What breaks DnD 3.5?

[Zman]

Ok, I'm working on a group of fixes coupled with class fixes to try and being 3.5 into a better balance without ruining the feel or flavor that already exists. If you are interested in seeing what I've done check my Homebrew signature.


My question to the playground, What breaks DnD? I'm looking for specific feats, chains, combinations, specific spells, abilities, skills, etc? What causes huge amounts of damage? What spells negate entire classes?

On the flip side, what's underpowered and worthless?

I'm looking to pool what you guys give me and work them into a solid set of fixes.

For Example

Barbarian/Fighter Damage

Lion Toten+ Whirling Frenzy +Power Attack+ Combat Brute+ Shock Trooper + Leap Attack= Hundreds of Damage on the Charge
Doable at 6th level

Or

MAD/SAD Balance
Inherent bonuses, items worsening the problem?

Or

Spells
Alter Self/Polymorph/Shaoechange/Draconic Polymoroh/Polymorph Any Object
Wish/Miracle
Planar Binding/Planar Ally
Etc

[JaronK]

You know, damage doesn't break D&D. At the worst case, a charger just kills all enemies within his reach on the charge. But smart enemies can easily spoil charges (via difficult terrain, getting behind things, spreading out, flying, etc).

What breaks D&D are spells that change everything and force you to completely alter your campaign world to deal with them, or that completely replace classes. For example, you can cast Animate Dread Warrior on any humanoid and suddenly you've got a new party member, permanently. A single Wizard or Sorcerer can use that spell to just duplicate the Rogue, Fighter, Cleric... or anyone else.

Likewise, things like Planar Binding to bind an Efreeti and get endless wishes. Even in a less broken way of doing it (such as binding Genies for their endless vegetable matter), at the end of the day we wonder why the Wizard even goes adventuring at all, when he can have everything he ever wanted by bringing it to him.

So don't worry too much about the melee classes. Minor adjustments in game can easily deal with areas where they are strong. It's the spells where things really go nuts.

JaronK

[Darius Kane]

What breaks D&D the most? Players.

[The Glyphstone]

I was going to say 'looking at it sternly', but 'players works too'.

[Zman]

You know, damage doesn't break D&D. At the worst case, a charger just kills all enemies within his reach on the charge. But smart enemies can easily spoil charges (via difficult terrain, getting behind things, spreading out, flying, etc).

What breaks D&D are spells that change everything and force you to completely alter your campaign world to deal with them, or that completely replace classes. For example, you can cast Animate Dread Warrior on any humanoid and suddenly you've got a new party member, permanently. A single Wizard or Sorcerer can use that spell to just duplicate the Rogue, Fighter, Cleric... or anyone else.

Likewise, things like Planar Binding to bind an Efreeti and get endless wishes. Even in a less broken way of doing it (such as binding Genies for their endless vegetable matter), at the end of the day we wonder why the Wizard even goes adventuring at all, when he can have everything he ever wanted by bringing it to him.

So don't worry too much about the melee classes. Minor adjustments in game can easily deal with areas where they are strong. It's the spells where things really go nuts.

JaronK

I understand that Damage is not the biggest afront to balance, but the ability to do that much damage is broken and I picked it as a simple and common example. Hvine a single build which effectively quadruples normal damage output is a problem no matter how you look at it.

I've address most of the spells you've already mentioned and you appreciate it of you keep elaborating. I'm looking for anything that upsets balance whether it's balance between the Melee classes, between the rogue and the Melee characters, between the spellcasters and everybody else.

I will reiterate, I know Melee isn't the biggest problem, but simple an example I chose to list. I could have easiy have chosen Polymorph, Shapechange, Wish, Miracle, Sleep, Suggestion, etc.

What I'm looking for are more examples.


What breaks D&D the most? Players.

Yes, players break the game, but the current framework makes it oh so easy. I'm looking for the worst problems.

[nedz]

Vancian casting mainly.

There are individual spells which are problematic, but the ability to swap and change what are the most powerful tools available adds flexibility and thus enables characters to prepare to trivialise any threat.

Most of the T1's feature this mechanic, and all of the more common ones.

[JaronK]

I truly think damage doesn't break the game unless you're talking insane AoE damage (the kind that kills whole encounters even when monsters play smart), but we can disagree on that.

But as for spells... spells that create permanent benefits via spell slots tend to be broken. Even little things like "Cast Wall of Iron to get a bunch of Iron. Cast Magecraft for the +5 to Craft. Cast Fabricate to create suites of Masterwork Full Plate. Sell for profit." A solution I found to this was to say that no Conjuration (Creation) thing creates anything that's non magical forever. Thus, all spells like Wall of Stone, Wall of Iron, and so on have their duration changed to Permanent (meaning they can be dispelled). Furthermore, such materials can never be used as material components (which stops Fabricate from working on them) and every round in contact with Cold Iron lowers their caster level by 1 until they disappear.

Combine this with removing Wish from the Efreeti abilities and changing it to a new spell like ability called "Wealth" that just lets them create up to 25kgp in non magic, non special material wealth that's still a conjuration effect. This can be used for a variety of purposes, but summoned gold is of course counterfeit and any decent merchant's going to have a cold iron scale to check the money on (it'll disappear after a while, because it's Conjuration). Now you can play around with devils for money if you want but no merchant who's in the big time (and thus can sell you valuable stuff for that level) is going to take such money.

Also, make Sp abilities cost Xp normally. Many permanent bonus spells are balanced by their ex cost... remove that and they become silly. Spells like True Creation, Extract Gift, and Animate Dread Warrior can all be gotten as Sp abilities and are instantly game breaking.

Another random one: the Genesis spell should never be allowed to create non standard time traits. That's just too easy to break. Simply remove time traits from the list of things you can chose, explicitly (as it is they're implicitly included).

Polymorph needs a line saying it explicitly does not grant spell casting. I don't really want to get into that particular debate, but just do it.

JaronK

[Zman]

Vancian casting mainly.

There are individual spells which are problematic, but the ability to swap and change what are the most powerful tools available adds flexibility and thus enables characters to prepare to trivialise any threat.

Most of the T1's feature this mechanic, and all of the more common ones.

I agree Vancian Casting is at the heart of it, but I'm not looking to replace the entire Spellcasting system, merely apply hot fixes aimed at helping correct the imbalance. On a class level I've slowed down access to 4th level+ spells and removed 9th level from normal 20 level play slowing down the power curve. I also have fixed a handful of the worst spells as well as made acquiring new spells significantly more expensive.

What spells allow a Sorcerer to break the game? The Tier2 Sorcerer has access to the same raw power, what allows him to wrech the power curve?

[Hiro Protagonest]

Yes, players break the game, but the current framework makes it oh so easy. I'm looking for the worst problems.

Not possible. Or, it is, but it'd take far less time to get a part-time job to save up money for a new game. Or even just find a new game that's free online (like Spirit of the Century) or really cheap (like FATE Core).

[Zman]

I truly think damage doesn't break the game unless you're talking insane AoE damage (the kind that kills whole encounters even when monsters play smart), but we can disagree on that.

I agree that Huge AoO damage can ruin an encounter, but also feel that One Rounding most enemies, blowing the CR out of the window, and making DR meaningless does break, or damage combat. It makes playing Melee competently a narrow selection of feats and tactics. This narrowing and inflation of the power curve is what I'm after.

But as for spells... spells that create permanent benefits via spell slots tend to be broken. Even little things like "Cast Wall of Iron to get a bunch of Iron. Cast Magecraft for the +5 to Craft. Cast Fabricate to create suites of Masterwork Full Plate. Sell for profit." A solution I found to this was to say that no Conjuration (Creation) thing creates anything that's non magical forever. Thus, all spells like Wall of Stone, Wall of Iron, and so on have their duration changed to Permanent (meaning they can be dispelled). Furthermore, such materials can never be used as material components (which stops Fabricate from working on them) and every round in contact with Cold Iron lowers their caster level by 1 until they disappear.

This is good, I will be incorporating some similar effects. Especially the ermanent duration, no one is buying armor that risks being dispelled on the battlefield.

Combine this with removing Wish from the Efreeti abilities and changing it to a new spell like ability called "Wealth" that just lets them create up to 25kgp in non magic, non special material wealth that's still a conjuration effect. This can be used for a variety of purposes, but summoned gold is of course counterfeit and any decent merchant's going to have a cold iron scale to check the money on (it'll disappear after a while, because it's Conjuration). Now you can play around with devils for money if you want but no merchant who's in the big time (and thus can sell you valuable stuff for that level) is going to take such money.

Also, make Sp abilities cost Xp normally. Many permanent bonus spells are balanced by their ex cost... remove that and they become silly. Spells like True Creation, Extract Gift, and Animate Dread Warrior can all be gotten as Sp abilities and are instantly game breaking.

Good Points, I've already added clauses about Efreeti Wish etc, but forcing the summoner to pay the xp cost would be great and a widespread deterrent for abuse.

Another random one: the Genesis spell should never be allowed to create non standard time traits. That's just too easy to break. Simply remove time traits from the list of things you can chose, explicitly (as it is they're implicitly included).

Polymorph needs a line saying it explicitly does not grant spell casting. I don't really want to get into that particular debate, but just do it.

I agree here, having Alter Self and Polymoorph follow the Polymorph Subschool rules helps and they certainly shouldn't be able to cast spells in that form. Possibly an Aecane Spell Failure Chance while Shapechanged.

JaronK

Now, this is what I'm after. Thank you. Keep it coming.




Not possible. Or, it is, but it'd take far less time to get a part-time job to save up money for a new game. Or even just find a new game that's free online (like Spirit of the Century) or really cheap (like FATE Core).

Sorry, got a full time job and am not looking for a new game. And FATE, ehh, haven't been very impressed with it. Not my cup of tea.

[Gavinfoxx]

The entirety of the system?

Seriously, just play Legend instead if you want a balanced, unbroken 3.5e-like game:

http://ruleofcool.com/

I mean, you could start with the Test of Spite list...

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=113644

[Morty]

There isn't any single feature that causes the game to break. 3rd edition D&D has some rather fundamental design flaws that break it in certain circumstances. Most of it results from designers underestimating the value of certain things and overestimating the value of others, the way I see it.

[JaronK]

You know, the easiest method of balancing would be to just play Tier 3-4 only. The game is now pretty balanced, though you'll still have to deal with the occasional issue (like chargers doing too much damage, or the occasional Factotum trick). But overall, it'll be fine.

From there, occasionally add in one new thing, like that one guy playing a Sorcerer. It'll be obvious when he's doing something broken, and you can correct it then. Otherwise, there's just so many broken spells and so many tricks out there that it's an exercise in futility to try and get them all in advance.

But if you just get you and your players used to a certainly power/versatility level, everybody can spot what's broken right away.

JaronK

[Gavinfoxx]

Yea this is useful..

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=174628

[ericgrau]

What breaks D&D the most? Players.
+2.

The worst offenders can be played with freely and you can even make an effort to be effective with them... until a bad player gets his hand on it and looks for loopholes, tricks or digs through 100 options to find the one OP oversight. Or simply uses a significantly higher level of optimization whatever that may be, but that standard varies.

Instead of a 20 page list of bans & houserules, it's better to approve your player's character sheets and only address common problems. Most of the time players won't even attempt such things and often when they do it'll be an accident ("Oh wow this looks really cool" not "Oh wow this is sooo broken I'm taking it"). If a player is actually trying to break the system, then talk to the player don't get into a ban/new-loophole war. You'll be bored of D&D before it's over, and I don't expect anyone here to be bored of D&D for years to come.

[GenericMook]

What spells allow a Sorcerer to break the game? The Tier2 Sorcerer has access to the same raw power, what allows him to wrech the power curve?

One of the big cheese shenanigans a Sorcerer can pull off is infinite damage loops with Arcane Fusion/Greater Arcane Fusion, looping with Sanctum versions of the AF/GAF spells and some damage spell. Arcane Spellsurge, if persisted via Incantatrix cheese, lets you do that as a swift action.

Other than that, you have things like Polymorph cheese. It's less than the Wizard because you can't have access to all of the spells on the Wizard/Sorcerer list, but there's scrolls for that.

[Gavinfoxx]

Here's an SRD only sorcerer that takes many of the most powerful options in phb/dmg/mm1/srd

http://www.thetangledweb.net/forums/profiler/view_char.php?cid=4511

[Jack_Simth]

My question to the playground, What breaks DnD?
If you discount the more extreme TO tricks, what breaks D&D is a significant discrepancy in player power. Basically anything else the DM can deal with fairly easily, simply by adjusting challenges. The trick is to get your players to play at about the same optimization level.
I'm looking for specific feats, chains, combinations, specific spells, abilities, skills, etc? What causes huge amounts of damage? What spells negate entire classes?
Oh. I don't believe you're going about it the right way, but the individual components that definitely need fixing:
Open-ended things: The planar Binding line (and Gate, their big brother), the polymorphic line (Alter Self, Polymorph, Polymorph Any Object, Shapechange, and anything similar - such as the Druid's Wildshape), Simulacrum (and anything similar, such as Ice Assasin).
Methods of bypassing costs (e.g., Wish is fine of itself - really it is; however, when you can get around the XP costs, it becomes very, very broken)
Action economy breakers (Time Stop, the Celerity line, and similar)
Minionomancy (being able to have a very large number of bodies under your control gets broken fast)

With polymorphic magic, I'm familiar with three basic routes that have a reasonable chance of actually balancing them:

1) Illusion+Selectable buffs. When you turn your friend the rogue into a hydra, you don't actually turn him into a hydra; you make him look like a hydra, and pick some number of buffs to apply to him off of a list (what buffs, and how good, depend on the spell and possibly the caster level; this can be balanced around what buffs are available, and gives a fixed list of abilities you can add to the target).

2) Variant Summoning. When you turn your friend the rogue into a hydra, it's not your friend the rogue in the shape of a hydra, it's a hydra under your friend's direction. For the duration, the rogue player puts his character sheet away, and uses the monster manual entry for the Hydra (minus problematic abilities, such as spells, spell-like abilities, and anything that duplicates something with an XP or GP cost when it's a spell). This can be balanced around the CR of the creature.

3) Limited options. Each polymorphic spell has a fixed list of creatures (possibly consisting of a single creature) that it can turn the target into. Rather than having Polymorph, you've got Dragonshape, Trollshape, Canineshape, et cetera. By cutting down the options, you can look at the specific available forms, and balance the spell around what you can do with that.

Note that late version D&D 3.5 actually attempted all three of these to some degree. For instance, the Bite of the Were-X line of spells are a combination of 1 and 3 (Spell Compendium, page 28-29); the Planar Exchange line (Spell compendium page 159) are a combination of 2 and 3.

[Zman]

The entirety of the system?

Seriously, just play Legend instead if you want a balanced, unbroken 3.5e-like game:

http://ruleofcool.com/

I mean, you could start with the Test of Spite list...

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=113644

Not helpful.


You know, the easiest method of balancing would be to just play Tier 3-4 only. The game is now pretty balanced, though you'll still have to deal with the occasional issue (like chargers doing too much damage, or the occasional Factotum trick). But overall, it'll be fine.

From there, occasionally add in one new thing, like that one guy playing a Sorcerer. It'll be obvious when he's doing something broken, and you can correct it then. Otherwise, there's just so many broken spells and so many tricks out there that it's an exercise in futility to try and get them all in advance.

But if you just get you and your players used to a certainly power/versatility level, everybody can spot what's broken right away.

JaronK

I'm not a fan of simply cur out a huge section of the game. And to be fair, many Tier 3 classes have game breaking levels of power. The Tier System is far from perfect from weeding out much of what breaks the game.


Yea this is useful..

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=174628

Not really, at least some of those classes have broken levels of damage, for instance the first one I selected.


Here's an SRD only sorcerer that takes many of the most powerful options in phb/dmg/mm1/srd

http://www.thetangledweb.net/forums/profiler/view_char.php?cid=4511

This was helpful, I've actually addressed many of these issues, but there are certainly more to look at. Thank you.


If you discount the more extreme TO tricks, what breaks D&D is a significant discrepancy in player power. Basically anything else the DM can deal with fairly easily, simply by adjusting challenges. The trick is to get your players to play at about the same optimization level.
Oh. I don't believe you're going about it the right way, but the individual components that definitely need fixing:
Open-ended things: The planar Binding line (and Gate, their big brother), the polymorphic line (Alter Self, Polymorph, Polymorph Any Object, Shapechange, and anything similar - such as the Druid's Wildshape), Simulacrum (and anything similar, such as Ice Assasin).
Methods of bypassing costs (e.g., Wish is fine of itself - really it is; however, when you can get around the XP costs, it becomes very, very broken)
Action economy breakers (Time Stop, the Celerity line, and similar)
Minionomancy (being able to have a very large number of bodies under your control gets broken fast)

With polymorphic magic, I'm familiar with three basic routes that have a reasonable chance of actually balancing them:

1) Illusion+Selectable buffs. When you turn your friend the rogue into a hydra, you don't actually turn him into a hydra; you make him look like a hydra, and pick some number of buffs to apply to him off of a list (what buffs, and how good, depend on the spell and possibly the caster level; this can be balanced around what buffs are available, and gives a fixed list of abilities you can add to the target).

2) Variant Summoning. When you turn your friend the rogue into a hydra, it's not your friend the rogue in the shape of a hydra, it's a hydra under your friend's direction. For the duration, the rogue player puts his character sheet away, and uses the monster manual entry for the Hydra (minus problematic abilities, such as spells, spell-like abilities, and anything that duplicates something with an XP or GP cost when it's a spell). This can be balanced around the CR of the creature.

3) Limited options. Each polymorphic spell has a fixed list of creatures (possibly consisting of a single creature) that it can turn the target into. Rather than having Polymorph, you've got Dragonshape, Trollshape, Canineshape, et cetera. By cutting down the options, you can look at the specific available forms, and balance the spell around what you can do with that.

Note that late version D&D 3.5 actually attempted all three of these to some degree. For instance, the Bite of the Were-X line of spells are a combination of 1 and 3 (Spell Compendium, page 28-29); the Planar Exchange line (Spell compendium page 159) are a combination of 2 and 3.

Thanks, I've addressed, or am addressing most of what you've listed. I appreciate the feedback and suggestions.





My goal isn't pages and pages of fixes and house rules, but some simple fixes and Fixed base classes that go along way to avoiding such problems. The aim is a fairly simple and concentrated Fix that is easily applicable and still keeps the vast majority of material available.

[jindra34]

My goal isn't pages and pages of fixes and house rules, but some simple fixes and Fixed base classes that go along way to avoiding such problems. The aim is a fairly simple and concentrated Fix that is easily applicable and still keeps the vast majority of material available.

Other than going through character sheets and establishing an understanding with players, that isn't possible for 3.X DnD. Just too much stuff with too many potential combinations to get everything with out either cutting it down massively, or a massive list of house rules. Your trying to tie down an elephant with only a single spool of fishing line, its just not going to work.

[Gavinfoxx]

Other than going through character sheets and establishing an understanding with players, that isn't possible for 3.X DnD. Just too much stuff with too many potential combinations to get everything with out either cutting it down massively, or a massive list of house rules. Your trying to tie down an elephant with only a single spool of fishing line, its just not going to work.

Agreed. The only way is pages and pages of fixes and house rules if you actually want to fix D&D 3.5e... or play another game entirely. It is too inherently broken. Really, try Legend!

[Zman]

Other than going through character sheets and establishing an understanding with players, that isn't possible for 3.X DnD. Just too much stuff with too many potential combinations to get everything with out either cutting it down massively, or a massive list of house rules. Your trying to tie down an elephant with only a single spool of fishing line, its just not going to work.


Agreed. The only way is pages and pages of fixes and house rules if you actually want to fix D&D 3.5e... or play another game entirely. It is too inherently broken. Really, try Legend!


Then all I ask is that you humor me in my futile attempt.

List the combinations that come to the top of your head.

[Arcanist]

One of the big cheese shenanigans a Sorcerer can pull off is infinite damage loops with Arcane Fusion/Greater Arcane Fusion, looping with Sanctum versions of the AF/GAF spells and some damage spell.


A sanctum spell has an effective spell level 1 higher than its normal level if cast in your sanctum (see below), but if not cast in the sanctum, the spell has an effective spell level 1 lower than normal. All effects dependent on spell level (including save DCs) are calculated according to the adjusted level.

A sanctum spell uses a spell slot of the spell’s normal level.

Hmm... This is indeed weird :smallconfused: On one hand: It uses the spell level of the original spell... on the other hand: All effects dependent on spell level are calculated as the adjusted level...

This is actually an interesting paradox with no reasonable resolution... Unless someone has an errata they are willing to pull out there bum.

[Gavinfoxx]

Then all I ask is that you humor me in my futile attempt.

List the combinations that come to the top of your head.

Its all in the Test of Spite ban list.

[GenericMook]

Hmm... This is indeed weird :smallconfused: On one hand: It uses the spell level of the original spell... on the other hand: All effects dependent on spell level are calculated as the adjusted level...

This is actually an interesting paradox with no reasonable resolution... Unless someone has an errata they are willing to pull out there bum.

I'm no expert on caster shenanigans, but that's what I sorta understood from when one of my friends pulled me off. I should probably do some google-fu on the matter.

Edit: From my understanding, it's because you're not using a spell slot for the Sanctum'd version of AF. Applying Sanctum Spell to GAF/AF results in a 7th/4th-level versions of GAF/AF which, according to the spell description, allow one 7th/4th-level and 4th/1st-level spell. Hence, infinite damage loops with 4th-level spells or something silly like Magic Missile.

Edit 2: Inverse Edit Swordsage'd

[jindra34]

Hmm... This is indeed weird :smallconfused: On one hand: It uses the spell level of the original spell... on the other hand: All effects dependent on spell level are calculated as the adjusted level...

This is actually an interesting paradox with no reasonable resolution... Unless someone has an errata they are willing to pull out there bum.

Sanctum Spells use a SLOT of the same level. While they gain a bonus when cast within the area you chose as a sanctum, they count lower outside of the sanctum. And as Arcane Fusion bases it off of spell level and not spell slot...

[Arcanist]

Sanctum Spells use a SLOT of the same level. While they gain a bonus when cast within the area you chose as a sanctum, they count lower outside of the sanctum. And as Arcane Fusion bases it off of spell level and not spell slot...

"All effects dependent on spell level (including save DCs) are calculated according to the adjusted level." The spell is not a lower level, but its effects are calculated as if it were.

I'd like to note: This is not my argument this is someone else's that I found mentioned on this forum once upon a time. I am neither for or against this. If anything, I like my game to have rules that are clearly written out and make sense (a little bit like Pathfinder actually).

[GenericMook]

"All effects dependent on spell level (including save DCs) are calculated according to the adjusted level." The spell is not a lower level, but its effects are calculated as if it were.

I'd like to note: This is not my argument this is someone else's that I found mentioned on this forum once upon a time. I am neither for or against this. If anything, I like my game to have rules that are clearly written out and make sense (a little bit like Pathfinder actually).

Except that Arcane Fusion/Greater Arcane Fusion doesn't have any spell effects dependent on levels.

[nedz]

Then all I ask is that you humor me in my futile attempt.

List the combinations that come to the top of your head.

Every group has their own ban list.

The Test of Spite stuff, please correct me if I'm wrong, was designed for high OP arena style one on one combats. T1's are not banned here.

Other groups ban T1s, or T1s+T2s, or as JaronK suggested only allow T3 and T4 (this banning T1, T2, T5 and T6).

Other groups ban everything except T1.

Many ban Psionics — though that's not usually for balance reasons.

Some just ban Vancian casting.

Some don't ban anything.

Others use the Gentleman's Agreement approach — there were a couple of threads about that recently.

It really depends entirely on your group, i.e. the Players, and the sort of game you are trying to run.

What you should be aiming for is a balanced group so something like
All Angel Summoners OR All BMX Bandits.
What you want to avoid is the group with Angel Summoners AND BMX Bandits.

[Jack_Simth]

Every group has their own ban list.

The Test of Spite stuff, please correct me if I'm wrong, was designed for high OP arena style one on one combats. T1's are not banned here.

Other groups ban T1s, or T1s+T2s, or as JaronK suggested only allow T3 and T4 (this banning T1, T2, T5 and T6).

Other groups ban everything except T1.

Many ban Psionics — though that's not usually for balance reasons.

Some just ban Vancian casting.

Some don't ban anything.

Others use the Gentleman's Agreement approach — there were a couple of threads about that recently.

It really depends entirely on your group, i.e. the Players, and the sort of game you are trying to run.

What you should be aiming for is a balanced group so something like
All Angel Summoners OR All BMX Bandits.
What you want to avoid is the group with Angel Summoners AND BMX Bandits.

It's been a while since I saw a reference to That Skit (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbzUfV3_JIA).

[Arcanist]

Except that Arcane Fusion/Greater Arcane Fusion doesn't have any spell effects dependent on levels.

Yes, but the spells casted through it do.

[Endarire]

What breaks D&D is what breaks any system: Ample research. (This also goes for people who stumble upon things accidentally.)

[Gnomish Wanderer]

I'd have to agree that I really don't think damage output affects game balance at all. If one of my players does 3x more damage than normal, suddenly my monsters all have 150% more health than normal. It doesn't really affect the game in that manner.

Like has been said, what breaks the game more than anything else is the spells. They're too versatile, too high powered, too useful.

[The LOBster]

Like everyone else said, it's spells. Of course, most of those spells wouldn't be so overpowered if it weren't for Monte Cook trying on purpose to make Wizards monstrously overpowered because they're his all-time favorite class...

[nedz]

Like everyone else said, it's spells. Of course, most of those spells wouldn't be so overpowered if it weren't for Monte Cook trying on purpose to make Wizards monstrously overpowered because they're his all-time favorite class...

And we have the answer — we just need to adjust the question :smalltongue:

[Zman]

I'd have to agree that I really don't think damage output affects game balance at all. If one of my players does 3x more damage than normal, suddenly my monsters all have 150% more health than normal. It doesn't really affect the game in that manner.

Like has been said, what breaks the game more than anything else is the spells. They're too versatile, too high powered, too useful.

If you have to adjust Monster Hbyte 150% then it is inherently unbalancing the game. It comes down to many classes couldn't keep up with the damage some classes and combinations can pump out. That is by definition imbalanced.

I agree, spells are the largest culprit, but Damage can't simply be ignored and the general consensus of increasing damage output to make NonCasters more worthwhile is erroneous and it just further upsets balance in a different direction.

[Immabozo]

What breaks D&D the most? Players.

no, players with time to kill break the game. Players with no spare time, usually get the class done more or less as intended.

[limejuicepowder]

For several months now I've kept a file called "rule changes" that I keep adding to over time, as I think of or come across new "problems."

My main philosophy when it comes to changes is "wider, not narrower." That is, don't fix problem characters/strategies by nerfing those options; make other things more attractive.

Obviously, some things are beyond redemption and must be dropped. But I'd like to keep this to a minimum.

My full list of changes is here, and I'd love to hear what anyone had to say about them.


Major Changes
-Melee attack rolls key off of Dex or Str, whichever is higher
-Characters add 1/2 of their base attack bonus to their AC whenever they are aware of the attack as an untyped bonus
-Spells of level 7 and higher are not automatically available to learn. Higher level spell slots are still gained to be use for metamagic, etc.
-Sneak Attack and skirmish applies to all enemies, not just those susceptible to precision damage
-Fighters may select any combat or skill oriented feat with their bonus feats
-Every character gets a combat maneuver pool equal to their BaB. Spending a point allows the character to make a standard action full attack, or perform a special combat action without drawing a AoO (trip, bullrush, sunder, disarm, etc). Only 1 point can be spent each round, and the pool replenishes each day.

Minor Changes
-Increase the armor bonus of all medium armors by 1 and all heavy armors by 2
-Wearing medium armor only decreases the wearer's speed by 5 rather then 10 ft (when speed is affected in other cases and the penalty for medium or heavy armor is normally greater then 10 ft, halve the difference between light and heavy to find the medium armor penalty)
-double the armor benefit of all shields
-only mindless undead are immune to fear effects
-DR stacks; if a creature has multiple sources of DR, each of them apply
-orb of X and the lessor versions are evocation spells, not conjuration

Feat Changes
-Weapon Finesse is dropped as a prereq in all instances
-The bonus granted by Dodge now applies to all enimies and is combined in to a single feat with Mobility. Taking this feat will meet any prereqs that call for either or both. If another ability only applies to the target of the dodge feat, choose a target that ability as normal but the +1 dodge bonus still applies to all enemies
-Toughness is replaced by Improved Toughness, and Improved Toughness' prereq is waved
-Run and endurance are now one feat
-Combat Casting and Manifestation is replaced with Skill Focus (concentration)
-Proficiency is no longer a feat. Characters may spend 3 skill points to gain proficiency with a weapon or armor
-All races gain automatic proficiency with all racial weapons and armor matching their race
-Power attack applies the more favorable 2:1 ratio for one-handed weapons, but only for weapons held in the main hand

Edit: Oh the other thing I'm considering is increasing skill points for all classes to a minimum of 4+int.

[ngilop]

Vancian casting mainly.

There are individual spells which are problematic, but the ability to swap and change what are the most powerful tools available adds flexibility and thus enables characters to prepare to trivialise any threat.

Most of the T1's feature this mechanic, and all of the more common ones.

Well its not actual vancian casting.

Those casters only knew a handful of spells at a time, for for Actual vancian casters think a warlock, except he is only allowed to use hsi (up to 12 total) invocations once a day.


to me the easiest way to tell if something 'breaks' a game it to look at it and determine if it renders another class moot.

as for high damage amounts breaking the game, everybody has their own idea fo how much damage is game breaking.

Jaronk and Zman evidenlty have different ideas on how much damage is too much at what level.

I am on Zman's side more so here, while i think that a melee gettign 150+ dmg at lvl 6 is crazy, the same one doing that kind of damage at 10th-12th is not such a big deal to me.

[Zman]

For several months now I've kept a file called "rule changes" that I keep adding to over time, as I think of or come across new "problems."

My main philosophy when it comes to changes is "wider, not narrower." That is, don't fix problem characters/strategies by nerfing those options; make other things more attractive.

Obviously, some things are beyond redemption and must be dropped. But I'd like to keep this to a minimum.

My full list of changes is here, and I'd love to hear what anyone had to say about them.


Major Changes
-Melee attack rolls key off of Dex or Str, whichever is higher
-Characters add 1/2 of their base attack bonus to their AC whenever they are aware of the attack as an untyped bonus
-Spells of level 7 and higher are not automatically available to learn. Higher level spell slots are still gained to be use for metamagic, etc.
-Sneak Attack and skirmish applies to all enemies, not just those susceptible to precision damage
-Fighters may select any combat or skill oriented feat with their bonus feats
-Every character gets a combat maneuver pool equal to their BaB. Spending a point allows the character to make a standard action full attack, or perform a special combat action without drawing a AoO (trip, bullrush, sunder, disarm, etc). Only 1 point can be spent each round, and the pool replenishes each day.

Minor Changes
-Increase the armor bonus of all medium armors by 1 and all heavy armors by 2
-Wearing medium armor only decreases the wearer's speed by 5 rather then 10 ft (when speed is affected in other cases and the penalty for medium or heavy armor is normally greater then 10 ft, halve the difference between light and heavy to find the medium armor penalty)
-double the armor benefit of all shields
-only mindless undead are immune to fear effects
-DR stacks; if a creature has multiple sources of DR, each of them apply
-orb of X and the lessor versions are evocation spells, not conjuration

Feat Changes
-Weapon Finesse is dropped as a prereq in all instances
-The bonus granted by Dodge now applies to all enimies and is combined in to a single feat with Mobility. Taking this feat will meet any prereqs that call for either or both. If another ability only applies to the target of the dodge feat, choose a target that ability as normal but the +1 dodge bonus still applies to all enemies
-Toughness is replaced by Improved Toughness, and Improved Toughness' prereq is waved
-Run and endurance are now one feat
-Combat Casting and Manifestation is replaced with Skill Focus (concentration)
-Proficiency is no longer a feat. Characters may spend 3 skill points to gain proficiency with a weapon or armor
-All races gain automatic proficiency with all racial weapons and armor matching their race
-Power attack applies the more favorable 2:1 ratio for one-handed weapons, but only for weapons held in the main hand

Edit: Oh the other thing I'm considering is increasing skill points for all classes to a minimum of 4+int.


Not a bad start and much of what I've done and am working on is similar in principal to your changes.

If you are interested check out my class fixes.



Well its not actual vancian casting.

Those casters only knew a handful of spells at a time, for for Actual vancian casters think a warlock, except he is only allowed to use hsi (up to 12 total) invocations once a day.


to me the easiest way to tell if something 'breaks' a game it to look at it and determine if it renders another class moot.

as for high damage amounts breaking the game, everybody has their own idea fo how much damage is game breaking.

Jaronk and Zman evidenlty have different ideas on how much damage is too much at what level.

I am on Zman's side more so here, while i think that a melee gettign 150+ dmg at lvl 6 is crazy, the same one doing that kind of damage at 10th-12th is not such a big deal to me.

See, even 150 damage at lvl10-12 is pretty high and can be imbalancing. A rule of thumb i use is they shouldnt be one shotting a CR equivalent melee enemy and a 1-2d6/level per hit-per round as a guideline. A CR 11 Cloud Giant has 178 HP and a CR 10 Fire Giant 144 and IMO shouldn't be one shotted by a character when they are CR appropriate for a party of four at their level.

Currently, CR means little and high damage builds can one shot just about anything on the charge which IMO sounds pretty imbalanced to me.

[ZeroNumerous]

I agree, spells are the largest culprit, but Damage can't simply be ignored and the general consensus of increasing damage output to make NonCasters more worthwhile is erroneous and it just further upsets balance in a different direction.

I've honestly never met anyone who wants to take a serious stab at fixing up non-casters suggest increasing damage. Because the people who know non-casters are broken also know damage is irrelevant.

If your groups only problem is that they deal so much damage they one-shot equal CR enemies, then your easy fix is adding more enemies. You should only pit a solo creature against a party when it has tactics to mitigate their numbers, because otherwise the party will stomp all over it due to action economy. And frankly they should stomp all over one creature, because four guys with supernatural powers shouldn't have any trouble ganging up on one guy with them.

[Zman]

I've honestly never met anyone who wants to take a serious stab at fixing up non-casters suggest increasing damage. Because the people who know non-casters are broken also know damage is irrelevant.

If your groups only problem is that they deal so much damage they one-shot equal CR enemies, then your easy fix is adding more enemies. You should only pit a solo creature against a party when it has tactics to mitigate their numbers, because otherwise the party will stomp all over it due to action economy. And frankly they should stomp all over one creature, because four guys with supernatural powers shouldn't have any trouble ganging up on one guy with them.

Most class Fixes and Homebrew I look at drastically inflate the numbers and damage potential as if that is what's missing.

I've already put work into limiting casters in terms of raw power and versatility, many of the broken spells, as well as adding flexibility and power where it's needed. This includes delaying most and removing some upper level power, fixing some of the worst culprit spells, and increasing the cost of adding spells to a Spellbook. I've got a start. I'm looking for feedback and ideas on what to curtail. The goal isn't to simply balance casters, but to take a multifasceted approach. Even as I write this it sparked another idea.

[Gavinfoxx]

There are some homebrew areas that DO help things...

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=174628

Look at how these change both the casters and the noncasters... they push everyone towards a roughly Tier 3 area...

[Zman]

There are some homebrew areas that DO help things...

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=174628

Look at how these change both the casters and the noncasters... they push everyone towards a roughly Tier 3 area...

Thank you for posting this again. Some of the class fixes are good, some aren't. Many are large reinvisionings that are vastly different then their originals, some even slap ToB on. Either way, most arent inline with my vision.

[jindra34]

Thank you for posting this again. Some of the class fixes are good, some aren't. Many are large reinvisionings that are vastly different then their originals, some even slap ToB on. Either way, most arent inline with my vision.

It still shows what at a bare minimum needs to be fixed. Again Hotfixing doesn't work for 3.X. Your going to have to change some of the basic principals of what the game is to fix it. But let me ask you this: What precisely is your vision? A balanced game that plays like 3.X? A form of 3.X that is balanced but keeps all the mechanics the same? A form of 3.X that manages to bring everything on par without altering the nature of any classes? And what critters per CR would you consider useable for assessing balance?

[navar100]

What "breaks" 3E doesn't matter. If you just have to fundamentally change how the game works, if you're constantly worried about any little thing being too powerful, just admit to yourself already you don't like 3E and play something else.

[Zman]

It still shows what at a bare minimum needs to be fixed. Again Hotfixing doesn't work for 3.X. Your going to have to change some of the basic principals of what the game is to fix it. But let me ask you this: What precisely is your vision? A balanced game that plays like 3.X? A form of 3.X that is balanced but keeps all the mechanics the same? A form of 3.X that manages to bring everything on par without altering the nature of any classes? And what critters per CR would you consider useable for assessing balance?

I disagree, hot fixes that are easy to apply and bring things closer to balance. True and complete balance is futile, but certain things can be curtailed and altered towards balance while leaving the vast majority of the material intact. In not looking for perfect balance, just what is better than we have.

I believe you have to use a variety of monsters at each CR and archtype to determine what is CR appropriate. PCs shouldn't out Damage CR monsters by orders of magnitude, nor should they have capabilities vastly beyond them either. If often see PCs soloing one or even two monsters appropriate for a party of four.


What "breaks" 3E doesn't matter. If you just have to fundamentally change how the game works, if you're constantly worried about any little thing being too powerful, just admit to yourself already you don't like 3E and play something else.

I'm not looking to fundamentally change the game and I'm not worried about any little thing. Im looking to create easy to apply fixes that greatly improve gameplay and balance.

Thank you for your unhelpful and unnecessary post.

[Yuukale]

didn't read the thread but I'd like to answer:

The players and the DM. These are the breaking elements of 3.5 =)

[Darius Kane]

didn't read the thread
You should. Second post. You've been mega ninja'd.

[nedz]

You should. Second post. You've been mega ninja'd.

Truenamered even.

[JaronK]

I'm not looking to fundamentally change the game and I'm not worried about any little thing. Im looking to create easy to apply fixes that greatly improve gameplay and balance.

Thank you for your unhelpful and unnecessary post.

And yet people keep telling you this. But okay, let me explain why. Because it's important to know if you want to fix this balance... something we've all tried.

The fundamental imbalance of D&D is that no matter how good they get at it, melee/mundane classes are just hitting things with their weapons until those things are dead. Meanwhile, casters are warping reality to their whims. Even if the Genesis spell didn't allow you to manipulate time traits, that wouldn't change the fact that a 17th level Wizard can create a new home plane of existence for himself just because he feels like it, while a 17th level Fighter... well he just hits things harder and is tougher than he was at 5. They're playing a different game. Plus, the Wizard doesn't have to change his build or his overall choices to do this... he just learns the spell. But a Fighter specializes in one tactic (often charging or archery or tripping or similar) and can't even grab a new tactic if he gets the idea to do so.

So what major change has to happen? Either melee/archery types need to have powers equivalent to the high magic "I alter reality", or the casters need to be heavily toned down so they can't just decide to change the game as needed. I tend to believe the latter is a good idea, because I think this game was based on fantasy stories and books, but many of the stories it's based on don't function due to power levels. Lord of the Rings, D&D style would be stupid... the Wizard would teleport them to mount doom, drop in the ring, and teleport back before the hobbits could even miss elevensies. Smaug would have fallen to a quick "teleport in, nerveskitter to win initiative, quickened spectral hand + maximized shivering touch" attack by a Wizard who functioned like his own one man swat team (and who would only take extra time because he wanted to bring home all that gold). It's that power to play proactively, to say "Ah, I have a challenge... I'll adapt my powers to defeat that challenge" and then actually have powers that just do that, even if the challenge was "I just realized I don't have infinite wishes yet."

Now, you can hot fix the tricks that have been found so far. You can outlaw explosive runes being able to be scribed next to each other so a Wizard can't throw a book of explosive runes under the target and then cast dispel magic at lowered caster level at it to explode it like a devastating claymore mine. And after you've done that, you can make Shrink Item expand slower, because that Wizard just flew above a target (Alter Self into a Raptorian, perhaps) and dropped a pebble on them that turned into a boulder mid flight. But even after you've spent ages banning each of the obviously strongest and least intended Wizard tricks, one thing will remain... the Wizard can still alter reality, and can still change his powers to meet a new challenge, while the melees can do neither. As long as that's true, the game is fundamentally imbalanced.

Which is why rebalancing requires both hot fixes on the super broken stuff and rebalancing of the core concepts. Me, I do things like force Wizards to specialize so they get only one or two schools total, or giving Clerics the ability to cast spontaneously from 5 domains but that's all they get except one spell per day off the main list, or removing Druid casting entirely so they're just Wild Shapers. Maybe you'll have other methods. But you do have to deal with this issue, or it's all for naught.

JaronK

[Zman]

And yet people keep telling you this. But okay, let me explain why. Because it's important to know if you want to fix this balance... something we've all tried.

The fundamental imbalance of D&D is that no matter how good they get at it, melee/mundane classes are just hitting things with their weapons until those things are dead. Meanwhile, casters are warping reality to their whims. Even if the Genesis spell didn't allow you to manipulate time traits, that wouldn't change the fact that a 17th level Wizard can create a new home plane of existence for himself just because he feels like it, while a 17th level Fighter... well he just hits things harder and is tougher than he was at 5. They're playing a different game. Plus, the Wizard doesn't have to change his build or his overall choices to do this... he just learns the spell. But a Fighter specializes in one tactic (often charging or archery or tripping or similar) and can't even grab a new tactic if he gets the idea to do so.

So what major change has to happen? Either melee/archery types need to have powers equivalent to the high magic "I alter reality", or the casters need to be heavily toned down so they can't just decide to change the game as needed. I tend to believe the latter is a good idea, because I think this game was based on fantasy stories and books, but many of the stories it's based on don't function due to power levels. Lord of the Rings, D&D style would be stupid... the Wizard would teleport them to mount doom, drop in the ring, and teleport back before the hobbits could even miss elevensies. Smaug would have fallen to a quick "teleport in, nerveskitter to win initiative, quickened spectral hand + maximized shivering touch" attack by a Wizard who functioned like his own one man swat team (and who would only take extra time because he wanted to bring home all that gold). It's that power to play proactively, to say "Ah, I have a challenge... I'll adapt my powers to defeat that challenge" and then actually have powers that just do that, even if the challenge was "I just realized I don't have infinite wishes yet."

Now, you can hot fix the tricks that have been found so far. You can outlaw explosive runes being able to be scribed next to each other so a Wizard can't throw a book of explosive runes under the target and then cast dispel magic at lowered caster level at it to explode it like a devastating claymore mine. And after you've done that, you can make Shrink Item expand slower, because that Wizard just flew above a target (Alter Self into a Raptorian, perhaps) and dropped a pebble on them that turned into a boulder mid flight. But even after you've spent ages banning each of the obviously strongest and least intended Wizard tricks, one thing will remain... the Wizard can still alter reality, and can still change his powers to meet a new challenge, while the melees can do neither. As long as that's true, the game is fundamentally imbalanced.

Which is why rebalancing requires both hot fixes on the super broken stuff and rebalancing of the core concepts. Me, I do things like force Wizards to specialize so they get only one or two schools total, or giving Clerics the ability to cast spontaneously from 5 domains but that's all they get except one spell per day off the main list, or removing Druid casting entirely so they're just Wild Shapers. Maybe you'll have other methods. But you do have to deal with this issue, or it's all for naught.

JaronK

Why do people assume I don't understand what the core imbalance is? I am making no claims for the perfect fix, but simple fixes that will bring things closer. Maybe not close, but closer.

What I asked for was a list of the biggest problems, and didn't expect to be attacked for asking or making the attempt. I already know what the majority of the problems are, I was looking for more ideas.

For anyone who is interested here is a basic list of what I have been working to re reduce the gap.

Magic
Fixed the biggest culprits, banned a couple, always looking for more.
Made casting spells deal non lethal, or vitality damage equal to spell level.
Reduced Metamagic Abuse

Wizard
Slowed the accumulation of power for Casters after 3rd level spells. Delayed 4th by one level, delayed 5th by two levels, delayed 6th by three levels, delayed 7th by four levels, delayed 8th by five levels and removed 9th level spells from normal 20 level play.
Slowed Automatic Spell Progression.
Greatly increased the cost of learning new spells(Which is also intended to be coupled with a WBL reduction).
50gp x spell level x spell level.

Clerics
Slowed casting Progression as Wizard
Removed one flexible spell per day, added second domain spell per day.

Druid
Forced to chose Good, Average, and Poor for Spellcasting, Wildshape, and Animal Companion.
Slowed Good Casting Progression as Wizard

Other classes have been given an increase in versatility and combat options, goal was to bring them to Tier 3-4.

What I am working on...

Helping the MAD/SAD Balance
Alternate Point buy that limits the gap of MAD/SAD
Differen Inherent Bonuses(Minimized Tomes, Scewed Level Dependent Increase, double bonus for lowest 3 stats)

Reduced WBL
Skill Modification
Boost to Ranged Attacks(Dex to Damage)
Wound/Vitality, mostly UA alternative
LA fix bases upon XP penalty.


I know my proposed fixes and work will not fix all of the problems, but will help delay and reduce them. Yes a Wizard is going to be versatile and powerful, but the aim is to reduce and delay their highest end power, remove/fix their most broken spells, and make expanding their spellbooks much more costly all of which will help keep them in check. If this can be coupled with making improving MAD/SAD balance and making the other classes more versatile it will go along way to helping.

[navar100]

I'm not looking to fundamentally change the game and I'm not worried about any little thing. Im looking to create easy to apply fixes that greatly improve gameplay and balance.

Thank you for your unhelpful and unnecessary post.

You're welcome. Glad I could be of service.

[jindra34]

The wizards power isn't just high-end at late game, and the same is true for pretty much every other high-end class. To cut down the power you would have to review pretty much every spell other than the cure/inflict lines and level 2 or lower evocations. And all those adjustments (even for core) will be of massive length when combined. Exiting core will only make things worse and more complicated to assess because you have to start measuring combinations. Your changes (especially with cut WBL) barely nick the differential. And where they do they push high end monsters very favorably.

[Tr011]

You know, damage doesn't break D&D. At the worst case, a charger just kills all enemies within his reach on the charge. But smart enemies can easily spoil charges (via difficult terrain, getting behind things, spreading out, flying, etc).

Not every enemy should be smart and not every enemy should be played smart. I think playing monsters the best way they can destroys the flavor.

@jindra34: Core is in my experience much more unbalanced than most of the non-core stuff. If you play Tome of Magic casters you don't break anything and Tome of Battle mundanes are really good balanced, while druids and clerics and wizards are just broken overpowered. A truenamer and a wizard are a much better balanced team than a wizard and a paladin, although they got kind of the same flavor.

[jindra34]

@jindra34: Core is in my experience much more unbalanced than most of the non-core stuff. If you play Tome of Magic casters you don't break anything and Tome of Battle mundanes are really good balanced, while druids and clerics and wizards are just broken overpowered. A truenamer and a wizard are a much better balanced team than a wizard and a paladin, although they got kind of the same flavor.

Yes but you need core to play any of that other stuff. And it all adds more checks you have to make for each and every feat, skill, class feature, or spell. And doing that for core alone is a major pain that will take a while. Doing it for the whole 3.X set from Wizards is a several YEAR project. Including 3rd party stuff and you might as well be planning to do it for the rest of your life.

[Zman]

The wizards power isn't just high-end at late game, and the same is true for pretty much every other high-end class. To cut down the power you would have to review pretty much every spell other than the cure/inflict lines and level 2 or lower evocations. And all those adjustments (even for core) will be of massive length when combined. Exiting core will only make things worse and more complicated to assess because you have to start measuring combinations. Your changes (especially with cut WBL) barely nick the differential. And where they do they push high end monsters very favorably.

Well based upon the fixes I've worked on so far the Wizard is less likely to start with an 18 Int, starts feeling the reduced spells by lvl 3, notices the reduced power by 7, really notices the delayed power by 9th and is less powerful than a Standard 15th level wizard by 20. Combined with less or delayed Int from items, and not being able to boost DCs by another 2 or 3 with Inherent Bonuses it seems like a start and much more than just affecting high end power.

Edit: Oh, and he'll be taking some NonLethal Damage to cast spells. Late Game having a 2-3 lower DC, less items(even vs non Wizards as he has to spend more on spells) seems like it will make a difference.

I don't need to rewrite every spell or consider every spell combination, but simply make it more difficult for Wizards to get a wide breadth of spells and delay and reduce their high end power. Its not perfect, but its certainly closer than Standard .

And maybe, just maybe, most High Level Monsters won't be a joke and be an actual challenge for the party making CR a fraction more usable.

[Tr011]

Well based upon the fixes I've worked on so far the Wizard is less likely to start with an 18 Int, starts feeling the reduced spells by lvl 3, notices the reduced power by 7, really notices the delayed power by 9th and is less powerful than a Standard 15th level wizard by 20. Combined with less or delayed Int from items, and not being able to boost DCs by another 2 or 3 with Inherent Bonuses it seems like a start and much more than just affecting high end power.

Seems like the usual problem with homebrew "fixes" for spellcasting: Anybody who really wants to play that powerful wizard caster will still be able to do it. Of course, he will have less spells per day and not so strong spell levels, but he can still rock the house hardcore. And by hardcore, I mean there is no reason for him not to succeed at anything he wants to do.

Meanwhile, any flavorful build wizard that is not going for doing the best with his ressources is punished hard. As in way too hard because his spells are way too weak and his spell pool is too small to survive the combats.

[jindra34]

Edit: Oh, and he'll be taking some NonLethal Damage to cast spells. Late Game having a 2-3 lower DC, less items(even vs non Wizards as he has to spend more on spells) seems like it will make a difference.

I don't need to rewrite every spell or consider every spell combination, but simply make it more difficult for Wizards to get a wide breadth of spells and delay and reduce their high end power. Its not perfect, but its certainly closer than Standard .

And maybe, just maybe, most High Level Monsters won't be a joke and be an actual challenge for the party making CR a fraction more usable.

When trying to balance the core casters (except maybe the Bard, maybe) its not enough to just remove the absolute high end. You have to significantly more, as in core even the basic, blasty evocations out do almost everyone who doesn't cast. And those are close to the LOW end of the board. And you can't strip the game of them with out having to rejudge the entire CR system, because that was built around that. Which means on a fundemental level EVERYTHING more useful then those evocations breaks the game on some level. And Non-Lethal damage? We take an hour's rest and that is gone, so its not really going to do much more than the casting caps other than make the adventuring day longer.

[Zman]

Seems like the usual problem with homebrew "fixes" for spellcasting: Anybody who really wants to play that powerful wizard caster will still be able to do it. Of course, he will have less spells per day and not so strong spell levels, but he can still rock the house hardcore. And by hardcore, I mean there is no reason for him not to succeed at anything he wants to do.

Meanwhile, any flavorful build wizard that is not going for doing the best with his ressources is punished hard. As in way too hard because his spells are way too weak and his spell pool is too small to survive the combats.

I disagree, flavorful non optimized Wizards will perform basically where they did before, and still outperform Sorcerers. Heck, even a nerfed "flavorful" Wizard will still have a huge assortment of tools available to him. Granted, he won't solo every encounter, but will still be able to contribute in a meaningful way. Seems ok to me.


When trying to balance the core casters (except maybe the Bard, maybe) its not enough to just remove the absolute high end. You have to significantly more, as in core even the basic, blasty evocations out do almost everyone who doesn't cast. And those are close to the LOW end of the board. And you can't strip the game of them with out having to rejudge the entire CR system, because that was built around that. Which means on a fundemental level EVERYTHING more useful then those evocations breaks the game on some level. And Non-Lethal damage? We take an hour's rest and that is gone, so its not really going to do much more than the casting caps other than make the adventuring day longer.

Blasty evocations don't make a Caster good, if you think so then you greatly underestimate the other classes and the true power of a Wizard. Compared to what many classes are capable of, a d6/lvl just isn't that much damage and if it was, Warmages would be good, not Tier 4. I didn't strip the game of Blasty evocation, in fact I'd like to make it more viable. The CR system was certainly not designed off of casters, but a multitude of classes, and casters were certainly under estimated when factored into CR. Saying removing 9th level spell, of which most can break the game, invalidates CR is erroneous.

And non lethal damage is indeed significant, an Int optimized caster with mediocre Con now runs the risk of being taken out and knocked unconscious if they start casting spells or take damage. Again, making casters a bit easier to take out, and making them think about higher level spells and their spell usage. It's an encounter balance, not a day balance. Want to sling around quickened and Standard spells, you can't do it for long.

So, what both of you are trying to say is that these fixes don't limit a Casters power in any way, nor do the help class balance or help make CR more meaningful?

[jindra34]

So, what both of you are trying to say is that these fixes don't limit a Casters power in any way, nor do the help class balance or help make CR more meaningful?

They do help balance casters. An itty bitty bit in the long run. Unfortunately it isn't an issue of casters starting weak and getting strong. They start strong and then gain the ability to render others obselete quickly, and keep getting stronger from there. Also on blasty spells, A HIGHLY Optimized core only fighter can reliably only hit about 4-5d6 + 10-20ish per round. A rogue getting lucky, maybe 10d6 plus a few, and maybe twice. That makes blasty spells start to look good.

[Tr011]

And non lethal damage is indeed significant, an Int optimized caster with mediocre Con now runs the risk of being taken out and knocked unconscious if they start casting spells or take damage. Again, making casters a bit easier to take out, and making them think about higher level spells and their spell usage.
An optimized caster, as in the best way of playing a caster, is at range and untouchable. Such a caster will still watch his HP and have 5,5hp/lvl at lower levels and 9,5hp/lvl at higher levels (think of d4 and 16 con early and a +6 enhancement bonus later with d6-d10 because of PrCing). If the nonlethal damage doesn't kill him, it won't matter. A roguish wizard that's PrCing into daggerspell mage or something and backstabs people with daggers after casting GMW and Darkness will be hurt badly because of the damage and fall with ease. So you definitely hurt the wrong ones.


It's an encounter balance, not a day balance. Want to sling around quickened and Standard spells, you can't do it for long.

So, what both of you are trying to say is that these fixes don't limit a Casters power in any way, nor do the help class balance or help make CR more meaningful?
A wizard that is breaking the encounters wins by casting a single spell, two at most. Those won't even be scratched by reducing the spell slots per day. Meanwhile a caster that uses inferior tactics casts tons of spells without mattering too much. Such casters will be unplayable.

[Zman]

They do help balance casters. An itty bitty bit in the long run. Unfortunately it isn't an issue of casters starting weak and getting strong. They start strong and then gain the ability to render others obselete quickly, and keep getting stronger from there. Also on blasty spells, A HIGHLY Optimized core only fighter can reliably only hit about 4-5d6 + 10-20ish per round. A rogue getting lucky, maybe 10d6 plus a few, and maybe twice. That makes blasty spells start to look good.

Why Core only? And even (2d6 +15 +PA?(2-40)) x(2x.2) for four attacks is greater than 70(20d6) Damage and fairly close without. Seems like they looked at it as a balance point to me. Granted there are a lot of other factors, but currently Blasty casters are certainly less powerful and less capable of dealing damage than they could be and in the current environment incapable of dealing competitive damage. It one of the reason I use a 1-2d6/lvl as a rough gauge for power and damage output per attack or per turn.

And most casters not using sleep or color spray at low levels aren't starting that strong.




An optimized caster, as in the best way of playing a caster, is at range and untouchable. Such a caster will still watch his HP and have 5,5hp/lvl at lower levels and 9,5hp/lvl at higher levels (think of d4 and 16 con early and a +6 enhancement bonus later with d6-d10 because of PrCing). If the nonlethal damage doesn't kill him, it won't matter. A roguish wizard that's PrCing into daggerspell mage or something and backstabs people with daggers after casting GMW and Darkness will be hurt badly because of the damage and fall with ease. So you definitely hurt the wrong ones.


A wizard that is breaking the encounters wins by casting a single spell, two at most. Those won't even be scratched by reducing the spell slots per day. Meanwhile a caster that uses inferior tactics casts tons of spells without mattering too much. Such casters will be unplayable.

A 16 Con and 18 Int are really good. But, being untouchable will be more difficult with my current fixes, not impossible, just more difficult. A +6 will be harder to come by with less wealth, and certainly not before later levels. And if they have to dedicate that much of their resources to HP, that is less wealth they have for those pricy spells, and other items they need or could use. Seems to be a balancing factor to me.

Darkness and GMw aren't really breaking the Rogue with HP, 5 Non Lethal damage...

Letting single spells win entire encounters is something I'm trying to avoid. And it really won't make less than optimize unplayable, not at all.

You've pretty much said there are optimized casters which still "I Win" and unoptimized casters which "I am unplayable". Generalize much? Oversimplify?

[nedz]

Letting single spells win entire encounters is something I'm trying to avoid. And it really won't make less than optimize unplayable, not at all.

This is a list of the usual suspects, but you probably know all of these

Celerity
Arcane Fusion (et al)
Timestop
Calling spells (Planar Binding, Gate)
Enhance Wild Shape
Polymorph
Shapechange
Alterself
Foresight
Shivering Touch
Streamers
Ice Assassin

[jindra34]

This is a list of the usual suspects, but you probably know all of these

Celerity
Arcane Fusion (et al)
Timestop
Calling spells (Planar Binding, Gate)
Enhance Wild Shape
Polymorph
Shapechange
Alterself
Foresight
Shivering Touch
Streamers
Ice Assassin
Thats only the highest tier of spells.
The next one includes all death, charm, dominate, and if well played illusion spells.

[Zman]

This is a list of the usual suspects, but you probably know all of these

Celerity
Arcane Fusion (et al)
Timestop
Calling spells (Planar Binding, Gate)
Enhance Wild Shape
Polymorph
Shapechange
Alterself
Foresight
Shivering Touch
Streamers
Ice Assassin


Foresight, Stremers, Ice Assassin. Thanks, missed those.

[Eldest]

A couple of points. First, lowered Wealth By Level is considered by me and (I believe) by the community to hurt mundane characters more than it hurts spellcasters. You mentioned that a +6 will be harder to get. A barbarian wants two +6s, Strength and Constitution, and it needs those two stats more than the wizard does. Further, the barbarian needs to keep a very nice magical weapon on hand, as well as armor. The wizard *might* want these things for various abilities, such as initiative boosting, but doesn't need them. Then the barbarian needs some way to get around, such as flight. The wizard can just use a spell slot on Overland Flight. I could provide more examples, but I'd rather move on to the next few points.
Second, lowering wizard's spell slots makes them more stingy with spells. A wizard would then use a spell on something that gives a fantastic bonus, like the aforementioned Overland Flight, and help out the party less. By lowering the number of spells a wizard can cast, you are suggesting that they focus on the very, very good spells. While you are trying to remove most of those spells, that only means that the spellcasters will try to find the best spells you have left them.
Third and lastly, what of the gish? Somebody that only casts some spells? A bard doesn't really have broken spellcasting, and yet they're going to get hammered by any general ban or alteration to the magic system. A wizard/rouge/daggerspell mage (like an above poster mentioned) is punished for trying to cast spells in melee, like his character is designed to do, because you would be changing the entire spell system.

Finally, I'm going to recap what a lot of people have said. You're trying to find a quick fix for D&D's imbalances. All the people who have been pointing out there isn't one? It's cause they've been looking for one too. For a long, long time. So instead, I'll link you to a few places on this site that might be of interest to you. First, Jiriku made a list of general changes (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=210623) to the ruleset that you might want to look at. You also might want to look at the various classes (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10523436&postcount=110) he has made. Second, here is a compilation of various fixes and revamps (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=236469) of core classes and a few other classes, like the Warlock. And third, here is something (http://www.ruleofcool.com/get-the-game/) you might want to look at to see what they have done with magic, and to crib ideas from.

[Tar Palantir]

Additional spells that are at least potent enough to consider (starting from the bottom and working up, SRD only):

Grease
Color Spray
Sleep
Charm Person
Silent Image (and all its derivatives, and pretty much any Illusion [figment] spell at all; seriously, they're a lot rougher than they seem at first glance)
Glitterdust
Web
Mirror Image
Rope Trick
Knock
Sepia Snake Sigil
Stinking Cloud
Hold Person
Suggestion
Deep Slumber
Wind Wall
Displacement
Ray of Exhaustion
Blink
Shrink Item
Black tentacles
Solid Fog
Dimension door
Scrying
Charm Monster
Shadow Conjuration/Evocation (and their derivatives)
Bestow Curse
Enervation

That's just up through fourth level, and only off the sorc/wiz list. All of these spells require at the very least serious review, and at worst total rewrites. Some of them end entire encounters, others obviate whole character classes, others subvert fundamental limiting factors, and some are just extremely potent effects. Additionally, reducing WBL is the wrong way to go about improving balance. The top tier classes and the least gear dependent classes are all the same classes. Fighters need weapons and armor, they need items to fly, to see invis, to protect against debilitating effects like paralysis, mind control, and fear, and to do basically anything else that needs doing besides damage. Wizards can do perfectly adequately with just their spellbook (Int-boosters are a big deal, but a Wizard can live without one more easily than the fighter can without Str/Con boosters), and a cleric can do perfectly fine with a wooden holy symbol and the clothes on his back. With more money, casters use money to solve problems without wasting magic, and mundanes use money to solve problems they couldn't have dealt with at all without it. Money helps mundanes a lot more than it does casters.

EDIT: swordsage'd on second point

[Gavinfoxx]

You want to reduce wbl for everyone who is a caster, and increase wbl for everyone who isn't.

[Arbane]

One thing that would be good is way to make save-or-cry spells a lot less 'all or nothing'. Characters get hitpoints which provide a buffer between 'fine' and 'dead', why don't we have something similar between 'fine' and 'mind controlled/petrified/asleep'? Tome of Battle gives a few tricks for autopassing saves or shrugging off bad effects....

[JustinA]

There are two things that break 3.5:

(1) An expectation that any deviation from the false idol of "expected results" constitutes a failure

(2) Players controlling the pace of encounters/challenges

The latter will result in the players embracing strategies in which overwhelming force is applied to the minimum possible resistance. Since the spellcasters are the ones with access to the "overwhelming force" options, allowing the entire game to become a story exclusively about nuclear deterrence pretty much screws the classes built for playing out the entirety of the Cold War.

The former simply exacerbates the latter.

At higher levels it becomes virtually impossible to achieve #2 unless your players are either stupid or willing to gimp themselves in the interest of making the game playable and 3.5 begins to fall apart.

Worst case scenario though? If your players are only interested in the nuclear deterrence gameplay, just have everyone play a caster.

[TuggyNE]

One thing that would be good is way to make save-or-cry spells a lot less 'all or nothing'. Characters get hitpoints which provide a buffer between 'fine' and 'dead', why don't we have something similar between 'fine' and 'mind controlled/petrified/asleep'? Tome of Battle gives a few tricks for autopassing saves or shrugging off bad effects....

There's a thread for that. </ownhorn>

[Aasimar]

What breaks dnd?

Overanalysis.

Optimization Forums

Antagonistic GMs and Players trying to one-up each other.

[Taelas]

JaronK has put most things I would have said far more eloquently than I could have done.

Though I would add that spellcasters in general are assumed to have to deal with the standard adventuring day, i.e. they can't use all of their daily resources in single encounters. If you ignore that and balance spellcasters around them using all of their daily resources at once, you end up with a spellcaster who can, under the standard adventuring day, function 1/4th of the time and "contribute meaningfully", and who's plinging with a crossbow the remaining 3/4ths of the time, which is about as far from a meaningful contribution as it is possible to get.

This happens often at lower levels where wizards have few spells even with the current state of the game: they either dominate by casting their spells, then risk being forced to endure encounters where they can't contribute at all, or they play conservatively and contribute marginally some of the time, and end up with spells remaining at the end of the day which are effectively "wasted."

[Yora]

The most important factor in breaking 3rd Edition is the intention to do so. I don't think people often break it by accident, if at all.

[Morty]

The most important factor in breaking 3rd Edition is the intention to do so. I don't think people often break it by accident, if at all.

Back when I still played D&D, my party's ranger quickly came to the conclusion that he seems to be doing better damage if he takes one of his longswords and wields it in both hands instead of using two weapon fighting. He didn't try to do it; two weapon fighting proved inferior by itself.

[JaronK]

The most important factor in breaking 3rd Edition is the intention to do so. I don't think people often break it by accident, if at all.

I actually started by accidentally breaking the game. First, I was too weak (Halfling Rogue with a pair of daggers was my first character... in an undead heavy game). Then I'd accidentally break it in the other direction (Played a Cleric and tried Animate Dead in a party that was all weaker melees... whoops). It just happened. I never wanted to break it.

And I've seen plenty of other people do the same thing, sometimes just by finding one spell that's cool or wanting to play a Druid with a dog.

JaronK

[Zman]

A couple of points. First, lowered Wealth By Level is considered by me and (I believe) by the community to hurt mundane characters more than it hurts spellcasters. You mentioned that a +6 will be harder to get. A barbarian wants two +6s, Strength and Constitution, and it needs those two stats more than the wizard does. Further, the barbarian needs to keep a very nice magical weapon on hand, as well as armor. The wizard *might* want these things for various abilities, such as initiative boosting, but doesn't need them. Then the barbarian needs some way to get around, such as flight. The wizard can just use a spell slot on Overland Flight. I could provide more examples, but I'd rather move on to the next few points.
Second, lowering wizard's spell slots makes them more stingy with spells. A wizard would then use a spell on something that gives a fantastic bonus, like the aforementioned Overland Flight, and help out the party less. By lowering the number of spells a wizard can cast, you are suggesting that they focus on the very, very good spells. While you are trying to remove most of those spells, that only means that the spellcasters will try to find the best spells you have left them.
Third and lastly, what of the gish? Somebody that only casts some spells? A bard doesn't really have broken spellcasting, and yet they're going to get hammered by any general ban or alteration to the magic system. A wizard/rouge/daggerspell mage (like an above poster mentioned) is punished for trying to cast spells in melee, like his character is designed to do, because you would be changing the entire spell system.

Finally, I'm going to recap what a lot of people have said. You're trying to find a quick fix for D&D's imbalances. All the people who have been pointing out there isn't one? It's cause they've been looking for one too. For a long, long time. So instead, I'll link you to a few places on this site that might be of interest to you. First, Jiriku made a list of general changes (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=210623) to the ruleset that you might want to look at. You also might want to look at the various classes (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10523436&postcount=110) he has made. Second, here is a compilation of various fixes and revamps (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=236469) of core classes and a few other classes, like the Warlock. And third, here is something (http://www.ruleofcool.com/get-the-game/) you might want to look at to see what they have done with magic, and to crib ideas from.

I haven't removed Wizard spell slots, but merely delayed the upper level slots. This change doesn't come into play until 7th level. Otherwise I have made it more difficult and costly to acquire new spells in the hopes to limit versatility in some small way. It harder to have a magic bullet for every encounter this way.

You are right, the Gish does suffer a bit under my fixes, but only casting a small number of spells per encounter, most of which are low level, shouldn't hurt them too badly.

I don't expect to simply "Fix" 3.5, but merely to apply hot fixes that go along way to shore up its edifice des and help balance. It certainly won't be perfet, and it certainly won't take years.


Additional spells that are at least potent enough to consider (starting from the bottom and working up, SRD only):

Grease
Color Spray
Sleep
Charm Person
Silent Image (and all its derivatives, and pretty much any Illusion [figment] spell at all; seriously, they're a lot rougher than they seem at first glance)
Glitterdust
Web
Mirror Image
Rope Trick
Knock
Sepia Snake Sigil
Stinking Cloud
Hold Person
Suggestion
Deep Slumber
Wind Wall
Displacement
Ray of Exhaustion
Blink
Shrink Item
Black tentacles
Solid Fog
Dimension door
Scrying
Charm Monster
Shadow Conjuration/Evocation (and their derivatives)
Bestow Curse
Enervation

That's just up through fourth level, and only off the sorc/wiz list. All of these spells require at the very least serious review, and at worst total rewrites. Some of them end entire encounters, others obviate whole character classes, others subvert fundamental limiting factors, and some are just extremely potent effects. Additionally, reducing WBL is the wrong way to go about improving balance. The top tier classes and the least gear dependent classes are all the same classes. Fighters need weapons and armor, they need items to fly, to see invis, to protect against debilitating effects like paralysis, mind control, and fear, and to do basically anything else that needs doing besides damage. Wizards can do perfectly adequately with just their spellbook (Int-boosters are a big deal, but a Wizard can live without one more easily than the fighter can without Str/Con boosters), and a cleric can do perfectly fine with a wooden holy symbol and the clothes on his back. With more money, casters use money to solve problems without wasting magic, and mundanes use money to solve problems they couldn't have dealt with at all without it. Money helps mundanes a lot more than it does casters.

EDIT: swordsage'd on second point

Good list, some are merely problematic and don't need fixing. Others should be helped by a difficulty in optimizing Int and therefore saves.

Both of you are right about WBL potentially hurting non casters more, my goal was to put the casters in a crunch. Need some more thinking on this one. Though, I still feel WBL gets a bit out of hand, it can't be taken back too much. The goal was to limit seeing a maxed out Spell DC. The Wizard certainly is getting a +6 to Int ASAP and gets much more mileage out of it than the Fighter does Str or Con. The Wizard effectively boosts DCs by 3 while we Know the fighter isn't boosting Wisdom which greatly increases the disparity between DCs and Saves,


You want to reduce wbl for everyone who is a caster, and increase wbl for everyone who isn't.

You are right, I will be revising my WBL modifications and increasingmmynspell cost modifications. At least that will effectively accomplish this for Wizards.


One thing that would be good is way to make save-or-cry spells a lot less 'all or nothing'. Characters get hitpoints which provide a buffer between 'fine' and 'dead', why don't we have something similar between 'fine' and 'mind controlled/petrified/asleep'? Tome of Battle gives a few tricks for autopassing saves or shrugging off bad effects....

I'm hoping making DCs a little less crazy by reducing the Optimization of Casting stats will help.


There are two things that break 3.5:

(1) An expectation that any deviation from the false idol of "expected results" constitutes a failure

(2) Players controlling the pace of encounters/challenges

The latter will result in the players embracing strategies in which overwhelming force is applied to the minimum possible resistance. Since the spellcasters are the ones with access to the "overwhelming force" options, allowing the entire game to become a story exclusively about nuclear deterrence pretty much screws the classes built for playing out the entirety of the Cold War.

The former simply exacerbates the latter.

At higher levels it becomes virtually impossible to achieve #2 unless your players are either stupid or willing to gimp themselves in the interest of making the game playable and 3.5 begins to fall apart.

Worst case scenario though? If your players are only interested in the nuclear deterrence gameplay, just have everyone play a caster.

I agree with you. And all casters really isn't that much fun IMO.

[nedz]

Another fix which is quite popular is called E6 — I'm not sure how I forgot to mention this earlier, but then no one else has either.

This basically limits level progression to level 6, after that characters get a feat every 5,000 xp. There are a few more minor tweaks required and the full details can be found here (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?206323-E6-The-Game-Inside-D-amp-D).

[warmachine]

Arcane Thesis (Fireball) with Empower Spell metamagic. As an 8th level Sorcerer, I was doing 15d6 fire with 4th level spell slots. One-shotted a higher level wizard.

[Karnith]

Arcane Thesis (Fireball) with Empower Spell metamagic. As an 8th level Sorcerer, I was doing 15d6 fire with 4th level spell slots. One-shotted a higher level wizard.

Arcane Thesis with anything really; an thesis'd fireball is honestly pretty tame compared to other spells you can use it with. With arcane thesis, a split, empowered Enervation is a 6th-level spell that is more powerful than Energy Drain. Similarly silly things happen when you apply it to spells like Orb of Force, in classic mailman style.

[jindra34]

Zman: Its not the Save DC you should be worried about. With removing/delaying higher level spells it now is going to be less than the good save modifier for a lot of characters (and their bad if the invest in a cloak of resistance). Its the no-save just get messed up stuff they have.

[Shining Wrath]

Rather obvious.
What breaks DND 3.5 is the same thing that broke DND 2.0, Tunnels and Trolls, Pathfinder, and every other RPG.

Bad DMs break games. And "greedy" min-max players make it easier for bad DMs to fail.

You've got an uber-charger Barbarian / fighter? OK, every adventure takes you into caves filled with stalagmites. Sorry you can't get a running start at anything ever.

And so on...

[Pickford]

Ok, I'm working on a group of fixes coupled with class fixes to try and being 3.5 into a better balance without ruining the feel or flavor that already exists. If you are interested in seeing what I've done check my Homebrew signature.


My question to the playground, What breaks DnD? I'm looking for specific feats, chains, combinations, specific spells, abilities, skills, etc? What causes huge amounts of damage? What spells negate entire classes?

On the flip side, what's underpowered and worthless?

I'm looking to pool what you guys give me and work them into a solid set of fixes.

For Example

Barbarian/Fighter Damage

Lion Toten+ Whirling Frenzy +Power Attack+ Combat Brute+ Shock Trooper + Leap Attack= Hundreds of Damage on the Charge
Doable at 6th level

Or

MAD/SAD Balance
Inherent bonuses, items worsening the problem?

Or

Spells
Alter Self/Polymorph/Shaoechange/Draconic Polymoroh/Polymorph Any Object
Wish/Miracle
Planar Binding/Planar Ally
Etc

Whirling frenzy...wouldn't apply to a charge which is a full round action. (i.e. no full attack) and nothing from combat brute or shock trooper would increase the damage...

How're you reaching hundreds of damage at 6th level? (+6 BAB to power attack x 3 (from your leap with a 2h) = +18 damage. Lion totem is +2 damage...so that's +20, if you have the max str bonus (+5 ability, +3 from a +6 str item and +2 dam from the +4 str of rage: total +10 damage) you would do +30 damage if you happen to be using a greataxe and hit max damage total is 42 x 3 on a crit = 126... a nice maximum, but hardly hundreds.

[warmachine]

I accidently broke D&D with the aforementioned Arcane Thesis by pursung a roleplaying concept. I created a Sorcerer that thought metamagic Fireball meant he was an educated and sophisticated mage, oblivious that he just blasts things. I didn't check the numbers. I broke the game by not caring about the mechanical power.

In my opinion, what breaks D&D in general is poor editorial control, resulting in things like Assay Resistance that breaks SR, and refusal to fix major design mistakes, such as Druid.

[nedz]

Rather obvious.
What breaks DND 3.5 is the same thing that broke DND 2.0, Tunnels and Trolls, Pathfinder, and every other RPG.

Bad DMs break games. And "greedy" min-max players make it easier for bad DMs to fail.

You've got an uber-charger Barbarian / fighter? OK, every adventure takes you into caves filled with stalagmites. Sorry you can't get a running start at anything ever.

And so on...

Rules don't kill games, people do.

True to a point: but if, as a DM, you try to stretch and challenge parties — forcing them to utilise all of their resources or fail — then you will discover that not all classes were created equal. This is the fault.

[Elderand]

Literal interpretation of rules and use of them into extreme situation they weren't mean to cover break the game.

[JaronK]

E6 is definitely a cheap hack method of balancing the game. I don't say that as a bad thing... it gets the job done quite nicely.

JaronK

[Elderand]

E6 does the job nicely, I just think it's a shame some enemies cannot be used whitout massive change to their stats block or using them in non combat function.

[JaronK]

I actually played for a bit with a rotating gestalt E6 that lets you actually fight the bigger, scarier enemies. The way it works is just like normal, you can only get to 6th level. But when you get enough exp for 7th level, you instead gestalt your first level with a new class. At "8th level" you gestalt your second level with a new class, and get +1 to any stat. At 9th, you gestalt your third, and gain a feat. And so on. At 13th level, you have three classes at your first level. Also, you can only take a Prestige Class level if you have the prerequisites before that level (so, if your levels 1-5 qualify you, you can gestalt your 6th with a PrC). You can take as many PrCs as you like.

That way, the PCs keep leveling, but they never get to most of the really broken abilities (though Animate Dead is a 3rd level Cleric spell and is very powerful in E6). And since there's so many classes out there, you can still have one central character theme... a "Swordmaster" character could end up as a Warblade 6//Fighter 6//Swordsage 6//OA Samurai 6//CW Samurai 6, for example. An "intelligent bookish spellcaster" could be a Wizard 6//Archivist 6//Factotum 6//Swashbuckler 6. And so on. Balance problems get correctly nicely because you can always take a stronger class next circuit through.

Meanwhile, your ECL (and the amount of experience needed for next level) goes up slower after level 6. Every three gestalt levels increases your ECL by 1 at first. Eventually, your ECL goes up by one per 6 levels.

JaronK

[Elderand]

That is an interesting way to handle things, I might use that at some point

[Tvtyrant]

Just about everything about it, actually.

Damage and accuracy rapidly outpace defense and health, so if you cut all casting out of the game it still would play in a binary manner.

The game is built around a central framework where everyone is using identical mechanics, and then adds a series of subsystems to that. Characters without a meaningful subsystem (basic Ranger, Monk and Fighter) are fundamentally behind, while disparities between subsystems are so great that even decent subsystems (Tome of Battle) are unable to keep up with the best ones (casting.)

The basic understanding that has resulted from this disparity is that no amount of superiority in the base system (BaB, HD, skills) can ever make up for disparities in the subsystems.

[Eldest]

I haven't removed Wizard spell slots, but merely delayed the upper level slots. This change doesn't come into play until 7th level. Otherwise I have made it more difficult and costly to acquire new spells in the hopes to limit versatility in some small way. It harder to have a magic bullet for every encounter this way.

One clairification: if you are in any way delaying spell slots that they would otherwise have at a level, you are doing what I meant when I said "removing" spell slots. My bad for the iffy term.


You are right, the Gish does suffer a bit under my fixes, but only casting a small number of spells per encounter, most of which are low level, shouldn't hurt them too badly.

The gish was a example. The Bard is considered (with lots of resources from different books) to be well designed and Tier 3. It is also a partial caster. The gish was meant as an example as a partial caster. In addition, there are focused casters, like the Beguiler, who likely should not get hit as badly with nerfs. In short, a lot of classes use the Vancian system of magic, and if you change the rules for that system, think of the impact on the Ranger as well as the Wizard. I also caution you from just changing Wizard/Cleric/Archivist/ect, as you will have to decide what your cut off is. Is a Sorcerer overpowered? A Dread Necromancer? A Warmage? They all get 9th level spells. A Factotum?

Basically, try to think through all of the classes that are affected by your change, then think of the effects they will suffer from.

[Shining Wrath]

Rules don't kill games, people do.

True to a point: but if, as a DM, you try to stretch and challenge parties — forcing them to utilise all of their resources or fail — then you will discover that not all classes were created equal. This is the fault.

That's quite right. There are things in 3.5 that greatly facilitate breaking the game. The most obvious is the oft-discussed power and versatility difference between the classes. Most of the fantasy literature that D&D is based upon just makes Wizards extremely rare, and there's an undercurrent of "The Gods favor fighters over wizards". How many times would Conan have died a miserable death in a D&D game, even if you granted him a starting STR and CON of 24?

Without rewriting the game from the ground up the problem can't be fixed. Enter 4e, everyone is pretty much the same, and that drives some people crazy. I like BOTH versions pretty well, but won't presume that other people should share my ambivalence. :smallamused:

So if you want to ask me what breaks D&D 3.5 other than people, it's that they created a Gandalf class, and an Conan class, and never considered how well the two would mix.

If I were going to HR something to make the game less broken I'd hit magic with a serious nerfing and give the melee classes 3 good SR's. How many times did Conan overcome a wizard's spell through sheer defiance? And then half the people on GitP would refuse to play in my game because they want to play the Batman God wizard.

[TuggyNE]

If I were going to HR something to make the game less broken I'd hit magic with a serious nerfing and give the melee classes 3 good SR's. How many times did Conan overcome a wizard's spell through sheer defiance? And then half the people on GitP would refuse to play in my game because they want to play the Batman God wizard.

As long as you manage expectations and avoid over-nerfing any class to the point where it feels useless or unlike what it's supposed to be, you can probably avoid most of those problems.

Of course, that's easier said than done. :smallwink:

[Zman]

I actually played for a bit with a rotating gestalt E6 that lets you actually fight the bigger, scarier enemies. The way it works is just like normal, you can only get to 6th level. But when you get enough exp for 7th level, you instead gestalt your first level with a new class. At "8th level" you gestalt your second level with a new class, and get +1 to any stat. At 9th, you gestalt your third, and gain a feat. And so on. At 13th level, you have three classes at your first level. Also, you can only take a Prestige Class level if you have the prerequisites before that level (so, if your levels 1-5 qualify you, you can gestalt your 6th with a PrC). You can take as many PrCs as you like.

That way, the PCs keep leveling, but they never get to most of the really broken abilities (though Animate Dead is a 3rd level Cleric spell and is very powerful in E6). And since there's so many classes out there, you can still have one central character theme... a "Swordmaster" character could end up as a Warblade 6//Fighter 6//Swordsage 6//OA Samurai 6//CW Samurai 6, for example. An "intelligent bookish spellcaster" could be a Wizard 6//Archivist 6//Factotum 6//Swashbuckler 6. And so on. Balance problems get correctly nicely because you can always take a stronger class next circuit through.

Meanwhile, your ECL (and the amount of experience needed for next level) goes up slower after level 6. Every three gestalt levels increases your ECL by 1 at first. Eventually, your ECL goes up by one per 6 levels.

JaronK

E6 is certainly an interesting concept. I've worked on an E10 Concept that is similar to your Gestalted E6. It actually preempts my current effort. It started Gestalt after level 10 in the same manor your does except that it never surpassed 10//10. I figured characters would be able to get into the CR14-15 range. I most liked the delayed power accumulation beyond 10th. Though, there were still many problematic spells before 6th level.


One clairification: if you are in any way delaying spell slots that they would otherwise have at a level, you are doing what I meant when I said "removing" spell slots. My bad for the iffy term.



The gish was a example. The Bard is considered (with lots of resources from different books) to be well designed and Tier 3. It is also a partial caster. The gish was meant as an example as a partial caster. In addition, there are focused casters, like the Beguiler, who likely should not get hit as badly with nerfs. In short, a lot of classes use the Vancian system of magic, and if you change the rules for that system, think of the impact on the Ranger as well as the Wizard. I also caution you from just changing Wizard/Cleric/Archivist/ect, as you will have to decide what your cut off is. Is a Sorcerer overpowered? A Dread Necromancer? A Warmage? They all get 9th level spells. A Factotum?

Basically, try to think through all of the classes that are affected by your change, then think of the effects they will suffer from.

Truthfully, delaying some of the later spell levels won't leave them hurting for spells. One less spell at 8th level. 2 less spells at 11th. Still having 20 spells at 11th level is hardly insignificant. Obviously that is with the Same Int. my line of changes will likely lead to One fewer spell as well. Again, I don't see your concern as warranted.

You are right, the Gishes do take a bit of a hit. But, every Gish I've worked on so far has received some kind of boost. My Ranger, Paladin and even Bard are more capable than they were before. It is not as if these classes will be casting many spells, at least not enough to deal troublesome amounts of NonLethal damage. And even so, each has been brought up more than enough to compensate.

Any Spellcaster, even SLAs will deal this NonLethal/Vitality point damage which is and of itself a balancing factor.

I've kept this idea in mind as I've worked on my classes fix. Its only part of a larger plan, each part being easy to institute.


As long as you manage expectations and avoid over-nerfing any class to the point where it feels useless or unlike what it's supposed to be, you can probably avoid most of those problems.

Of course, that's easier said than done. :smallwink:

Expectations are critical. Some expect to play a fun medium op game while others expect to be able to do whatever RAW says they can.