The Reasons Magic is Overpowered in 3.5E

[umbrapolaris]

I still maintain that the use of magic in D&D is optional. It can be removed without making the game "not-D&D" whatever that might be.

it is not d&d anymore but d20 modern/past

[Tyndmyr]

At what point did I mention 4th ed? I don't even like D&D 4. I'm a Rules Compendium guy at heart. And I still want to know what is and is not D&D.

D&D was earlier used as a shorthand for D&D 3.5. However, the same logic applies to any system. The point is simple. After enough changes to a game, the game eventually becomes something else entirely.

I don't care if you like 4e. It's not relevant. Fact is, it's a different game than 3.x. 3.x is a different game than Pathfinder.


The original D&D had three classes. Fighting-Men, Magic User and Cleric. 3.X is lierally worlds away from the original.

Yes. 3.x is a different game than the original.

After all, if you see someone advertising a game of D&D, is not one of the first things you ask "what edition?". It's right up there with things like setting for importance.


And I do agree that removing magic from the game makes a huge difference. Even taking out just spells and spell like abilities, leaving Supernatural stuff in place makes a massive difference.

But I don't think it makes things as different as you make out. I'm actually thinking E6 with no magic could make for an excellent gritty fantasy game.

It might. However, that is a substantially non-standard game of 3.5. One that deserves to be advertised as such. Also, it's extremely likely that in the course of play, you might come across unanticipated consequences of such major changes. It's a common thing when playtesting major homebrew.

There's nothing wrong with doing that...but it's not representative of 3.5 as a whole, and isn't very useful in a broader discussion of 3.5. Yes, you *could* theoretically play a cyberpunk game using the CoC rule system, but it wouldn't be reasonable to describe Call of Cthulu as such.

[Boci]

In what way?

Forces them to use rule 0. See my point on new DMs being afraid to use rule 0.


No...that's not his claim. His claim is that the value added by making the system more complicated is negated by other problems, specifically that it confusing

Which is negated by someone with system mastery who can help the opthers in the group as well.


and prone to breakage.

Arguable not true, splatbooks improve the balance of core after all.


So this is both strawman fallacy (you're arguing against a position he didn't take), and a false dichotomy (presenting this strawman argument as the only possible problem with a complicated system, refuting it, and then claiming this proves your counter claim).

Or I just misunderstood him, you know, something that never happens on the internet. I wonder if there is a fallacy for interpreting misunderstanding as fallacies.

[Jayabalard]

Forces them to use rule 0. See my point on new DMs being afraid to use rule 0.I think that's the one where I said I couldn't understand what you were driving at. I still can't.


Which is negated by someone with system mastery who can help the opthers in the group as well. How does this negate his point in any way? confusing things remain confusing. Having the workaround of "requires someone with system mastery in every group" does not make it not confusing, and in fact detracts from any value that the complications add.


Arguable not true, splatbooks improve the balance of core after all.The statement "Contrary to popular belief, more choice isn't always better." is a general statement, not something specific to D&D, so whether this is true or not does not negate his statement. Nor is any part of his argument for using core only... he's quite clearly suggesting that this can be done using many, if not all, of the splatbooks.

I'm not really going to get into whether it does or does not improve the balance or core, since I think it's irrelevant... but quite clearly there are more total broken things in core + splatbooks than there are in core alone... because core + splatbooks contails everything that is broken in core, plus any new broken things in the splatbooks, plus all the new combos that come about when combining core and the splatbooks. This is another thing that detracts from any value that the complications add.


Or I just misunderstood him, you know, something that never happens on the internet. I wonder if there is a fallacy for interpreting misunderstanding as fallacies.Fallacious logic is often the result of misunderstanding. It just means that you are unintentionally committing a straw man fallacy rather than intentionally doing so (and really, your understanding or not is totally irrelevant for the false dichotomy).


Actually, if I could point to one design goal of 3.5 that it did really well, it was exactly in its ability to let people play every possible specific character, not just certain selected archetypes. Thats why there are dozens, maybe hundreds of playable races (including all those monsters with a number by their LA entry), 50ish core classes, and hundreds more prestige classes. Sure, 3.x allows vastly more archetypes than OD&D... it still doesn't accommodate every character concept. That's why we get the commonly stated claim of "D&D is bad at representing heroes from fiction or mythology" in all it's variations every time we get a thread about someone like Conan, or Roland, or the Gray Mouser, etc.


it is not d&d anymore but d20 modern/pastNo, it's still D&D. You're still using the D&D PHB, monster manual, etc... just things have been removed. There's no need to use any of the rules from D20 modern/past.

[Tyndmyr]

I'm not really going to get into whether it does or does not improve the balance or core, since I think it's irrelevant... but quite clearly there are more total broken things in core + splatbooks than there are in core alone... because core + splatbooks contails everything that is broken in core, plus any new broken things in the splatbooks, plus all the new combos that come about when combining core and the splatbooks. This is another thing that detracts from any value that the complications add.

A sheer tally of broken things is a poor way to judge RPGs, as it is inherently biased against all RPGs that have had a good amount of material printed for them. In short...the successful RPGs. The ones that people liked, played, and sold.

I would consider a better metric to be the average amount of broken things in the system as a whole. Therefore, a splatbook with a larger percentage of broken things would be bad, while one with a smaller percentage would be an improvement in overall quality.

Besides, splatbooks ARE optional. A GM doesn't have to use them.

[umbrapolaris]

No, it's still D&D. You're still using the D&D PHB, monster manual, etc... just things have been removed. There's no need to use any of the rules from D20 modern/past.

a very diet MM and PHB, most monsters have powers & abilities derived from magic except ( there are surely more but i dont have the MM in my memory) dinosaurs and animals.

[Boci]

I think that's the one where I said I couldn't understand what you were driving at. I still can't.

Never mind, it has no bearing to the current discussion and wasn't that important anyway.


How does this negate his point in any way? confusing things remain confusing. Having the workaround of "requires someone with system mastery in every group" does not make it not confusing, and in fact detracts from any value that the complications add.

If someone in the group has system mastery the confusion is far less important. Think of map reading. Its confusing to a lot of people, but does that really matter as a long as someone in the group can read maps? If no one at the table has system mastery, then the group can either limit the options to avoid the confusion, or turn to the internet.


The statement "Contrary to popular belief, more choice isn't always better." is a general statement, not something specific to D&D, so whether this is true or not does not negate his statement.

Nope, he was talking about 3.5.


Nor is any part of his argument for using core only... he's quite clearly suggesting that this can be done using many, if not all, of the splatbooks.

It still shows that more options can balance things better. Especially if there is someone in the group who understands the system and can co-ordinate the party's power level.


I'm not really going to get into whether it does or does not improve the balance or core, since I think it's irrelevant... but quite clearly there are more total broken things in core + splatbooks than there are in core alone... because core + splatbooks contails everything that is broken in core, plus any new broken things in the splatbooks, plus all the new combos that come about when combining core and the splatbooks. This is another thing that detracts from any value that the complications add.

Yes, but if someone has system mastery thay can steer other players away from these broken options.


Fallacious logic is often the result of misunderstanding. It just means that you are unintentionally committing a straw man fallacy rather than intentionally doing so (and really, your understanding or not is totally irrelevant for the false dichotomy).

Meh, I don't really see the benefit in insisting that midunderstanding your opponent's arguments does in fact constitute strawmanning, but if you want to believe that.

[Tyndmyr]

a very diet MM and PHB, most monsters have powers & abilities derived from magic except ( there are surely more but i dont have the MM in my memory) dinosaurs and animals.

# of PC classes remaining(ie, w/o SU or magic): 3/11. Barbarian, Fighter, Rogue.

In addition, Gnomes are gone, due to innate casting.

# of monsters remaining, by CR in SRD:
0-1: 71/101 -Of note, most of these are either normal races or things like cats or ponies, that are not routinely used as adversaries. Also, swarms, while still allowed, are pretty lethal in a non-magic world.

2: 23/44 -Number of opponents dropping. Types tend strongly toward vermin and beast. Swarms are still an issue.

3: 18/69 -Dropping further. Still a bias toward very mundane adversaries, with the notable exception of the rust monster. He'll be fun in this world.

...

6: 6/27 - Getting to a severe lack of variety. Have fun coming up with a reason to use a Baleen Whale.

...

10: 2/17 - Fire Giant and Gargantuan Monstrous Scorpion. Great variety.

...

15: 0/7 - Joy.

...

20: 0/9 - Yeah, it's pretty much pointless trying to use high levels without magic. There's nothing to fight.

[The Big Dice]

20: 0/9 - Yeah, it's pretty much pointless trying to use high levels without magic. There's nothing to fight.
Does everything have to be about fighting and looting?

And there are always high level people to fight, assuming you want everything to be about the rumble. And by people, I mean anything that's capable of having class levels.

[true_shinken]

Does everything have to be about fighting and looting?

And there are always high level people to fight, assuming you want everything to be about the rumble. And by people, I mean anything that's capable of having class levels.

Levels in the three remaining classes.

[Doug Lampert]

Levels in the three remaining classes.

Plus Commoner, Warrior, Expert, and Aristocrat.

There are more non-magic NPC classes than PC classes.

Throw out commoner and you might have a game. (I'd say the difference in play between any two of Warrior, Expert, and Aristo is greater than that between Ftr and Barb).

Note that you may not actually NEED high level monster opponents. Loss of all magical gear reduces your level 20 fighter to about right for monstrous CR 10 foes.

[Jayabalard]

# of PC classes remaining(ie, w/o SU or magic): 3/11. Barbarian, Fighter, Rogue.

In addition, Gnomes are gone, due to innate casting.

# of monsters remaining, by CR in SRD:Including gnomes is as simple just saying "gnomes lose their innate casting" ... you can have them gain something else if you want or not.

As for the # of monsters... I mentioned it earlier, and several people have as well, there are plenty available since opponents can have class levels. And that's without houseruling away the magic of existing creatures or homebrew.

ex: You can do an entire campaign fighting almost nothing but humans and demihumans with class levels (ex: a military base game where you're fighting a war)


A sheer tally of broken things is a poor way to judge RPGs, as it is inherently biased against all RPGs that have had a good amount of material printed for them. In short...the successful RPGs. The ones that people liked, played, and sold. That sounds an awful lot like more options = more breakage; and that's all i was saying there. Adding options does indeed mean more prone to breakage; this is due primarily due the limit on how many combinations can be properly tested, and the exponential increase of combinations with each new added option.


If someone in the group has system mastery the confusion is far less important. Think of map reading. Its confusing to a lot of people, but does that really matter as a long as someone in the group can read maps? If no one at the table has system mastery, then the group can either limit the options to avoid the confusion, or turn to the internet.No, it doesn't. The confusion is just as important, regardless. The map is still confusing to the people who don't know how to read the map.


Nope, he was talking about 3.5.I think you're not looking at everything he's posted; several of his comments in this thread are not specific any edition of D&D. It's a general comment.


It still shows that more options can balance things better. Especially if there is someone in the group who understands the system and can co-ordinate the party's power level.His statement was "Contrary to popular belief, more choice isn't always better."

"Can" is not sufficient as a counter argument. Core vs non-core remains irrelevant, since that's not the dividing line for options that he's talking about. Nor is there an actual consensus that "more balanced" = better


Yes, but if someone has system mastery thay can steer other players away from these broken options.I don't see how this matters; it requires both that you have someone with system mastery, and that he acts in this way, neither of which are a given; it means that basically all the other players have to filter everything they do through this person, which I find to be more of a downer than the broken things themselves.

[Gnaeus]

Sure, 3.x allows vastly more archetypes than OD&D... it still doesn't accommodate every character concept. That's why we get the commonly stated claim of "D&D is bad at representing heroes from fiction or mythology" in all it's variations every time we get a thread about someone like Conan, or Roland, or the Gray Mouser, etc.

Actually, I can stat those characters pretty easily. D&D doesn't always match the feel of their worlds (like if I made Conan as a 15th level character, he could suddenly jump off cliffs and walk away), and they might not work in optimized groups, but I can make them. And no non-free-form game will accommodate EVERY character concept. Even GURPS can be pushed beyond its toolset if you try hard enough. 3.5 D&D will accommodate most fantasy character concepts. That is its biggest +, as I see it.

[Boci]

That sounds an awful lot like more options = more breakage; and that's all i was saying there. Adding options does indeed mean more prone to breakage; this is due primarily due the limit on how many combinations can be properly tested, and the exponential increase of combinations with each new added option.

No one is denying that. Are you saying that options should be kept to minimum level because of it?


No, it doesn't. The confusion is just as important, regardless. The map is still confusing to the people who don't know how to read the map.

And why is that relevant if they do not have to read the map? Sure it would be better if they could, but as long as there is one map reader per group it doesn't really matter.


I think you're not looking at everything he's posted; several of his comments in this thread are not specific any edition of D&D. It's a general comment.

You the one whose not looking. He said that in response to Tyndmyr pointing out that his change banned 30 0f the 43 classes in D&D 3.5.


His statement was "Contrary to popular belief, more choice isn't always better."

"Can" is not sufficient as a counter argument. Core vs non-core remains irrelevant, since that's not the dividing line for options that he's talking about.

Fine, then it wasn't a counter argument, I was just pointing out why more options are good. Yay, everybody wins.



Nor is there an actual consensus that "more balanced" = better

You sure? I know there are people who don't care abojut balance, but how many people are going to pick an unbalanced game over a balanced one?


I don't see how this matters; it requires both that you have someone with system mastery, and that he acts in this way, neither of which are a given;

Are people with system mastery who aren't jerks really that rare?


it means that basically all the other players have to filter everything they do through this person, which I find to be more of a downer than the broken things themselves.

Is asking a fellow player a couple of questions when level really that big a price?

Anyway, I'm bowing out now, I've been procrastinating for long enough as it is.

[Jayabalard]

No one is denying that. Are you saying that options should be kept to minimum level because of it?(some people did deny that, you (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10304153#post10304153) for example)

No, I'm saying that more options aren't always better than less options; they aren't even generally better than less options.

KFC has dozen's of things on thier menu; Gus' fried chicken (in memphis TN) has a tiny fraction of the options, but is some of the best fried chicken I've had in a decade (seriously, if you're ever in the Memphis area you should hit that place up).


And why is that relevant if they do not have to read the map? Sure it would be better if they could, but as long as there is one map reader per group it doesn't really matter.So, if you have someone in the group with system mastery, then you don't have to play the game?

you're also glossing over the disadvantage of "requires someone with system mastery" ... that's not insignificant by itself.


Fine, then it wasn't a counter argument, I was just pointing out why more options are good. Yay, everybody wins.But they aren't always good... sometimes more options are good and sometimes they aren't. That was the whole point of that line of discussion.


You sure? I know there are people who don't care abojut balance, but how many people are going to pick an unbalanced game over a balanced one?answers "Yes I'm sure" and "one hundred gazillion people" respectively :smallbiggrin:. Seriously though, Rifts sold well enough so that it's book count was somewhere in the 50+ range, and it's far from the only unbalanced system out there. Balance considerations are not the most important consideration for the majority of gamers.

The topic has come up several times; there are people on both sides of the issue.


Are people with system mastery who aren't jerks really that rare?I don't know; I wouldn't say that they're common; I don't know if I'd go so far as to say they're rare. In the geneal population of gamers, they're probably uncommon (slightly more toward common for people who post on internet forums about D&D, which are in the vast minority of gamers)

Actually, I can stat those characters pretty easily. D&D doesn't always match the feel of their worlds (like if I made Conan as a 15th level character, he could suddenly jump off cliffs and walk away), and they might not work in optimized groups, but I can make them. And no non-free-form game will accommodate EVERY character concept. Even GURPS can be pushed beyond its toolset if you try hard enough. 3.5 D&D will accommodate most fantasy character concepts. That is its biggest +, as I see it.Sure, you can stat them up, but I have yet to see any sort of consensus as to whether proposed builds for them are any good.

Skills are one of the places where D&D really fails at representing them; it's even worse when you start talking about the typical "competent man" sort of character.

And when you're look at a character like Conan, you have to be really specific as to which Conan you're talking about; the books cover quite a long piece of his history. There's a whole extra level of challenge in putting together a build that works for young Conan that actually morphs into old Conan well.

[Gnaeus]

And when you're look at a character like Conan, you have to be really specific as to which Conan you're talking about; the books cover quite a long piece of his history. There's a whole extra level of challenge in putting together a build that works for young Conan that actually morphs into old Conan well.

Granted. But if I wanted to play a Conan-like archetype, I could certainly find a number of ways to do it. Most people dont want to re-create Conans life story, they want to play a character who is Conan-like.

Here is why magic is OP in 3.5. Imagine a level 20, physically non-threatening Wizard, whom I will call Galadriel. It is understandable that she can defeat the world's best fighter, whom I will call Boromir (also level 20). She could vanish. She could charm him. She could summon monsters to fight him....

But imagine in 3.5, that Galadriel walks around with long term buffs up, say Shapechange, Persistent Wraithstrike, Greater Mage Armor, Heart of X. Not unreasonable for a level 20, 2000 year old wizard. She can now beat Boromir (who we can now pretend is totally immune to the effects of magic) in a fistfight. She can turn into a huge form with 40 strength and grapple him to death. She can do this at will, without casting any spells other than ones she casts whenever she is in any danger. He can do only one thing. She can do anything, but she also does his one thing better than he ever could, without significantly reducing her ability to rewrite reality.

[true_shinken]

But imagine in 3.5, that Galadriel walks around with long term buffs up, say Shapechange, Persistent Wraithstrike, Greater Mage Armor, Heart of X. Not unreasonable for a level 20, 2000 year old wizard. She can now beat Boromir (who we can now pretend is totally immune to the effects of magic) in a fistfight.
You ruined your point with Shapechange. It's not a frail wizard that beats Boromir, it's a freaking dragon. That's actually a staple of fantasy - spellcasters becoming dragons to kill warriors. Heck, it even shows up in Sleeping Beauty.

[MeeposFire]

But the warrior won that fight in sleeping beauty didn't he?

[Gnaeus]

You ruined your point with Shapechange. It's not a frail wizard that beats Boromir, it's a freaking dragon. That's actually a staple of fantasy - spellcasters becoming dragons to kill warriors. Heck, it even shows up in Sleeping Beauty.

No. The staple in fantasy is where the caster becomes a dragon to kill a warrior, but the warrior WINS. That is what happens in SB. Merlin may change into different forms, but he never turns into a dragon to obliterate Arthur's enemies.

[The Big Dice]

You ruined your point with Shapechange. It's not a frail wizard that beats Boromir, it's a freaking dragon. That's actually a staple of fantasy - spellcasters becoming dragons to kill warriors. Heck, it even shows up in Sleeping Beauty.

That's the thing with D&D. It doesn't model fantasy literature. Nor does it model classical epics. The only thing D&D models is D&D.

You can take that as a good thing or a bad thing, that's just a matter of personal taste, kind of like the fried chicked mentioned earlier. The fact that D&D has a vast array of options doesn't mean all (or indeed a large proportion) of those options are good.

And nor do those options make it easier to make the character you want. WotC editions of D&D suffer from information overload. In 3.5 there's two PHB to pick from, plus at least seven Complete books. And then there's the Races of X, the terrain themed books, Libris Mortis, Fiendish Codices, Tome of Battle and all. This is before you get into the setting specific books.

I'd say there's a very good case of D&D 3.5 having more choice than you can reasonably cope with. And imagine that for a new player. "Here you go, Bob. There's 20 or so books to use when making your character. Don't forget to read them all! We start in 10 minutes."

And all Bob wants to play is a Conan-alike. Which he can't do because it requires some serious multi-class antics and he just doesn't have the time or energy to be bothered with all that.

And saying "Well then he shouldn't be playing D&D" isn't the solution.

[true_shinken]

No. The staple in fantasy is where the caster becomes a dragon to kill a warrior, but the warrior WINS. That is what happens in SB. Merlin may change into different forms, but he never turns into a dragon to obliterate Arthur's enemies.
That warrior in Sleeping Beauty loses. The dragon is kicking his ass, then the fairies come in, buff him, he gets his second hit in the fight and the dragon somehow fails to fly (maybe it was a critical?).
So he needed three spellcasters with him to actually stand a chance. Sounds a lot like D&D to me.
Here is a link to the fight (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vk0Mm6irR4Q&feature=related) if you don't believe me.

[Togo]

Generally the warrior wins by being smarter, using tricks, or somehow disabling the wizard's magic - just like he would in AD&D.

Of course the wizard appears stronger - that's a staple of such stories. The idea that the hero wins because he's simply better than his opponent is fairly rare in most forms of fiction, with the notable exception of US action movies from the last 40 years, or Western European stories in the early 20th century. It's very hard to make beating an inferior opponent an exciting story.