about monks, La, wizards, fighters, tob, etc.

Has it really never occurred to anyone to just...stop using it? Or use it more wisely? Like maybe using a time stop spell to delay a series of buff spells instead of summoning 4 solars. Or using the gate spell for it planar shift use instead of a dues ex machina. Or maybe not using wish for breaking the game, and rather for fixing stuff that would normally be beyond fixing. Like say restoring the city that just got genocided by the Big Bad's Supernova Expy attack.

Most of the core is unbalanced talk is actually reactionary. Specifically it's reactionary to the crowd that says 3.5 is only unbalanced due to splatbooks. The argument is that splatbooks don't make 3.5 unbalanced it is inherently unbalanced.

As for why don't they just stop using it. Well if you want truly balanced D&D you don't use it. People willfully taking weaker options to maintain balance does not mean the system is balanced.

Additionally it is possible to have balanced D&D your classes just only come from the following books Tome of Magic, Tome of Battle, and Expanded Psionic Handbook, though even then truenamers and soul knives should be ignored.

[ranagrande]

I think Core is actually balanced fairly well...

... if you're playing E6.

[Frosty]

I made the two of them an NPC pair in the last campaign I ran. The PCs made friends with them, and Soren and Titania ended up running the PCs' castle/mercenary army while the PCs went off on missions. Soren was a Beguiler, Titania a Warblade/Fighter with the Mounted Combat feats, and I turned Ilyana into an Artificer.

If you're using Pathfinder, Titania should just flat out be a Cavalier, and either Order of the Shield or Order of the Dragon.

On topic: 2e had uneven experience tables. That didn't make 2e balanced either.

[dsmiles]

There are plenty of things on the wish spell that are considered safe and can still break the game. While the player would be a jerk for trying to destroy his DM's campaign, the DM would also be a jerk for not explaining that isn't the way wish works in his campaign before hand.

See, I've never felt the need to state that Wish, in my campaigns, is based on the intent of the caster. You cast it yourself, fine, no problem. Get somebody else to cast it, or get/force a supernatural being to use their SLA, on the other hand...(cue dramatic music)...anything goes.

[Chambers]

Well for one Gate and Wish cost xp. Plus there's a ton of ways a DM could easily shut that down.

Gate states that a "unique being" cannot be controlled. Well if you want to get technical no two beings are 100% alike and one can easily argue that therefore any creature that doesn't have a non-existence intelligence score is unique, even if the others are only unique on a mental level.

Wish...seriously? Literal Genie much? Jackass Genie more? Face it, if you're using that spell and ruining the other's fun the DM can EASILY screw you over. Not to mention the Xp cost on both spells.

Time Stop is a tad harder to work if you don't know how speed works. Since it does not actually stop time but actually speeds everything up to the point where the others are frozen. Well aging much? One can easily argue that casting the spell ages the mage a fair bit. In hackmaster all 3 of these spells actually do age you 5 years. Gate spam? Well, hope you enjoy dying of old age.

Your description of Gate is Raw As I Want It To Be. Arguing over the meaning of a phrase that isn't in question (unique individuals), you're reducing yourself to arguing over specifics because you can't argue the big picture. The same with Wish. There are strict RAW uses for Wish that don't screw the character over.

Your argument of aging for Time Stop is another RAIWITB. It doesn't mention aging at all. We are not talking about Hackmaster - we're talking about Core D&D.

EDIT:

Furthermore, you didn't answer the question I asked. Please list the feats that equal the power level of these spells. I am not asking you to re-interpret the spells - I'm asking you to find feats that are the equivalent of the spells as they are actually written, not as how you want them to work.

[ranagrande]

Furthermore, you didn't answer the question I asked. Please list the feats that equal the power level of these spells. I am not asking you to re-interpret the spells - I'm asking you to find feats that are the equivalent of the spells as they are actually written, not as how you want them to work.

The aforementioned Leadership is probably the only core feat in that power range.

[SparkMandriller]

Has it really never occurred to anyone to just...stop using it?

So you think the only way a spell can be broken is if it forces you to cast it, or what?

[Tyndmyr]

I think Core is actually balanced fairly well...

... if you're playing E6.

E6 is delightfully balanced. Core or non-core. Sure, optimization still exists, and there are tricks and such, but it is massively more equal even so, and it doesn't generally end up broken by accident.

Well for one Gate and Wish cost xp. Plus there's a ton of ways a DM could easily shut that down.

Gate doesn't cost enough XP to matter compared to the XP of the encounter you use it to defeat.

As for the wish loop, well, neither item usage nor other creature usage costs xp, so this doesn't fix the most broken application of it.

Gate states that a "unique being" cannot be controlled. Well if you want to get technical no two beings are 100% alike and one can easily argue that therefore any creature that doesn't have a non-existence intelligence score is unique, even if the others are only unique on a mental level.

Really? You're just saying that the spell doesn't work at all, and trying to justify it by an unusual interpretation of RAW?

Unique creature means a given creature. You can't use it to summon Ted the genie, just a random genie.

Wish...seriously? Literal Genie much? Jackass Genie more? Face it, if you're using that spell and ruining the other's fun the DM can EASILY screw you over. Not to mention the Xp cost on both spells.

Well, they are bound to obey you. Sure, if you state your wish poorly, you may get what you ask for, not what you want. That's unsurprising, and why the wish loop relies on the auto-success wishes listed in the spell.

Time Stop is a tad harder to work if you don't know how speed works. Since it does not actually stop time but actually speeds everything up to the point where the others are frozen. Well aging much? One can easily argue that casting the spell ages the mage a fair bit. In hackmaster all 3 of these spells actually do age you 5 years. Gate spam? Well, hope you enjoy dying of old age.

That's not in the rules at all.

Things not in the rules do not make the rules balanced. See also, Oberani's fallacy. Plus, relying on aging as a form of balance also does relatively little when you consider the ways to gain immortality, and realize that the caster isn't using wish, the genie is.

[Yuki Akuma]

If Time Stop aged you any faster while sped up, to age a single extra year you'd need to cast it, on average, one million, five hundred and two thousand, seven hundred and forty three times.

Oh no.

[Awnetu]

But Yuki, we can't become immune to aging effects, can we? Perfectly balanced.

[Thrawn183]

Next he/she'll be asking us to give up our familiars too.

[Xyk]

Before I came to these boards, I thought barbarians were then unbalanced ones. My players rarely want to play wizards. I mean yes, my games are usually low level, but still, the wizards are constantly overshadowed by the barbarians and fighters. Honestly, it's not even a hassle to keep them balanced in a game. As a DM, I don't even suggest that they keep a "balanced" party of a tank, arcane caster, divine caster, and skill monkey. I often have two rangers or two rogues and a sorcerer or something and it's still just as fun. I encourage creativity in combat.

For example, I sent a Giant Ant at my first level party of a sorcerer, a ranger, and a rogue. As the ant charged at the mule as stupid ants would probably do, the rogue scurried up a tree, the ranger guarded the mule and the sorcerer distracted it from the mule with a magic missile, goading it closer to the tree that the rogue was in. The rogue jumped down and sneak attacked it from above.

All party members were useful, despite being in different tiers. It's really not hard.

[Tyndmyr]

Next he/she'll be asking us to give up our familiars too.

It's ok. In return, we'll get the lightning warrior increases. They'll be balanced if we don't have a familiar.

[Psyren]

All party members were useful, despite being in different tiers. It's really not hard.

Of course rangers and rogues are useful. Their job is to mop up after the casters take care of everything.

For instance, say there was no tree around in your Giant Ant example; the sorcerer could have enabled the same finish with a single Grease spell. (GAs have 10 dex and no ranks in balance.) Ranger and Rogue waltz up while the thing is prone and shove steel in its thorax.

[Gametime]

But wait! There's MORE! Yes, for a limited time only, while the fighter gets his pitiful little 11 feats and YOU get 9th levels spells we'll throw in 0th through 8th level spells as a FREE BONUS OFFER!

But that's not all. If you'll call now to ImAWizzard then you ALSO get 5 bonus feats of your own! And a familiar!

Now, you may have heard that casters have a weakness in that they run out of spells. So to prevent this horrible problem we'll give you 40 spells per day. But that's not all! We'll give you an extra 15 spells a day JUST for having a moderately good prime ability. But that's not all! You can SPECIALIZE, or join a prestige class, or get a pearl of power, and have EVEN MORE SPELLS per day!

But that's not all! While the fighter's core feats are things like a +1 to attack with a single weapon, YOUR bonus feats let you make items that let you CAST MORE SPELLS, or you can learn to make an item giving the fighter +5 to hit and damage, or you can cast a single level 3 spell to give the fighter +5 to hit and damage, and remember that the fighter can't even REACH the enemy without your active help.

Yes friends, all of this can be yours if you'll just call ImaWizzard today!

I heard this all in the Powerthirst voice.

"Vancian casting! IT'S LIKE CRYSTAL METH IN A SPELLBOOK! IT'S CRYSTAL METH!"

Items truly has no traits of their own besides physical ones. A gun is not evil. A vaccine for a virus is not good. A Dnd book is not broken.

So, basically, you decided to ignore what people mean when they use the shorthand "Core is broken" in favor of arguing semantically against a point no one was making.

Let me clarify. When someone says "Core is broken" they do not mean that the system cannot be played, or that the system will never produce balanced games, or that you cannot use the system in a fun way. What they mean is "The power disparity between allegedly equal options within the Core rules for Dungeons & Dragons, edition 3.5, makes the probability extremely high that a person choosing options to fit his or her character and to help said character to overcome level-appropriate challenges will eventually choose an option significantly more powerful than anything another character is capable of matching. Often, this leads to one or more players feeling marginalized. At this point, significant effort is necessary to rebalance the game if interplayer balance is something valuable to the gaming group."

But that's kind of a mouthful, so instead we say "Core is broken" and move on.

A. Core is not broken by itself.
B. The players break it.
C. When we use it for "UNLIMITED POOOOOOWER" instead of playing a fun game.
D. By abusing the game in ways it wasn't meant to be done.

This is a very important quote. You're advocating RAI, right? That's what it sounds like. I agree with you! For actual games, at least, RAI (or Rules as Makes Sense, sometimes) is clearly the way to go. Okay, so we're agreed. RAI = good. Keep that in mind, it'll come up again in a second.

Gate states that a "unique being" cannot be controlled. Well if you want to get technical no two beings are 100% alike and one can easily argue that therefore any creature that doesn't have a non-existence intelligence score is unique, even if the others are only unique on a mental level.

Aaaand here's where that "RAI" bit above comes in. So you favor using RAI... unless you need to use a semantic argument by RAW to "prove" that Core isn't broken. That's... inconsistent.

There's literally no reason for the "unique being" bit to be in there unless the game designers intended that Gate could control a non-specific member of a race - like the ones in the Monster Manual. You're flagrantly denying the obvious intention of the rules here in favor of shoehorning in some modicum of "balance." Isn't it easier to acknowledge that the spell is unbalanced, and to houserule it to be more balanced?

Time Stop is a tad harder to work if you don't know how speed works. Since it does not actually stop time but actually speeds everything up to the point where the others are frozen. Well aging much? One can easily argue that casting the spell ages the mage a fair bit. In hackmaster all 3 of these spells actually do age you 5 years. Gate spam? Well, hope you enjoy dying of old age.

How speed works? Wut? Time Stop gives you 2 to 5 rounds in the space of one round. If you use it, it should age you... 1 to 4 rounds. That's hardly a deterrent. Adding in massive aging penalties isn't unreasonable, but it's also not in the rules, nor is there any indication it's intended to be. If you want to argue with us about how balanced your houserules are, dandy, but don't pretend that houserules make the normal rules more balanced. They don't.

The rules themselves are poorly written, but not broken in themselves. As I said before, they would be no problem if people showed restraint.

Whether something is unbalanced and whether something is a problem are two separate issues. We are not arguing that every game ever will eventually break down. That's trivially false. We are arguing that every game ever has the potential to break down, and is more likely to do so than in many other game systems.

Or, to use an analogy: "Land mines aren't dangerous! They would be no problem if people wouldn't step on them."

[Morithias]

Whether something is unbalanced and whether something is a problem are two separate issues. We are not arguing that every game ever will eventually break down. That's trivially false. We are arguing that every game ever has the potential to break down, and is more likely to do so than in many other game systems.

Or, to use an analogy: "Land mines aren't dangerous! They would be no problem if people wouldn't step on them."

Then let me ask you this, if you judge something on potential, how the hell do you ever leave your house?

Every time you get in a car there is a potential for you to crash. Every time to walk down a street there is potential for you to get mugged. Every time you work on a computer there is potential for a virus to get in a delete all your files.

If you want to go really crazy, there's an argument that in theory, anything could randomly happen at any time potentially. The chance is extremely low, but still, you could just randomly get struck by lightning, while in doors on a sunny day.

[Gametime]

It's ok. In return, we'll get the lightning warrior increases. They'll be balanced if we don't have a familiar.

Speak for yourself! Some of us aren't willing to give up that much power in exchange for some flavor.

[Gametime]

Then let me ask you this, if you judge something on potential, how the hell do you ever leave your house?

Every time you get in a car there is a potential for you to crash. Every time to walk down a street there is potential for you to get mugged. Every time you work on a computer there is potential for a virus to get in a delete all your files.

If you want to go really crazy, there's an argument that in theory, anything could randomly happen at any time potentially. The chance is extremely low, but still, you could just randomly get struck by lightning, while in doors on a sunny day.

Because the chance of crashing, or getting mugged, or getting a computer virus is much, much lower than the chance of someone using an unbalanced option from the Player's Handbook in the course of playing a game of Dungeons & Dragons.

I never suggested we act as though every possibility would happen; just that it's bizarre to suggest that because we can prevent it from happening, it isn't a possibility.

Moreover, we can't really control the real world. We can control our game design. A game with as many unbalanced options as 3.5 is more poorly designed than a game that does not possess so many unbalanced options.* This doesn't mean 3.5 is a bad game - it isn't - or that you can't enjoy it - you can - or that you'll never play a balanced game of it - you might. It does mean that 3.5 is poorly balanced and, in many ways, poorly designed.

* Assuming you value game balance. Many people don't, and for them the disparity among options is no downside, but I'm assuming people arguing about whether or not 3.5 is balanced also care whether or not it is balanced.

[Aharon]

Speak for yourself! Some of us aren't willing to give up that much power in exchange for some flavor.

not to mention that the extra spell per round my familiar casts from a staff might be better than the full bab the Lightning Warrior gets

[awa]

the thing i hate most about this arguments is after a page or two all that happens is people refute the common sense argument (mine ) and come up with a nonsensical objection people poke holes in their argument and the they either ignore this and keep repeated their argument convinced that this time surely this time you will change your mine or they grasp a tiny aspect of your counter argument and focus on it entirely.

The fact that you can use house rules or choose not to use broken options does not make the system not broken and has been said many times by people before me it in fact proves the system is broken because you realize their are things you have to avoid.

[Edhelras]

I'm not sure about the 'spellcasters' are all powerful in Core D&D. 20th level fighters are powerful. It come by how you rate powerful.

I've gamed in thousands of games. It's rare for me to encounter an all powerful spellcaster. And the reason is simple, players are humans. Most players don't take 24/7 of their life to make an uber spellcaster. They just make normal spellcasters. It's not a rule that the spellcaster must be all powerful. So the spellcaster has a couple spells to cast for a couple rounds, but the fighter can fight all day.

No modern day gamer(especially those under 30) who is a advocate of brokenness would make it in a classic dungeon. In Ye Old Days, the adventuring group would be in the dungeon for (game and real) hours. So even if a spellcaster went 'nova' a couple times...the adventure would still continue for several hours before the group rested. So a spellcaster had to save up their spells. Many modern gamers want only a maximum of four encounters that they can nova blast through a day, then they immediately demand to rest. A spellcaster in a classic mindset game had to be able to cast spells all day.


Most so-called broken things in core are just there because of lazy, bored and uninterested DM's. The easy way to 'mend broken' is to up the power of the game. The 'broken tricks' that work so well vs 0 level human guards, don't work so well vs 10th level vrock rogue/warlocks. There is always a bigger fish.

I completely agree.

The curious thing is that first one make dungeon crawls into short encounters where econimizing with your power is superfluous (thus making casters all-powerful), then one complains of brokenness, then one creates a new game (4E) in which the basic is encounterbased powers - exactly the conditions under which casters will "break" the game. And then one changes non-casters into pseudomagic classes with their own per-encounter features.

So this is why 4E is perceived to have betrayed the "spirit" of DnD by some old, reactionary dudes (like me), who rejoiced in the very condition that you had to be careful with your resources, because much of the combat and other challenges would be encountered after you expended your most powerful abilities.

[Mikal]

I wouldn't say it's particularly easy to play. You're looking at a minimum of three books, each of around 300 pages, before you can actually play the game. Compare that to most RPGs having one book being all you need to get started.

As for versatile, as I said before, let's see you make a Viking character. Classes are like handcuffs when it comes to making characters. Sure, you can do some things with them, but you're pretty much tied to whatever teh game designers thought those classes should be. Which might not be quite what you want to ply.

And in my experience, usually isn't what I want to play.

Actually, Vikings can be pretty much anything. Unless you just like stereotypes.

Fighter: A skilled viking commander, who leads the legions into battle.
Barbarian: The prototypical "berserker". Have to spend points on literacy tho since the Vikings did have a language
Bard: The Viking skald
Rogue: A Viking scout or merchant
Ranger: Another Viking scout, this one more trained in woodslore. Also a hunter
Cleric: Can also be a skald of sorts
Wizard/Sorcerer: Viking Tribal leaders and/or wisemen.
Paladin: Another commander type, this one more religious.

So yeah. If one wants to play a viking one can easily do so with any class. And you can easily make other classes fit into the viking roles as well.

It seems to me your issue is that you like stereotypes a wee bit much and allow yourself to remain limited to actual originality when it comes to stuff.

[Yuki Akuma]

Barbarian: The prototypical "berserker". Have to spend points on literacy tho since the Vikings did have a language

Not all of them would have been literate, though.

[Edhelras]

Has been proven time and again, endurance is not a challenge to a high level wizard.

1. At level 20, he'll have 36 spells(not counting cantrips) per day.

Who play games at lvl 20? Who are having fun at lvl 20?

All right, I realize that someone do, someone has. Fine, fine. I agree then, Core is broken because it cannot manage to keep the fun going all the way to godhood.

Now tell me - which game system can do better? In particular - which game system can keep the fun both at low, middle and high levels?

As far as I'm concerned, 3.5 is doing a great job at those levels I like - the low and middle levels, if one is prioritizing role playing and a "whole" character with a core class. I'm sorry it's not satisfactory for every other player, though.

P.S. And as I mentioned before, more skill points would be great!

[Tvtyrant]

Actually, Vikings can be pretty much anything. Unless you just like stereotypes.

Fighter: A skilled viking commander, who leads the legions into battle.
Barbarian: The prototypical "berserker". Have to spend points on literacy tho since the Vikings did have a language
Bard: The Viking skald
Rogue: A Viking scout or merchant
Ranger: Another Viking scout, this one more trained in woodslore. Also a hunter
Cleric: Can also be a skald of sorts
Wizard/Sorcerer: Viking Tribal leaders and/or wisemen.
Paladin: Another commander type, this one more religious.

So yeah. If one wants to play a viking one can easily do so with any class. And you can easily make other classes fit into the viking roles as well.

It seems to me your issue is that you like stereotypes a wee bit much and allow yourself to remain limited to actual originality when it comes to stuff.

hehe, legions.

Yeah, pretty much any culture can be recreated with D&D classes.

[Xyk]

Of course rangers and rogues are useful. Their job is to mop up after the casters take care of everything.

For instance, say there was no tree around in your Giant Ant example; the sorcerer could have enabled the same finish with a single Grease spell. (GAs have 10 dex and no ranks in balance.) Ranger and Rogue waltz up while the thing is prone and shove steel in its thorax.

What non-metagaming sorcerer would know how to make things slippery but not how to shoot something with a bolt of magic? If he did, maybe I'd have made it a Giant Bee or two just as easily. Remember that it's a storytelling game first and foremost. What makes a better story? An ant falls down and gets stabbed or a halfling rogue leaps down from a tree with a knife and stabs it between it's exoskeleton plates.

[awa]

the argument that wizards would be balanced if you just had more encounters because they could not nova is false other have said why before but this keeps popping up over and over again so i might as well mention the reason again.

a high level wizard does not need to "nova" to win fights because many fights can be won with a single spell. force cage is deadly to any creature they needs to breath and can't teleport sure it has an expensive material component so you cant use it all the time but for a wide range of monsters its a slow death by suffocation.

and if you send lots of fight that means they have to be easier or the fighter who had high levels is barely competent would be dead to. and if the fights are easier than the wizard doesn't need to nova because he can just win with low level spells.

a wizard at high levels can flee combat almost whenever he wants all he needs to do is save a teleport for the end of the day.

And before you leap in with but the dm should just give every enemy permanent magic immunity and make every adventure have a time limit and also dimensional anchors to stop the wizard from going home and resting Than that means you admit the game is broken because you have to take actions to fix it