The Real Top 10 Most Broken Things in 3.5e

[Yora]

Inspired by the other thread about a rather poor lists of the flaws of D&D, I think we should use our combined years of experience and knowledge about the 3.5 edition to come up with a list that nobody can dispute.

Simply making a voting for the Top 10 most broken things would be making things too easy, so rather lats talk about individual things and why you think they are terribly broken. With time, we can compile a list of the most broken things people here can agree on.
Since there is broken good and broken bad, I think both things may be considered here. So please don't just give examples of things you think broken, but also give your reasons why, so others can share different views about the subject.

Here some suggestions people have made in the other thread.


1. Natural Spell
2. Planar Shepard
3. Divine Metamagic
4. Wild Shape Tricks
5. Artificer Cohorts
6. Druids
7. Wizards
8. Erudite Spell to Power Variant
9. Mind Rape/Love's Pain Combo
10. WarHulkingHurler


A semi-serious list to get us started:

1. Prepared casting
2. Divine Metamagic
3. Wish, Limited Wish and Miracle as anything other than spells
4. Natural Spell
5. Candles of Invocation
6. The Celerity family of spells
7. Contingent Spell
8. Alter Self, Polymorph and Shapechange
9. Genesis and related shenanigans
10. RAW Diplomacy



Metamagic reducers
Contingent effects
RAW Diplomacy
Open-ended Polymorph effects (including Wild Shape)
Casters with unlimited spells known
Action economy breaking
[Calling] effects
Custom items (including traps)
Artificers
Shock Trooper



1. Truenamer
2. Monk
3. Soulknife
4. Mystic Thuerge
5. Green Star Adept
6. commoner-killing-cats
7. Bargests
8. Level Adjustment and Equivalent Character Level rules.
9. Monster Manual II
10.Samurai


1. Commune (no mysteries).
2. Scry (no secrets).
3. Teleport (no hassles)
4. Polymorph (no limits).
5. Gate (no challenges).
6. Wands (goodbye, limited resources!).
7. Scrolls (goodbye limited spells).
8. WBL (the entire freaking concept, including "you must have X magic items to play at this level")
9. The XP table (13 encounters per level * 4 encounters per day = newb to godbeing in 3 months)
10. NPC classes (that are purposefully weaker than PC classes, as if the world were designed to roll over and let the PCs win).


1) Arcane Genesis's ability to play with time traits
2) Any wish/wealth loop, most notably Candle of Invocation/Planar Binding Efreetis
3) Base 2 Contact Other Plane questions
4) Tainted Sorcerer when combined with binding Naberius and anything with a decent spell list
5) Spell like True Creation/Simulacrum (Runesmith being the easiest way)
6) Manipulate Form
7) Level 20 Truenamers (Gate spam solves everything!)
8) Epic Spellcasting
9) Optimized Vow of Peace diplomacy characters
10) Hireling minion casters (45gp for a level 20 Wizard for a day? Really?)
It's on!

[Eldan]

In general, we should first define what is meant by broken.
A character's ability to end an encounter in a handwave, or his ability to predict the encounter before it happens and custom-prepare measures for it? His ability to change the campaign world at his whim and, on a whole, make the campaign world his plaything? Being so vague as to be unplayable? There's many definitions of broken.

Many of the things up there aren't, I would say, broken. They are merely strong. They solve encounters, even encounters way stronger than their level, easily. But they do not do anything horrible outside of encounters. Shock Trooper s a good example: the ability to deal a thousand damage on a hit does not change the entire course of a campaign in most cases, but Astral Projection or Augury does.

[Runestar]

The thing is, I feel many of them aren't really broken unless carried to extremes.

For instance, I think Celerity is fine if you use it as a get out of crappy situation free card, rather than as a means of going nova. Same for metamagic reducers (if not stacked, and assuming you cannot reduce the slot adjustment below 1). Ditto for diplomacy if you aren't regularly making dc150 checks with ease.

Most people likely won't even think of playing it that way. Where do we draw the line?

[Yora]

I think one thing that most broken good things have in common is that a single ability can instantly fix things that would otherwise be a major problem that would take some time and creativity to solve.
The "I win buttons".
For example people say that the knock spell makes the open lock skill obsolete. Since you won't memorize it 10 times every day and a wand is expensive while using a skill is not, I don't think it's much of a problem, there are other examples where it really makes a difference.

For broken bad its of course different. I'd go with the Tier 6 definition "Is supposed to be good at one thing, but does it much worse than something else that is not specialized." I'm looking at you here, Truenamer and Samurai. :smallyuk:

I think we should not include Iron Heart Surge and Pun-Pun. While possible with some creative interpretations of RAW, I really doubt that any DM would ever allow these things and be suprised how it broke the game.

[Volthawk]

Heh, I like how some of those lists focus on broken meaning overpowered, while others focus on broken meaning underpowered. That is something to consider, though.

[ericgrau]

Well there's power creep, super high power, then there's game breaking, then there's pun pun. So where do we draw the line? I mean no line => pun pun = #1.

[Lurkmoar]

Heh, I like how some of those lists focus on broken meaning overpowered, while others focus on broken meaning underpowered. That is something to consider, though.

Those that mean it in the overpowered sense probably mean it in the sense that it can trivialize the game, thus 'breaking' it. And those that talk about the underpowered aspect are talking about how something should be effective, but it's not, so its broken. But that's semantics.

Just off the top of my head, I feel like going into toxic shock every time I hear the word 'Gate' at my table. I'd have to think about it some before I rattled off a list though.

[Aharon]

I think we should make two separate lists:
Broken powerful, and broken bad.

Broken Powerful:
On this list, you will basically find anything cooked up on the CO-board that was considered TO.
1. Pun-Pun
It requires no further explanation, I think. I would prefer using one of the higher level versions as stand-in, though - those that don't depend on Pazuzu.
2. Nanobots
3. Nasty Gentlemen
...

Broken Bad:
1. Monks
2. Samurai
...

Since many of the broken stuff is built around the same concepts, we could also make the lists around these:
Broken powerful:
1. Infinite Loops
2. Action economy breakers
3. Metamagic Reducers
4. ...

Broken bad:
I don't really have any ideas for the bad concepts.

[2xMachina]

Why is Metamagic Reducers broken powerful?

So long you don't allow metamagic to go negative, it's looks pretty ok to me.

[Aharon]

I just threw out some ideas. I think it is broken powerful if used in conjunction with DCFS, for example.

As with anything, it's just broken if dialed up to eleven. The groundwork for infinite loops is fine, for example, if you use the Sarrukh-ability on low-powered stuff, the groundwork for Action economy breakers is ok if you don't nova every battle, etc.

[LordBlades]

Why is Metamagic Reducers broken powerful?

So long you don't allow metamagic to go negative, it's looks pretty ok to me.

Even if you cap it at 0 (that is 0 for each metamagic feat you're applying) you can still get some pretty powerful stuff at no level increase, especially when applied to spells that were not designed for stacking metamagic (stuff like enervation, you can turn it from '-1d4 to some stuff' to 'kill anything that's not immune no save').

[Eldan]

I'd put "open-ended divination that provides clear, definite and true answers" on that list.

To expand on that: divination, in itself, is not broken. Having vague clues about the future? No problem. Spells that detect specific things in the environment? Not a problem. Asking the universe ten question of your choice, which will all be answered clearly and truly? Problematic.

[2xMachina]

Even if you cap it at 0 (that is 0 for each metamagic feat you're applying) you can still get some pretty powerful stuff at no level increase, especially when applied to spells that were not designed for stacking metamagic (stuff like enervation, you can turn it from '-1d4 to some stuff' to 'kill anything that's not immune no save').

You'd need Maximize, Twin, Repeat though. And more feats to reduce the cost, so you're pretty high lvl by them

[TakeABow]

What about the psicrystal save-game trick?

Manifest psionic contingency on your psicrystal placing a contingent ancipatory strike on him contingent on the event: returns to the normal time stream from a time hop.

If desired, share metamorphosis with your psicrystal to transform him into something that isn't immune to mind-affecting compulsions. Heck you could transform him into an object of any size if you wish. (Player's Handbook 177 states a creature can suppress racial resistances and immunities to magical/psionic effects, meaning metamorphosis is just for show.) Have the party Cleric use imbue with spell ability on the psicrsytal so that it can use the spell status. (A Spell to Power Erudite or someone with an item can cast status himself.) Mix with affinity field if you wish the psicrystal to have knowledge of all party members' condition, though this requires a level 9 (!) power.

The psicrystal casts status on you or whatever party member you choose. This person's condition will determine whether or not the save state will be reloaded, so choose carefully. NOTE: Status will NOT work across planes! Be careful!

Manifest forced dream on your psicrystal at some time before you fear harm will befall you. Ready a standard action to manifest a contingent time hop on your party (+2PP per target) when the psicrystal moves. Tell the psicrystal to do so, advancing him hours / level ahead in time. With enough ML you can advance your psicrystal nearly a day. Adventure on your merry way, whilst your psicrystal is outside the time stream.

If your party succumbs to a TOTAL PARTY KILL, your psicrystal will still be alive and kicking the next day. No time will pass for him and when he comes out of the time hop and the contingency will grant him sufficient actions to check the status of the party, provided they are on the same plane as the psicrystal. (If on another plane, there's a 5% chance of failure.) The psicrystal may also use a Sending Stone to ask whether his master would like to reload or not. If the party member is under a certain condition or if the master tells the crystal to, the save state is reloaded as the psicrystal spends a swift action to return to the beginning of his turn, which began with you manifesting time hop on him right before he started moving. You may now retry whatever you failed to accomplish.

Trick courtesy of BG's Endarire

[Tvtyrant]

I think we should really just stick epic level casting on the top. For instance casting Simulcrum to gain reduces (or gate+solars).

Also, there is the Temporal Stasis+Simulcrum trick to play as an immortal wizard.

[NichG]

I sort of think that the list of broken things should include stuff no sane DM would allow, because that's what makes it so iconically broken. But its going to become cluttered with those things unless generalization is made. So, I'd say, most to least broken:

1. True infinite combos (d2 Crusader, Omniscifier, ...)
2. I can have all the powers I want (Manipulate form, Shapechange + Assume Supernatural Ability, Epic Spellcasting)
3. No save just die/lose (RAW diplomacy, Irresistable Dance with its SR removed, dust of sneezing and choking)
4. I can act as often as I want (Genesis time tricks, Planar Shepherd, chain-summons, ...)
5. I am invincible (Delay death damage immunity, Pawn in the Great Game, World Thought Medic + Timeless Body for a particularly esoteric method, Starmantle, ...)
6. It did HOW much damage/HOW high was that roll? (Hulking hurler, Ubercharger, Aid Another tricks, Tainted Scholar)
7. I'm Level 5 but I've got features like I'm Level 30 (early entry tricks, early access to high spellcasting, Embrance/Shun the dark chaos, metamagic reducers)
8. I have infinite resources (Wish wealth loops, Thought bottle xp cheese)
9. I am aware of the rules of the game and the laws of physics in character, and have the ability to use them (anti-osmium, Tippyverse, Pazuzu Pazuzu Pazuzu, ...)
10. I can read your game notes (omniscience through divination) - may be higher in certain campaigns
11. You can try to act, but I'm going to make it annoying (Solid Fog, Trip builds)

Edit: I've updated the list thanks to something pointed out by No brains

[Kobold Esq]

10. You can try to act, but I'm going to make it annoying (Solid Fog, Trip builds)

Easily some of the most fun I've had in a game involved extended Solid Fog, normal Freezing Fog, Evard's Black Tentacles, and because I still had some spell slots, Grease. All at the same time (though only some overlap).

[Tyndmyr]

I disagree with anything that does not include candles of invocation and Manipulate form on the list.

Simply saying "core" is acceptable.

[Yora]

A candle of invocation can't do anything a simple scroll of gate couldn't, as long as you are or can find a spellcaster with an ability score of 19. Price is about the same.
So it's not the candle that is broken, but the gate spell.

[Tyndmyr]

It's more of the infinite loop, accessible at low levels, cheaply, without having to rely on item creation guidelines. Being only guidelines, they aren't a big deal.

[Dusk Eclipse]

Let's not forget the ability to let you cast and prepare spells as if you were a spellcaster of higher level.

[Yahzi]

I disagree with anything that does not include candles of invocation and Manipulate form on the list.
It's not the candle; it's the Gate spell itself. First the rules establish that HD = CR (roughly speaking). Then the rules give you a way to double your HD for any given encounter.

This is what broken means: when the rules lead to a result even the rules think is stupid. "Knock" isn't broken, in the sense that the game intends wizards to be able to do anything - but also makes it clear that any round a wizard casts Knock, for that round the wizard is a sucker. If your wizard wants to give up one of his precious spell slots to open a door, well, heck, that's one less encounter he just pwned. The broken part is allowing wands of Knock, thus removing the only downside (limited spell slots).

This what we mean by broken: when you play by the rules you get to a place that other the rules were supposed to prevent you from getting to. At that point it becomes hard to play the game according to the rules.

[NichG]

Easily some of the most fun I've had in a game involved extended Solid Fog, normal Freezing Fog, Evard's Black Tentacles, and because I still had some spell slots, Grease. All at the same time (though only some overlap).

I figured I should have at least one thing that would actually be allowed in play in the list, just for context :smallsmile:

One I ran into in play was when the party dropped an explosive rune field combined with freezing fog and the like, when facing a number of fairly dangerous melee-ers that could nearly oneshot someone if they got up to the target. It was an absolute slaughter.

[TheCountAlucard]

So, I'd say, most to least broken:Actually, this list is pretty much it. Good job, sir. :smallsmile:

[JaronK]

A candle of invocation can't do anything a simple scroll of gate couldn't, as long as you are or can find a spellcaster with an ability score of 19. Price is about the same.
So it's not the candle that is broken, but the gate spell.

But the reason Gate turns into a full on wish loop is the candle. The candle makes it so you can easily wish for more wishes (though scrolls of gate are obviously an issue as well). Really, it's any Wish loop that's the problem, as well as any ability to access higher than appropriate spells at low level.

JaronK

[Tyndmyr]

It's not the candle; it's the Gate spell itself. First the rules establish that HD = CR (roughly speaking). Then the rules give you a way to double your HD for any given encounter.

It's a level 9 spell. All level 9 spells are pretty crazy, and should be ending most encounters pretty rapidly. This is pretty much on par with other spells for it's level. Using Gate to solve encounters at near-epic levels is not terribly different from avoiding or solving encounters in many other ways. Most of them are not a major threat at that level.

However, when you use it to pick up infinite wishes or the like, the game basically breaks. While this infinite loop is also possible to start by casting gate normally, it still requires the candle to be RAW legal, because the candle is a wishable item that grants gate. The candle is also usable at a very low level, which increases the brokenness of it.

Consider that a ring of 3 wishes costs just shy of 100k gold. A candle costs 8400, and can, among other things, replicate that ability. Thats a great indicator of brokenness.

[navar100]

Really? Wizard is broken? Druid is broken?

Just because something is powerful doesn't make it broken. There is no crime against humanity just because a player character is "powerful".

[Lord_Gareth]

Really? Wizard is broken? Druid is broken?

Just because something is powerful doesn't make it broken. There is no crime against humanity just because a player character is "powerful".

My wizard can obliterate an entire city as a single standard action. Broken, or powerful?

[rayne_dragon]

Prestige classes - so many options... if you need a custom class for everything, why not offer more customization within the class?

Class balance - there is a distinct tier rating for how good classes are and classes from one tier have trouble competing with classes from a better tier. Every other edition has made more of an effort to keep the classes balanced than 3rd.

Power creep - save for certain tier 1 classes who shall remain nameless, a lot of the later supliments have things that are more powerful in general than earlier supliments.

CR and LA - are largely arbitrary and not at all consistant.

Form changing powers - "I turn into a thing that gives me infinite wishes... I win." This is just silly and shows that this needs to be fixed.

Infinite Combo/Loophole exploits - need to be more careful about not letting these shenanigens be feasible by RAW.

[NichG]

My wizard can obliterate an entire city as a single standard action. Broken, or powerful?

I prefer to blame the spell, feat, or combo rather than (one) class that grants access. Its more surgical.

Your wizard can cast the Locate City bomb (I'm assuming) or Apocalypse from the Sky with the Rapid Spell metamagic or that volcano spell from Shining South or some other specific trick. However, people can and do play wizards that could not pull off such a feat.

[TheCountAlucard]

I prefer to blame the spell, feat, or combo rather than (one) class that grants access. Its more surgical.

Your wizard can cast the Locate City bomb (I'm assuming) or Apocalypse from the Sky with the Rapid Spell metamagic or that volcano spell from Shining South or some other specific trick. However, people can and do play wizards that could not pull off such a feat.You can get close without even trying. Widened Sudden Widened Sudden Extended Blistering Radiance, with a metamagic rod of Widen would be pretty nasty. :smallamused: Compare that to a Fighter; how long is he going to take to kill the same number of people?

[NichG]

You can get close without even trying. Widened Sudden Widened Sudden Extended Blistering Radiance, with a metamagic rod of Widen would be pretty nasty. :smallamused: Compare that to a Fighter; how long is he going to take to kill the same number of people?

I don't really consider that 'without even trying' seeing as how its also not rules legal (the only metamagic that can be applied to a spell more than once is Heighten).

If we're playing that game, a Lv5 Swordsage can do better with the help of a friend. Death Mark creates a fireball whose radius is equal to the reach of the creature targeted (well, its twice the creature's size). Toss that on one of the planet-sized Elder Evils you team up with for the very purpose and watch the world burn.

[TheCountAlucard]

I don't really consider that 'without even trying' seeing as how its also not rules legal.
Multiple Metamagic Feats on a Spell
A spellcaster can apply multiple metamagic feats to a single spell. Changes to its level are cumulative. You can’t apply the same metamagic feat more than once to a single spell.Sudden Widen and Widen are different feats; plus, you're using a metamagic rod for that last widen - I don't recall if items count as feats, but still... and in that case, just substitute in the RSoP's Radiance class feature, and bam.

[NichG]

Sudden Widen and Widen are different feats; plus, you're using a metamagic rod for that last widen - I don't recall if items count as feats, but still... and in that case, just substitute in the RSoP's Radiance class feature, and bam.

I'd say due to the wording of the sudden X feats, its acting as per the metamagic feat and therefore cannot stack with it:



Sudden Widen

Once per day, you can apply the effect of the Widen spell feat ...


Edit: Also, to my amazement, there is no metamagic rod of Widen, so thats a custom item. Thats more of a funny coincidence than any sort of objection though.

Still, even if you do manage to stack three Widens on that, due to the way multipliers add in D&D its still only a 200ft radius. Good, but not city-killing. You had to put a significant amount of character resources towards this single trick - its a specific combo, not just a thing any wizard by default can do.

In any event, I'm not arguing that wizards aren't more powerful than e.g. straight classed fighters, that'd be silly. I'm not arguing that wizards can't be broken, thats also silly. But I am arguing that the average wizard that sees play doesn't tend to use half of the stuff people here are aware of, and so they're merely powerful and not auto-broken.

[TheCountAlucard]

Still, even if you do manage to stack three Widens on that, due to the way multipliers add in D&D its still only a 200ft radius. Good, but not city-killing. You had to put a significant amount of character resources towards this single trick - its a specific combo, not just a thing any wizard by default can do.True, but this was literally something I only put ten seconds of effort into - my point being that it takes almost no effort to come up with a crazy-powerful combination for these silly things. And, since you're still a wizard or cleric/RSoP, that cannot - that will not dominate your build. True, that's a good number of your feats, but the next day, you can go and apply all this stuff to an entirely different set of spells.

Now, addressing your other point...
In any event, I'm not arguing that wizards aren't more powerful than e.g. straight classed fighters, that'd be silly. I'm not arguing that wizards can't be broken, thats also silly. But I am arguing that the average wizard that sees play doesn't tend to use half of the stuff people here are aware of, and so they're merely powerful and not auto-broken.We really need a basis for comparison here - what is auto-broken, in your opinion?

[NichG]

True, but this was literally something I only put ten seconds of effort into - my point being that it takes almost no effort to come up with a crazy-powerful combination for these silly things. And, since you're still a wizard or cleric/RSoP, that cannot - that will not dominate your build. True, that's a good number of your feats, but the next day, you can go and apply all this stuff to an entirely different set of spells.

Now, addressing your other point...We really need a basis for comparison here - what is auto-broken, in your opinion?

As far as a printed class, or a specific character option? Maybe I've mellowed, but I've played in and run a few 'all classes permitted' games and its been okay.

Anyhow, here's an example from third party stuff. Advanced d20 Magic item creation as written is auto-broken.

Roughly the way it works is that you can make magic items totally for free in a standard action if you can hit a sufficiently high save DC (which you get to add various bonuses to for increasing the time, money, xp expenditure, etc). You take a bit of nonlethal damage, but thats it. That's really good but it isn't auto-broken yet.

It becomes auto-broken when you look at how the DC is determined. Basically, once you put the first effect on, adding weaker additional effects is asymptotically cheaper (1/2 the second, 1/4 the third, continuing at +1/4 if I remember correctly). So why bother with a mere Belt of Magnificence +6 when you could, for the same effort, have a Belt of Magnificence +6 of Freedom of Movement, Death Ward, Immunity to Poison, Paralysis, and Critical Hits.

Oh, and slotless isn't hard to do in that system. So you might as well toss that on. I'd call that auto-broken.

Casting from Advanced d20 Magic as written is also auto-broken (whee I can cast 9th level spells at level 1 if I hit the DC! Oh, and no xp or gp components for Wish - I only need one spell!). With a number of homebrew fixes, Advanced d20 Magic casting is the upper limit of power I tend to allow in my games.

[Lord_Gareth]

Honestly, I'd say that the power to re-write the campaign setting on a massive scale, for the lulz, on a whim is auto-broken power. See: Tier 1 and Tier 2 classes. The combos are only available because the underlying mechanics are fundamentally flawed.

[Endarire]

I propose this:

Prepared players who know the rules.

[navar100]

My wizard can obliterate an entire city as a single standard action. Broken, or powerful?

Locate City nuke?

That requires a combination of feats from different source books and a non-PHB spell and depending upon point of view a liberal interpretation of said feats.

A commoner can become Pun-Pun. Does that make commoners broken?

[Telonius]

I'd propose another category of "Broken" - Broken design. These things either slow the game down horrendously, are awful and complicated to keep track of, or make the game less fun for it being there. Encumbrance, Grapple, and Dispel mechanics might fall under this.

(I understand why Encumbrance is there - to prevent some shrimpy Rogue from carrying away a shop's worth of loot on his back - but this can just be murderous to keep track of if you're in the typical "take everything that's not bolted down, and see if you can saw off the things that are" campaign.)

[No brains]

Doesn pun-pun hinge on the sarrukh? We should be saying that the sarukkh is 'anything I want free'-type overpowered/borked. Keep ssarruukhkhks out of your game and you have no more pun-problems.

As for anti-osmium, here two way for a canny DM to trump that:
1) There's no such thing as osmium/anti-matter. Player: (Physics BS) DM: God of Wizards fills in for it.
2) Osmium is often mined in platnum. Charge creation spells for it as though it were platnum. :)

[NichG]

Doesn pun-pun hinge on the sarrukh? We should be saying that the sarukkh is 'anything I want free'-type overpowered/borked. Keep ssarruukhkhks out of your game and you have no more pun-problems.

As for anti-osmium, here two way for a canny DM to trump that:
1) There's no such thing as osmium/anti-matter. Player: (Physics BS) DM: God of Wizards fills in for it.
2) Osmium is often mined in platnum. Charge creation spells for it as though it were platnum. :)

This trope is common enough that I'd like to update my list to have:

9. Why yes, I just happen to be a rocket scientist brain surgeon macroeconomic nuclear physicist.

Specifically, this is all abuses of the convention that the game worlds physics is otherwise normal outside of explicit exceptions, and that the characters know this physics beyond the setting level by virtue of high checks or stats.

Any party that assumes the triviality of understanding and designing a uranium nuke, producing anti-osmium, constructing a computer, etc, has fiated themselves the power to deeply transform the nature of the campaign world. I would also count intimate in-character knowledge of the rules of the game to be part of this entry (that is, Tippyverse creation).

[Kansaschaser]

I honsetly think one of the most broken things in 3.5 is the weapon damage by size.

There is no rules that says there is a limit to how large you can craft a weapon. A colossal sized character with the right feats and/or magic items can wield weapons that are 3 size categories larger than colossal.

So you take a level 5 wizard and memorize the spell Animate Weapon. The spell animates a "weapon touched", not weapon wielded. So you could be a tiny caster and touch that colossal+++ sized weapon and have it start hacking people down.

If that same wizard somehow attaches a gigantic chain to the moon, they could touch the chain and "Animate Weapon" the moon as a colossal+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ sized morning star (4,200D8 damage) and knock the planet out of orbit. Killing everyone and everything on the planet.

[Lord_Gareth]

Locate City nuke?

That requires a combination of feats from different source books and a non-PHB spell and depending upon point of view a liberal interpretation of said feats.

A commoner can become Pun-Pun. Does that make commoners broken?

Your reasoning is flawed, friend. Allow me to break it down:

- Only wizards, clerics, and other prepared casters can sling OMGWTF-bolts as standard actions, whether it's a Locate City nuke, Apocalypse from the Sky, or whatever. All other casters take at least a full-round action to shatter the campaign setting at a single stroke (which is better in the same sense that getting fire bombed is better than getting nuked).

- D&D is the sum of its parts, and core isn't any more balanced than non-core. Wish is core. Gate is core. The candle of invocations is core, as are all the broken crafting rules (who wants infinite gold? I do!). Do you know who are the only people that can take advantage of all of these? You guessed it - casters. And if you're going to stay core, Wizards have the easiest time of it. Go non-core, and some of the other classes also have a fighting chance.

- Pun-Pun doesn't rely on a specific class feature or feat (such as how wizards memorize spells, or divine metamagic) to function. Instead, Pun-Pun relies on the abuse of summoning rules (via item), skill checks (via skill check) and then infinite loops; anyone can become Pun-Pun, and thus Pun-Pun is not a reasonable argument for Class [X] being broken.

[Zherog]

There is no rules that says there is a limit to how large you can craft a weapon.

There's also not rule that says pigs can't fly.

There are, however, rules that lay out weapon damage by size. Nothing in those rules indicates you can go beyond colossal.

[TheCountAlucard]

...4,200D8 damage... and knock the planet out of orbit. Killing everyone and everything on the planet.Unless the moon intends to perform a bull rush, mechanically, it'll just do the damage. Besides, in that case, why not animate the planet itself?

[Kansaschaser]

There's also not rule that says pigs can't fly.

There are, however, rules that lay out weapon damage by size. Nothing in those rules indicates you can go beyond colossal.

Well, the sizing property says you can change the weapon to any other size you want. In the Epic level handbook, they did have creatures listed as Colossal and Colossal+. The plus sign indicated it was larger than colossal.

Most weapons arn't made larger than colossal because it would be pointless. At least that's how it would be perceived.

I've seen more than one build where people wield weapons 2, 3, and even 4 sizes larger than their size category. So, if they were made colossal, say with the Giantform spell, they would be wielding colossal++, colossal+++, or colossal++++ weapons.

The math isn't that difficult to figure out for increasing damage beyond colossal. There was even a chart in the Dieties and Demigods book that showed how much damage a weapon did if you increased it's size by 8,9, or even 10 categories.


Unless the moon intends to perform a bull rush, mechanically, it'll just do the damage. Besides, in that case, why not animate the planet itself?

I was thinking about that, but if the weapon is being held by another creature, that creature gets a save. So everyone on the planet would get a save versus Animate Weapon.

I guess if your DM said there were creatures living on the moon, the same would be true.

[No brains]

This trope is common enough that I'd like to update my list to have:

9. Why yes, I just happen to be a rocket scientist brain surgeon macroeconomic nuclear physicist.

*fist bump* :smallsmile:


Unless the moon intends to perform a bull rush, mechanically, it'll just do the damage. Besides, in that case, why not animate the planet itself?

You can write it off as a big, dirty orcish shot put!

[NichG]

The math isn't that difficult to figure out for increasing damage beyond colossal. There was even a chart in the Dieties and Demigods book that showed how much damage a weapon did if you increased it's size by 8,9, or even 10 categories.


So the nice thing about RAW-based cheese that violates RAI is that its an excuse to hold the player who tries it to strict RAW. Strict RAW says that the weapon damage table ends at 8 size categories from medium, even if you _could_ continue the math. Therefore, the most you can do with weapon damage by size is turn each 1d6 of the base weapon into 32d6.

Really really potent, but not planet-crushing.

On the other hand, in a game thats about planet-wielding Immortals handbook characters, sure, extend the table logically.

[Fax Celestis]

Really? Wizard is broken? Druid is broken?

Just because something is powerful doesn't make it broken. There is no crime against humanity just because a player character is "powerful".

Please go do some research before making unsubstantiated claims.

If everyone is godly, great. It works for Exalted and Scion.

If everyone is middlin' powerful, great. It works for World of Darkness, Toon, and Shadowrun.

If everyone is completely mundane, great. It works for mortals-only World of Darkness and Conan.

The problem D&D faces is that everyone is on varying power levels--not even close ones. At 20th level, a fighter has 18 feats and can hit things very well. At 20th level, a wizard can stop time. At 20th level, a cleric can summon angels that amount to demigods.

"I hit things using the same basic principles I used back at level 1" is nowhere near on the same field of play as "I stop time" or "I command an army of angelic power."


So the nice thing about RAW-based cheese that violates RAI is that its an excuse to hold the player who tries it to strict RAW.

Who are you to dictate what is and isn't RAI? Did you write the book? Unless your name is Sean K. Reynolds or Monte Cook, I sincerely doubt it. There are really only two things that can be discussed: RAW and RAMS, as RAI requires you to know the intention that the designer had.

[NichG]

Who are you to dictate what is and isn't RAI? Did you write the book? Unless your name is Sean K. Reynolds or Monte Cook, I sincerely doubt it. There are really only two things that can be discussed: RAW and RAMS, as RAI requires you to know the intention that the designer had.

In this case, I don't think we're saying things that are all that different. My point was, if you want to hold a discussion about how craziness that is possible under RAW but would never fly at a table is broken, then making an argument that a table can be extended because you can see a mathematical pattern is bringing RAI into it.

As a pure aside: I disagree that RAI is not an eligible subject for discussion. One need not be a person to make observations about that person's tendencies, patterns in the design, and so on. Just like one can converse on the subject of RAW and still find that they are incorrect eventually, or even find paradoxes in the rules that cannot be settled within that framework, one can rationally discuss what the designers likely were trying to accomplish based on what the rules seem to be trying to do. People discuss what the artist intended when they talk about paintings, or what the author intended when they talk about books, so people can just as well discuss what the designers intended when they made a game.

[Dusk Eclipse]

IMHO all mentions of RAI are more likely RAIITAYCPMWN (Rules As I Interprete Them And You Can't Prove Me Wrong Nyahh) or a less wordy RAIIT (Rules As I Interprete Them)

[TheCountAlucard]

People discuss what the artist intended when they talk about paintings, or what the author intended when they talk about books...And they are almost always talking out of their rears when they do so. :smallamused: You can guess at a person's intentions, but unless that person comes right out and says what said intentions are, you can never really be sure; heck, even if he does, you still can't be certain. :smalltongue:

Take Fahrenheit 451, for instance. One of the most popular interpretations of the author's motivation behind it was his being critical of state-sponsored censorship, when the author publically said this was not the case. He argued that the theme was that of television destroying one's interest in reading. Humorously enough, people have gone so far to tell him to his face what they thought his intent was when he wrote it, and when he disagreed with them, they still stuck with it. :smallamused:

[The Cat Goddess]

I was thinking about that, but if the weapon is being held by another creature, that creature gets a save. So everyone on the planet would get a save versus Animate Weapon.

I guess if your DM said there were creatures living on the moon, the same would be true.

Actually, just standing on the "weapon" is not "holding" it. Thus, only creatures/beings "holding" the Earth/Moon would be allowed the save.

However...

If you have the "Fling Ally" feet, then an Ally can be considered a Weapon. Can you cast "Animate Weapon" on your Ally before Flinging him at that point?

[NichG]

And they are almost always talking out of their rears when they do so. :smallamused: You can guess at a person's intentions, but unless that person comes right out and says what said intentions are, you can never really be sure; heck, even if he does, you still can't be certain. :smalltongue:


Much in life not absolutely certain, but is relatively predictable, so I'm comfortable having discussions about things where absolute truth is merely a madman's fevered dream :smallsmile:. The only time this is not entirely the case is if one discusses mathematics, and even there guesses and intuition can be revelatory.

For example, I am reasonably confident that the designers did not intend for drowning to be used as a healing method, or for certain divination spells to be used as fantasy nukes, and would say as much if asked.

[SurlySeraph]

And they are almost always talking out of their rears when they do so. :smallamused: You can guess at a person's intentions, but unless that person comes right out and says what said intentions are, you can never really be sure; heck, even if he does, you still can't be certain. :smalltongue:

Eh, there are some things where you can make a very good guess at what was intended. Scorpion Whips weren't supposed to do 1d43 damage, for example. I agree that more use of RAMS instead of RAI would be more precise, but can you blame people for using a more common acronym and not wanting to go to the trouble of writing an extra letter? :smallyuk:

[TheCountAlucard]

...but can you blame people...?Yes. Yes, I can. :smallamused:

Now, on that note, do we want to try and get back on-topic? I'd list off my "top 10," but I feel several people did a good enough job of it already.

[SurlySeraph]

What's left to list but re-phrasings and stating already-mentioned things either more specifically or more generally? Pretty much everything major has been brought up. Infinite loops, ways to do huge but finite amounts of damage, things that are way too open-ended (Gate, Genesis,many shape-changing abilities), ways to get tons of extra actions (Planar Shepherd, Beholder Mage), and ways to ignore or minimize costs that should be very heavy (ways to become immune to too many things for too little cost; ways to get lots of metamagic for very little cost; infinite wealth and the things that are worth buying with that wealth; infinite CL via Cancer Mage or Greater Consumptive Field or Tainted Scholar; ways to know too much like Omniscifying and arguably Commune; Celerity + immunity to Daze; Thought Bottles), etc.

[NichG]

We could move on to 'the top 10 most powerful things that would be allowed at my table' perhaps? That probably gets more towards the spirit of what the original article tried and failed to do.

[abadguy]

What I think is really broken is that the game designers for 3.0/3.5 got away with so much lousy writing, bad design and ambiguous rules is because at the back of their heads, they are thinking "Well, there's always DM fiat/Rule #0, we'll just pop THIS in and let the DM decide."

[olthar]

What I think is really broken is that the game designers for 3.0/3.5 got away with so much lousy writing, bad design and ambiguous rules is because at the back of their heads, they are thinking "Well, there's always DM fiat/Rule #0, we'll just pop THIS in and let the DM decide."

I'll second that. Really there is only one thing that is broken: RAW. Once a DM steps in and says "wait a minute, I'm not letting you do that" anything that is "broken" can easily be fixed.

Oh, and I guess there are a few spells that are "broken" because the designers didn't think about how they were replicating effects without improving them.

[term1nally s1ck]

RAW Diplomacy
Dweomerkeeper
Beholder Mage
Tainted Scholar
Illithid Savant
Psionic Artificier (Persisting Timeless Body. Immune to everything for a gpcost per day. Yeah...)
Gate giving access and command over things with casting.
Polymorph and shapechange giving access to casting with tricksiness.
Epic Spellcasting.
Elemental weirds. Free action Divinations. They literally know everything about everything.

[Andion Isurand]

Doesn pun-pun hinge on the sarrukh? We should be saying that the sarukkh is 'anything I want free'-type overpowered/borked. Keep ssarruukhkhks out of your game and you have no more pun-problems.

The Sharn (Monsters of Faerun) have the following special quality that could easily be added to the Sarrukh stat block via a custom errata.... which would be a nice subject for homebrew.

Archetypal Shape (Ex): No other creature can polymorph or shapechange themselves (or anyone else) into a sarrukh's shape, or anything approximating it.

[Dante & Vergil]

The Sharn (Monsters of Faerun) have the following special quality that could easily be added to the Sarrukh stat block via a custom errata.... which would be a nice subject for homebrew.

Archetypal Shape (Ex): No other creature can polymorph or shapechange themselves (or anyone else) into a sarrukh's shape, or anything approximating it.

I like it, personally.

[Kobold Esq]

Wouldn't it just be simpler to say no sarrukhs in your world?

[Andion Isurand]

Well, if playing in the FR setting, its easier to amend the Sarrukh stat block than retcon their legacy and influence.

[navar100]

A lot of people are equating powerful/imbalance with broken. True, a fighter has nothing on a wizard Wishing or a cleric Gating in a Solar. However, the 20th level fighter is not merely a 1st level fighter with a better weapon even though both move 30ft and attack.

The problem lies in people having differing tolerance levels on how "powerful" a character should be. If one character is more powerful than another, some people blame the more powerful character, it's all his fault for being broken. Other people say that weaker character got the shaft; he's the problem.

There are two ways to fix this. Lower the powerful character or raise the weaker character. Those who have low tolerance of powerful characters in general prefer the former. I prefer the latter. I'd be ok with correcting the Candle of Invocation so that there is no infinite wishes but not banning the cleric because of the Gate spell, regardless of how the fighter can never call upon a Miracle. Rather, improve the fighter's lot so he can do comparable or good enough awesomeness when the cleric is casting Miracle or Gate. Some rule fixes are a good place to start, such as being able to attack more than once when moving more than 5ft. Tome of Battle went another way by having that one attack be significantly more than just weapon + strength damage.

[navar100]

Prestige Classes are not broken. They are a nice patch to make multiclassing easier or to specialize in a particular niche. The "problem" is the rules got lazy and allowed for treating prestige classes as base classes, meaning you can multiclass prestige classes. Level dipping among many prestige classes is what causes the craziness people think of when they say prestige classes are broken.

However, a particular prestige class itself could be broken because of a loophole, such as Planar Shepherd. Merely being powerful is not, such as Radiant Servant of Pelor or Church Inquisitor. That is only a concern of your particular tolerance level of "powerful".

Truenamer is broken. It fails to function by its own rules. The DC to use its ability outpaces the class's ability to roll it. To have any chance requires using particular feats and having particular magic items. Any deviation you're an earthworm with legs. The fix to this problem is easy. Just get rid of the x2 multiplier in the DC formula.

[Lord_Gareth]

To even touch a wizard requires going through this litany (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10355038&postcount=6) of defenses. Does no one think that such overkill might be, I dunno, broken?

[Andion Isurand]

I think of level dipping and PrC stacking as a feature of non-casters looking to boost their saving throws and abilities.

[NichG]

To even touch a wizard requires going through this litany (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10355038&postcount=6) of defenses. Does no one think that such overkill might be, I dunno, broken?

Those things are not really features of a generic 'a wizard', those are features of optimized, high level play. At a table where that sort of stuff is used, I'd anticipate even the Tier 3 and 4 people having ways to get most of those defenses in some form of other in order to play.

For example, you could have a rich level 20 commoner who has purchased for himself:

- Death Pact
- True Res 1/month sentient item via Item Familiar
- Craft Contingent Spell'd Delay Death
- Craft Contingent Spell'd Dim Door to avoid an attack
- Craft Contingent Spell'd True Rez
- The 3/day stoneskin boots
- Amulet of Second Chances (1/day reverse time one round)
- That +5 shield that gives Timeless body 1/day
- Cloak of Starmantle
- Ring of Evasion
- Ring of Nine Lives (auto-succeed on 1 save a day, and get a free heal when you go below 0hp)
- Pay a wizard to PaO him into something awesome
- Wield a dagger with that +1 Faerun enchantment that lets you negate all instances of a single spell targeted to you. Pick Disjunction of course.

And he'd be just as much of a pain to attack as that wizard, without actually being one. He could avoid death five times, negate all melee damage to himself 95% of the time, evade specific attacks an additional 2 times... The only problem he has is an anti-magic field (and so does the wizard unless he's a Cheater of Mystra or whatever) The problem is in the specific tricks and their combination, not in the class itself.

[Yora]

[Wait... redundant question is redundant.]

[TheCountAlucard]

For example, you could have a rich level 20 commoner who has purchased for himself:Actually, a 20th-level commoner would be ~CR 10, and thus only have, what, about six thousand gold? :smalltongue:

Unless you're demanding he be outfitted like a 20th-level PC or something... :smalltongue:

[No brains]

The Sharn (Monsters of Faerun) have the following special quality that could easily be added to the Sarrukh stat block via a custom errata.... which would be a nice subject for homebrew.

Archetypal Shape (Ex): No other creature can polymorph or shapechange themselves (or anyone else) into a sarrukh's shape, or anything approximating it.

No matter how cool your avatar:smallwink:, this doesn't cut it. Someone could still find and then infulence the damn, dumb-named beast and pun out all over the place. No sarru- somethingorothers is much easier. Say they all died and everyone forgot what they were.

[NichG]

Actually, a 20th-level commoner would be ~CR 10, and thus only have, what, about six thousand gold? :smalltongue:

Unless you're demanding he be outfitted like a 20th-level PC or something... :smalltongue:

I meant a PC who decided for some reason (e.g. to prove a point) to take 20 levels of commoner, not a 20th level NPC. The item familiar probably still breaks the bank though, so one might have to add in the buy item of Wall of Salt merchant empire trick to get there.

[navar100]

To even touch a wizard requires going through this litany (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10355038&postcount=6) of defenses. Does no one think that such overkill might be, I dunno, broken?

That is assuming a wizard knows and prepares every significant spell in existence all the time and no one makes saving throws. It's an interesting exercise of theory to determine all the possible ways a wizard can win any combat by himself, but that only works on paper. In practice, the wizard cannot. He can do some in your average adventuring game over the course of the campaign but not every single one.

[Lord_Gareth]

That is assuming a wizard knows and prepares every significant spell in existence all the time and no one makes saving throws. It's an interesting exercise of theory to determine all the possible ways a wizard can win any combat by himself, but that only works on paper. In practice, the wizard cannot. He can do some in your average adventuring game over the course of the campaign but not every single one.

It's the Contingencies that really get ya, since the Wizard can either simply take Contingency, or take Craft Contingent Spell, and give himself time to look up how to kill you and then proceed to do it.

[Hawriel]

Most broken thing about D&D?

1) Hasbro owns it.

2) The players.

[Fax Celestis]

A lot of people are equating powerful/imbalance with broken.

[...]

The problem lies in people having differing tolerance levels on how "powerful" a character should be. If one character is more powerful than another, some people blame the more powerful character, it's all his fault for being broken. Other people say that weaker character got the shaft; he's the problem.

There are two ways to fix this. [...]

Saying "It isn't broken because I can fix it" is, at best, optimistic, and at worst disingenuous. It is broken, that's why it needs fixing.

[Yora]

Most broken thing about D&D?

1) Hasbro owns it.

2) The players.

Actually, I think this is a very accurate observation.

[NichG]

Saying "It isn't broken because I can fix it" is, at best, optimistic, and at worst disingenuous. It is broken, that's why it needs fixing.

Also, the biggest difficulty isn't fixing things - thats as easy as a houserule. The biggest difficulty is knowing ahead of time what things are going to need to be fixed, so you can minimize the amount of reworking of their concepts that players need to do and prevent in-game 'well if I had known you were going to nerf that, I wouldn't have taken it!' moments.

[The_Jackal]

The entire system. Seriously.

Magic vs. Non-Magic.

This is probably the most eregious of the balance problems that plague D&D, and have really done so since the first edition. Magic has always been the carrot that made suffering through low levels as a spellcaster bearable. The problem with this philosophy is that it offers terrible scaling issues as your campaign progresses. Really, which flavor of magic is most broken is academic. Non-spellcasters can't really hold a candle to a pure spellcaster past level 7 or so. Past that point, it's 13 or more levels of playing a bodyguard to a demigod.

The Class system.

While the class system makes the game approachable to new players, and helps enforce roles and archetypes, it's ultimately very constraining to the veteran gamers who make up the core of the D&D audience. I don't know how many threads I've seen on various D&D boards outlining various minimaxed, cherry-picking 4+ prestige class builds, just so they could get the features they wanted on their character.

I'm not saying systems with a-la carte character design are without flaw, but they get the job done with a lot less rigamarole and unecessary complexity than D&D. Really, what 3.0 and its successors did properly was ensure the sales of a profusion of sourcebooks, whose only purpose was to add a smattering of prestige classes, feats and spells to an already overcomplicated system.

Save or Die.

Or at best, save or lose. This may be an echo of point 1, but it also shows itself in other ways: Traps, Poisons, Class abilities, etc. I like randomness just as much as the next fellow. It's important to keep the game dynamic. But too many of D&D's systems devolve into the all important saving throw. No matter how good your save is, one unlucky roll is all it usually takes to render you a non-combatant, or worse. This fact is certainly contributory to the general superiority of spellcasters, as they typically have access to many more save or be screwed effects. A warrior needs to dig his way through your hit points to achieve victory. A mage can just cast hold person, and if you fail your save, the battle is effectively over in a single round.

Toyquest.

As a result of the pernicious effects of save or die, every character is forced to collect a jumble of magic doodads which over immunity from the dreaded 'be screwed' effects like paralysis, blindness, etc., or failing that, get you that all important saving throw bonus. This has the effect of making D&D magic very commodity-like. Every market has a magic item stall, right next to the fishmonger. This whole phenomenon results in a very campy, non-atmospheric genre where your ring of protection +3 is like your blackberry. It's a convenient gadget, not a wondrous artifact crafted by long-lost arts. And it continues to bog the game down in complexity and bookeeping, in lieu of storytelling. If you look at the fantasy source material that informs the fantasy genre, magic was SPECIAL. An adventurer would be lucky to have two magic items. In D&D, you've usually got two for every extremity. Also, it creates the situation where the best way to un-make a hero is to take away his equipment. This is especially true of non-spellcasters, where their only hope of keeping pace with the spellcasting elite is their collection of gubbins and golf-clubs. Aragorn may be marginally less dangerous when he wasn't carrying Anduril, but he was still a hero. A D&D fighter without his kit is a blubbery mound of ineffectual hit points.

Make no mistake, I've had plenty of fun playing D&D over the years, but adherence to convention has made this game lag decades behind other games in terms of innovation, playability and balance. The game has been in print, in various editions, since 1974, most of my lifetime, and it's still far too close to the wildly unbalanced, poorly designed near-wargame that it was back then.

[navar100]

Saying "It isn't broken because I can fix it" is, at best, optimistic, and at worst disingenuous. It is broken, that's why it needs fixing.

That is assuming everyone agrees that something is broken in the first place. I, for one, do not find wizards and clerics to be broken. Powerful, yes, not broken. Because of people's different tolerance levels of being powerful, those with low tolerance will declare broken what others call just powerful.

[Lord_Gareth]

That is assuming everyone agrees that something is broken in the first place. I, for one, do not find wizards and clerics to be broken. Powerful, yes, not broken. Because of people's different tolerance levels of being powerful, those with low tolerance will declare broken what others call just powerful.

Casually raping the campaign setting reaches quite the bit beyond powerful, friend.

[NichG]

That is assuming everyone agrees that something is broken in the first place. I, for one, do not find wizards and clerics to be broken. Powerful, yes, not broken. Because of people's different tolerance levels of being powerful, those with low tolerance will declare broken what others call just powerful.


Casually raping the campaign setting reaches quite the bit beyond powerful, friend.

This risks becoming a cyclic discussion. I'll note however that a resilient campaign setting should not be easily disrupted by wizards and/or clerics that are restricted from using options 1-9 on my list, for example. This is especially true if they are not level 20+, at which point you're expected to be breaking the setting as you are the most powerful mortal heroes in the world.

The average wizard or cleric that sees play does not use locate city bombs, chain-gated solars, wish-loops, and the like. The worst abuses I've seen at a table are wealth production tricks, and making wealth irrelevant usually only gets the party about +5 CR. They may easily break the party balance, which is another issue entirely, but they're not going to destroy the campaign setting (especially if the setting incorporates the fact that wizards and clerics exist in a rational manner).

The issue is not the classes themselves. It's the small subset of options that exist due to specific spells and combos that wizards and clerics often have easier access to than other classes. And the knowledge and willingness to attempt to bring those things to a table when they're obviously going to be disruptive. Its no different than the player who tries to bring in a d2 Crusader, or tries to build an atomic bomb in character using OOC knowledge.

[Fax Celestis]

The issue is not the classes themselves. It's the small subset of options that exist due to specific spells and combos that wizards and clerics often have easier access to than other classes.

Easier access? I would go so far as to say that they have exclusive access.

The caster vs. noncaster disparity arises from as fundamental a basis as core material: by being a spellcaster, you gain access to a whole new action. In core and in products released soon after, noncasters rarely (if ever) received swift actions. The further into 3.5's lifespan you go, the more frequently noncasters receive swift actions--and interestingly enough, the closer the average gap between the two becomes. Certainly, the gap between two extremes (Fighter 20 in the hands of someone inept vs Wizard 20 in the hands of someone very capable) is much greater, but the gap between two average players narrows significantly.

[NichG]

Easier access? I would go so far as to say that they have exclusive access.


I'm not talking about power or versatility here. I won't argue that a Wizard can pretty much out-option and out-power a Fighter any day of the week (barring heroic optimization of the Fighter and at least some lack of optimization by the Wizard). I'm talking about stuff that makes the game become unfeasible to continue, things that if allowed will pretty much guarantee game disruption.

One way to think of it is, would the problem for the campaign go away if you just gave the fighter casting or an equivalent amount of versatility or power? If so, it isn't broken, its just a party imbalance, and so can be redressed by making the weaker characters stronger and upping the challenge of the campaign. If not, its something that by its existence fundamentally changes the nature of play.

Here are various means of access to such problematic stuff via lower Tier classes and non-casters:

- Items (Candle of Invocation I'm looking at you). This here is all you need to start the infinite Wish loops. Less severely, scrolls, potions, wands, and custom items all let a non-caster pull off most of the broken stuff a caster can. Cloak of Starmantle is a purely item-based method of getting immunity to attacks. Dust of Sneezing and Choking is another purely item-based method to just win.
- Ascension and huge numbers: Several of the really bad tricks aren't spell based: Pun Pun, the d2 Crusader, and Lightning Mace abuse can all be done by non-casters. As can the Ubercharger, though Paladin casting makes it that much more gross. The Hulking Hurler needs no casting to throw the moon.
- Plot breakage w/o casting: RAW Diplomacy. Glibness helps, but really.
- Action economy breakage w/o casting: Chain leadership. Handle Animal.

[Fax Celestis]

the d2 CrusaderNo it can't. It needs a cleric spell.[/QUOTE]


I'm not talking about power or versatility here. I won't argue that a Wizard can pretty much out-option and out-power a Fighter any day of the week (barring heroic optimization of the Fighter and at least some lack of optimization by the Wizard). I'm talking about stuff that makes the game become unfeasible to continue, things that if allowed will pretty much guarantee game disruption.

One way to think of it is, would the problem for the campaign go away if you just gave the fighter casting or an equivalent amount of versatility or power? If so, it isn't broken, its just a party imbalance, and so can be redressed by making the weaker characters stronger and upping the challenge of the campaign. If not, its something that by its existence fundamentally changes the nature of play.

Again:


Saying "It isn't broken because I can fix it" is, at best, optimistic, and at worst disingenuous. It is broken, that's why it needs fixing.

[lesser_minion]

IMHO all mentions of RAI are more likely RAIITAYCPMWN (Rules As I Interprete Them And You Can't Prove Me Wrong Nyahh) or a less wordy RAIIT (Rules As I Interprete Them)

Any conclusion drawn from a rule is an example of "Rules As I Interpret Them", including ones that are ostensibly RAW.

RAW is essentially RAIIT following certain conventions: as long as the interpretation is drawn directly from the text, it does not have to be balanced and it does not have to be sensible.

Personally, I tend to upgrade 'RAW' to 'RAS' (Rules as Standard) if the rule in question is clear and unambiguous (even if it's obviously a mistake or oversight, such as the tower shield trick). For most discussions, I think it makes for a better baseline.

'RAI' isn't an interpretation drawn directly from the text -- instead, the poster tries to correct errors or oversights. Since it can be very hard to get two posters to agree on what constitutes an error or an oversight, we tend not to discuss it much.

'RAMS' is essentially "Rules as I would houserule them".

Also, 'RAIITAYCPMWN' is actually a derisive term for 'RAW' interpretations that appear to be tenuous or overly-permissive.

[NichG]

No it can't. It needs a cleric spell.

Ah, my mistake, sorry. So scratch that one from the list of non-caster brokenness.



Saying "It isn't broken because I can fix it" is, at best, optimistic, and at worst disingenuous. It is broken, that's why it needs fixing.


My point was more about the nature of the fix and the different levels of broken. If you can maintain campaign balance without changing the particular combo/class/whatever, I'd say that it isn't broken - you aren't even fixing it, you're just maintaining campaign and party balance. Its no different than realizing that the party is actually 3 CR above or below where they should be and making adjustments for that, or that one person is well optimized and someone else isn't, and so needs help getting up to the same power level. Its still possible to run a successful game in which all players are effective and enjoy the game without altering that particular thing.

If you can't proceed without changing the particular combo or class, then thats where I consider it truly broken and in need of fixing. Its a qualitatively distinct class of problem.

[The Cat Goddess]

To even touch a wizard requires going through this litany (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10355038&postcount=6) of defenses. Does no one think that such overkill might be, I dunno, broken?

Well, the first way to limit the power of a Wizard or Archivist is to limit the availability of spells. Don't sell/provide scrolls of abusable spells. Don't leave spellbooks laying around, or at least put traps on them.

Sure, that doesn't technically limit a Wizard from picking a borked spell as the one he auto-learns when he levels up... but without spells you as the GM provide him he's not much better off than a Sorcerer.

Clerics, on the other hand, can be limited by their deity. Since a Cleric's powers are granted by their deity, why would said deity allow his Cleric the ability to use a Miracle spell to become a deity themselves? A simple statement of: "As you cast the spell, your deity senses the power draw. Hearing your intention, the deity cuts off your connection and the spell fails." And the cheese is ruined.

[Doc Roc]

Cat, I can end your campaign with just spells from levels and SRD. As a sorcerer.
I brought you something (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=137447). I would say that early entry is one of the most broken things, along with any form of full-casting.

[Tyndmyr]

Accelerated progression full-casting = broken.

Yknow, like Ur priest.

[Fax Celestis]

Well, the first way to limit the power of a Wizard or Archivist is to limit the availability of spells. Don't sell/provide scrolls of abusable spells. Don't leave spellbooks laying around, or at least put traps on them.

Sure, that doesn't technically limit a Wizard from picking a borked spell as the one he auto-learns when he levels up... but without spells you as the GM provide him he's not much better off than a Sorcerer.

Clerics, on the other hand, can be limited by their deity. Since a Cleric's powers are granted by their deity, why would said deity allow his Cleric the ability to use a Miracle spell to become a deity themselves? A simple statement of: "As you cast the spell, your deity senses the power draw. Hearing your intention, the deity cuts off your connection and the spell fails." And the cheese is ruined.
Neither of these solutions are supported by game mechanics. They are certainly acceptable solutions, but the mechanics themselves don't support these.

[Fax Celestis]

Well, the first way to limit the power of a Wizard or Archivist is to limit the availability of spells. Don't sell/provide scrolls of abusable spells. Don't leave spellbooks laying around, or at least put traps on them.

Sure, that doesn't technically limit a Wizard from picking a borked spell as the one he auto-learns when he levels up... but without spells you as the GM provide him he's not much better off than a Sorcerer.

Clerics, on the other hand, can be limited by their deity. Since a Cleric's powers are granted by their deity, why would said deity allow his Cleric the ability to use a Miracle spell to become a deity themselves? A simple statement of: "As you cast the spell, your deity senses the power draw. Hearing your intention, the deity cuts off your connection and the spell fails." And the cheese is ruined.
Neither of these solutions are supported by game mechanics. They are certainly acceptable solutions, but the mechanics themselves don't support these.

Also, an old interesting idea (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=169565) (I think so, anyway) as to part of the reason the disparity between casters and noncasters is so large.

[The Cat Goddess]

Neither of these solutions are supported by game mechanics. They are certainly acceptable solutions, but the mechanics themselves don't support these.

Also, an old interesting idea (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=169565) (I think so, anyway) as to part of the reason the disparity between casters and noncasters is so large.

Say what?

In what way is limiting the availability of scrolls/spellbooks not supported by game mechanics?

In what way is a deity stopping his Cleric from doing something counter to what the deity desires not supported by game mechanics?

[Tyndmyr]

Say what?

In what way is limiting the availability of scrolls/spellbooks not supported by game mechanics?

In what way is a deity stopping his Cleric from doing something counter to what the deity desires not supported by game mechanics?

The rules don't tell you to do that. In fact, going by the rules, there are standard, reasonable prices for paying a spellcaster for access to his book, and spellcasters are rather available in towns of almost any size. Every published setting has a great deal of magic.

If the rules give you something, it's supported by game mechanics. If it's something you found that you can rule 0 in, or that the rules don't really mention, then it ain't supported.

[lesser_minion]

Also, an old interesting idea (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=169565) (I think so, anyway) as to part of the reason the disparity between casters and noncasters is so large.

Interesting, although I'd recommend working out what the spell slots are worth based on what you can get by selling them to other characters -- (10 * SL * CL).

Another interesting comparison is training costs -- a wizard can earn 450 gp a day 'teaching' spells to other wizards, while a fighter can only earn 50 gp a week teaching people to swing swords better.

[Fax Celestis]

In what way is limiting the availability of scrolls/spellbooks not supported by game mechanics?
The fact that there are listed, delineated prices for scrolls for every spell in the PHB (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/scrolls.htm#tableArcaneSpellScrolls) and for per-use casting of spells (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/goodsAndServices.htm#spellcastingAndServices)? The fact that nowhere in the SRD or the DMG does it state that a DM should limit access to equipment beyond a city's financial scope and the player's estimated WBL, of which scrolls are explicitly listed as being (http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/magicItems.htm)? The fact that the wizard's spell learning feature explicitly has no cap (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/sorcererWizard.htm#wizardSpells)?


In what way is a deity stopping his Cleric from doing something counter to what the deity desires not supported by game mechanics?
The fact that there is no clearly-defined falling mechanism for clerics (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/cleric.htm#exClerics), unlike paladins, and that a cleric only loses his powers from a 'gross violation against his deity's code of conduct'? That the Description chapter of the PHB (which isn't in the SRD since it contains IP) doesn't include text on what will or won't anger a deity and certainly doesn't include 'codes of conduct' for the cleric? That many of the gods in widely-used settings (particularly, in Faerun) did just what you described to become a deity?

[The Cat Goddess]

The rules don't tell you to do that. In fact, going by the rules, there are standard, reasonable prices for paying a spellcaster for access to his book, and spellcasters are rather available in towns of almost any size. Every published setting has a great deal of magic.

If the rules give you something, it's supported by game mechanics. If it's something you found that you can rule 0 in, or that the rules don't really mention, then it ain't supported.

The rules also don't tell you to have magic shops that sell items... or even buy items.

And sure, you can find a spellcaster... you can even find a spellcaster who is willing to sell you access to his books. But finding a spellcaster with the particular spell you're looking for, who is also willing to allow you access to said spell... well, obviously the GM has control of that, true?

[lesser_minion]

The rules also don't tell you to have magic shops that sell items... or even buy items.

And sure, you can find a spellcaster... you can even find a spellcaster who is willing to sell you access to his books. But finding a spellcaster with the particular spell you're looking for, who is also willing to allow you access to said spell... well, obviously the GM has control of that, true?

Isn't the fact that the rules fail to give any sort of guidance on how many spells a wizard should learn itself an example of broken rules -- in the sense that they fail to provide information that the DM would need in order to do her job of maintaining game balance?

[Doc Roc]

Isn't the fact that the rules fail to give any sort of guidance on how many spells a wizard should learn itself an example of broken rules -- in the sense that they fail to provide information that the DM would need in order to do her job of maintaining game balance?

Erm, except that they provide numbers for how many spells you can get.

Floor( (http://xkcd.com/859/)(WBL/Scroll cost).

They are terrible numbers, writ large in the blood of innocent campaigns...
But they are numbers.

[Doug Lampert]

The rules also don't tell you to have magic shops that sell items... or even buy items.

They tell you QUITE CLEARLY how to calculate the price of goods you can buy or sell in a town. And additionally tell you QUITE CLEARLY that
"“Every community has a gold piece limit based on its size and population. The gold piece limit is an indicator of the most expensive item available in that community. Nothing that costs more than a community’s gp limit is available for purchase in that community. Anything having a price under that limit is mostly likely available, whether it be mundane or magical. While exceptions are certainly possible (a boomtown near a newly discovered mine, a farming community impoverished after a prolonged drought), these exceptions are temporary; all communities will conform to the norm over time.”

A town with 900 adults has a limit of 800 GP, which includes scrolls of ALL spells without expensive components up to level 4.

It goes further: "To determine the amount of ready cash in a community, or the total value of any given item, multiply half the gp limit by 1/10 of the community’s population.”

This means that small town of 900 adults has available 1440 copies of that level 1 scroll I want!

Mind you, I always assume that's NOT a magic shop, that's simply the limit of what you could commission for purchase and the local wizards could produce.

But the houserule is that there's no magic shop with 1440 scrolls of sleep and 1440 scrolls of magic missile and 1440 scrolls of (insert obscure splat book spell here) sitting on the shelves in EVERY small town in D&D land!

The RAW is that you can walk in and buy all that stuff.

At level 9 you get your first level 5 spell, and that town of 800 is no longer adequate, but since one of the two spells you picked up for free for leveling to 9 was teleport.... We now just need a larger town SOMEWHERE on the entire continent and I can keep right on buying stuff.

[Doc Roc]

Excellent stuff.

:: Presses a katana into your hand ::
It may be just a bastard sword, but use it in good faith.

[lesser_minion]

Erm, except that they provide numbers for how many spells you can get.

Yeah, true. I put it at somewhere around:

Total spell pages = floor(WBL/125gp + (months of downtime))

As a theoretical maximum. That gives about 6000 pages of spells by 20th level, plus any extra for downtime. And your free spells, of course.

From my own numbers, I seem to be getting something closer to 500 or so pages at 20th level as something that could conceivably be semi-balanced.

In other words, the only thing that even approaches a guideline seems to prescribe up to twelve times as many spells as it should.

There may be a guideline, but it's not a useful one...

[navar100]

Easier access? I would go so far as to say that they have exclusive access.

The caster vs. noncaster disparity arises from as fundamental a basis as core material: by being a spellcaster, you gain access to a whole new action. In core and in products released soon after, noncasters rarely (if ever) received swift actions. The further into 3.5's lifespan you go, the more frequently noncasters receive swift actions--and interestingly enough, the closer the average gap between the two becomes. Certainly, the gap between two extremes (Fighter 20 in the hands of someone inept vs Wizard 20 in the hands of someone very capable) is much greater, but the gap between two average players narrows significantly.

Yes, spellcasters are a lot stronger overall than non-casters in the beginning. The problem is not spellcasters are too powerful but non-casters are too weak. As I've mentioned before, in the latter part of 3E life The Powers That Be were finally getting it and giving the non-casters some love. Spellcaster power is still above non-caster power, but the gap is narrower yet not narrow enough for some people because they are still apoplectic that spellcasters have power.

[Doug Lampert]

Yeah, true. I put it at somewhere around:

Total spell pages = floor(WBL/125gp + (months of downtime))

Did you forget to buy a blessed book?

It's 12.5 GP/page to fill a blessed book.

37.5 GP/level 1 spell by buying a scroll or spell level * 62.5 for anything higher as you pay to copy from someone else's spare spellbook. (50 GP per spell level.)

You also get all level 0 spells free.

[Eldariel]

Thinking of it, anything that deals with time tends towards the Stupid Good end of the spectrum. Haste and Slow are merely two of the best 3rd level spells in the game (and 3rd level spells are good), but then you have Time Stop which is basically an "I win"-button if you have anything at all to follow up with (since it basically stops interaction entirely), Temporal Acceleration which is more of the same, Time Hop which is responsible for among others the D&D Save File system and then we get to funkiness like Planar Shepherd's Planar Bubble which wouldn't be all that good without the fact that it alters time traits, and the arcane version of Genesis which just so happens to do stupid stuff since it messes with time traits too. Oh, and I'm not gonna talk too much about it but Teleport Through Time (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/pg/20030409b) bears mentioning. Basically, it's...ugh. Ok, it's just...it breaks worlds.

[lesser_minion]

Did you forget to buy a blessed book?

It's 12.5 GP/page to fill a blessed book.

37.5 GP/level 1 spell by buying a scroll or spell level * 62.5 for anything higher as you pay to copy from someone else's spare spellbook. (50 GP per spell level.)

You also get all level 0 spells free.

I deliberately ignored all of the free spells, including cantrips.

I didn't buy a blessed book, because I got it mixed up with the 3.0 version, which just holds 45 spells of any level. That would have mixed things up a little.

With Blessed Books, the cost becomes about 37.5 gp/page for the vast majority of spells (remember that a spell takes up 2 pages per level), which puts you somewhere in the region of 20,000 pages by 20th level.

Overall, you're still getting far more spells than it seems you should be getting (while I pretty much made it up as I went along, the 496 figure is loosely based on the number of spells a sorcerer gets, which come to about 315 pages in total).

[Doc Roc]

Oh, and I'm not gonna talk too much about it but Teleport Through Time (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/pg/20030409b) bears mentioning. Basically, it's...ugh. Ok, it's just...it breaks worlds.

I see you never forgave me for Commander "I'm your dad now" Timetram.

[Eldariel]

I see you never forgave me for Commander "I'm your dad now" Timetram.

It's a real pity WoTC ****ed up with the archiving... But yes, I tend to appreciate causality intact, thank you very much.