Whats your stance of Dragon Magazines?

[LentilNinja]

Do you allow the things they put in Dragon Mags, or do you prefer players didn't use them?
I find some of the things in there can be a little on the unbalanced side, and review them before I allow them.

[squiggit]

Some of the things can be unbalanced... but I mean 3.5 is like that all the way down to core.

So I usually allow it unless something is really off the wall (just like with anything else in 3.5).

[ryu]

What possible thing are you going to find in dragon that makes a significant negative impact on balance as it stands at base? Keep in mind this has to be actually significant and not just adding insult to injury.

[Forrestfire]

A few things are strong or unbalanced. Most of the things, however, are extremely fun, regardless of balance level. I enjoy using Dragon Magazine content, personally.

[Yogibear41]

Balance is overrated, and most times it is only measured in a vacuum, that being said the more materials the better IMO, bring on the 1st party, the 2nd party, and the 3rd party! I wouldn't mind having a 4th party while we are talking cuz partying is the best :smallcool:

[Phelix-Mu]

Three Reasons Not to Allow Dragon content:

1.) Access: The most fundamental and basic reason around many tables is lack of access to the actual thing. Or, at least, it has been this way in the past. There are decent second-hand sources for some of the better bits, but a DM could reasonably be squeamish about allowing ephemeral rumors of mechanics found on the interwebz (especially DMs that like to be able to lay hands/eyes on the actual thing).

2.) Quantity: 3e already has a freakishly huge mountain of material available to players. A DM, especially one with less rather than more experience is hard-pressed to fully review players that delve extensively into the first-party options. In favor of conserving valuable DM head-space and planning time, a DM may sensibly not allow access to Dragon.

3.) Quality Issues: Closely associated with #2, this is largely an issue with community exposure. A DM lacking sufficient mastery of the game may look at random bit of Dragon content and scratch her/his head. Much of the stuff in Dragon magazine that is most cool is cool because it is a novel bit of innovation or an unusual twist on existing things. But how to judge which bits are decent and which are unhinged? A DM has reason to think (erroneously or not) that much of the stuff that made it into actual books has been widely used by the community, but there is a huge amount of hit-or-miss with Dragon stuff. And without trawling the forums looking for reviews of this content, a less-experienced DM probably can't tell the wolves from the sheep, so to speak.

Three Reasons to Allow Dragon Content:
1.) Novelty: After one plays the game for a while, one typically is constantly looking for new inspiration for characters, new cool builds, and so forth. Dragon content is as good a source for this as any, and is occasionally quite brilliant at spurring creativity (even if the mechanics execution is often questionable at best). Allow Dragon to keep the selection of ideas and cool interactions at a maximal level.

2.) Quantity: The quality of stuff available in first-party materials for certain things is kind of low. Dragon typically expands the quantity of all kinds of stuff, adding useful grist to the mill for some players. Allow Dragon to make sure that no one feels short-shrifted by the official materials.

3.) Quality: 3e already self-disqualifies in terms of quality. Some of it is brilliant. Some of it is not. Allow Dragon because the basic status of quality/balance is already fairly poor, and Dragon is unlikely to make it worse.

[Alleran]

I allow Dragon content. I haven't really found the balance issues much worse than some other places in 3.X, so I just go on a case by case basis.

[RedMage125]

Right around the 3.5e changeover, Paizo started running stuff past WotC before they published it. Basically, if you have a 3.x era book, and the letters for "Dragon" are in a boxy, plain font instead of the swirly, fantastic (much more appealing) font, then you have a magazine from the era when Dragon/Dungeon content was considered "100% official", take that to mean what you will.

For my part, when I run 3.5e, I consider anything that isn't from the Core Books or a Complete Book to be "Subject to DM Approval". I generally allow feats out of the PHB2 (don't like the classes). I call the Spell Compendium "The Big Book of Broken Spells".

The only time I've ever had a player request to use Dragon Magazine material was when I was running the Age of Worms Adventure Path, and the material in question was from one of the Wormfood articles in Dragon, so...I said yes.

But I had a subscription to Dragon from about summer of '03 right up until i joined the Navy in October '06, and when it came to the post-3.5e changeover, I didn't find any of the material to be grossly overpowered. Underpowered sometimes, yes. Or odd, like D&D stats for a "riding bird" from Final Fantasy, or stats for Kratos' Chaos Blades from God of War.

[Yogibear41]

or stats for Kratos' Chaos Blades from God of War.

1d12 one handed weapons with reach ftw

[Curmudgeon]

If I can borrow the issue and make a photocopy of the content for my records, I'm usually OK with a player using stuff from Dragon for their character. It's generally of better quality than much of core D&D (the spells in the Player's Handbook, for example) and adds variety to the game.

[Anlashok]

I call the Spell Compendium "The Big Book of Broken Spells".

As opposed to core which we'd call... The medium sized book of complete-utter-bull****-what-were-they-smoking-at-wotc spells?

[Phelix-Mu]

As opposed to core which we'd call... The medium sized book of complete-utter-bull****-what-were-they-smoking-at-wotc spells?

Indeed, I don't think anything in SC was as badly borked as the RAW of gate, let alone the implications of shapechange once you add in all the other creatures that were published (zodar, I am looking at you).

EDIT: In light of the later-published weapons in 3.5 (mainly thinking of greathammer here), I actually find myself considering having all weapons just deal the same amount of base damage, since most of the damage a melee does is coming from Str and Power Attack anyway. Would sure simplify things, allow for some interesting flavoring, and would make things like greathammer and its staggeringly superior traits seem less unwieldy. Would probably eyeball everything at somewhere between 1d8 and 2d6, and just fluff it that, if dagger is your thing, then you are stupidly good with dagger. Greatswords would still benefit from more strength for two-handing, and would be a better choice for stronger characters (which is already the case). Hmm, I'll have to give this some thought.

[Yawgmoth]

The same way I feel about everything in this system: Judged on a case-by-case basis. Tell me what it does in its entirety and why you want it for your character (and be honest!) and I'll think about it.

[CIDE]

Wait, wait, whoa...which issue had the kratos stuff? I really hope I have that issue.

[Azoth]

I am a case by case person myself. Some things I like and others I don't particularly care for. Haven't found too much that I can't balance out on my own. Mainly comes down to if I can find it to read over it, and if it is something that fits with the setting I am using.

[AuraTwilight]

I pretty much allow anything at my table. First party, third party, homebrew...just let me look at it and A-OK it. I'll usually say yes.

[BWR]

I allow most everything so long as it's thematically appropriate. While I don't allow much Dragon mag stuff in my curent Pathfinder campaign, which apart from two feats is entirely Pf, no 3.0/5, if I run 3.5 it's on the same level as anything else: ask first. I'll probably say yes. In fact, just about the only thing I ban in its entirety is ToB at the beginning of the game.

[Anlashok]

In fact, just about the only thing I ban in its entirety is ToB.

Why would you do that?

[BWR]

Because I dislike the mechanics. Not because "durr borken" or anything, I just dislike the mechanics in their entirety. Too pseudo-casting, too MMO for my tastes.

[Sian]

I default to no, but can be convinced otherwise on a case-to-case basis ... mainly due to issues with accessibility and (to a slightly lesser degree) combobreakers

[Anlashok]

Because I dislike the mechanics. Not because "durr borken" or anything, I just dislike the mechanics in their entirety. Too pseudo-casting, too MMO for my tastes.

Oh no I agree with you. Giving martial characters something to do other than roll for basic attacks a dozen times is disgusting.

[Banaticus]

Looking at what's appeared in Dragon Magazine in the past then later appeared in a published book, Dragon Magazine seems to be where things are floated and tested for later "real" inclusion. Also, except for printed typos, there haven't been any Dragon Magazine erratas, as far as I know.

[DarkSonic1337]

Because I dislike the mechanics. Not because "durr borken" or anything, I just dislike the mechanics in their entirety. Too pseudo-casting, too MMO for my tastes.

You disliking the mechanics for being like casting is reason to disallow the players from picking those options? What if the player in question doesn't mind the book keeping, or in fact likes the mechanics? It's closer to real life martial arts than anything else in the game mind you.

Do you also disallow spellcasters, which have much more book keeping involved?

You're probably going to get a lot of responses similar to this. I implore you to allow it as an option in your games to give martial characters more options, even if you don't elect to use it yourself or give it much support in your campaign worlds. A Martial Study here or there, or a dip in Warblade, or a Snap Kick or Superior Unarmed Strike, can really go a long way to boosting a melee guy and making him more fun to play.

[RedMage125]

Wait, wait, whoa...which issue had the kratos stuff? I really hope I have that issue.
Issue #328

As opposed to core which we'd call... The medium sized book of complete-utter-bull****-what-were-they-smoking-at-wotc spells?

My problem with the Spell Compendium stems from this: The majority of the "new" spells in there are either updates from a Complete Book (in which case, I do usually refer to the SC, as the more recent publication, it is the most valid), or a re-print from a Forgotten Realms source. Forgotten Realms can be fun, but it's higher-powered than most "core" settings. Regional feats, magic/masterwork items as starting equipment, and, of course, higher powered magic.

The spells, feats, and prestige classes from FR are much higher powered than other settings. The Spell Compendium altered the names of a lot of spells (usually to remove FR-specific naming conventions, such as Elminster's Evasion), and just tossed them into the book. I'm fine with the high-magic stuff in FR, the setting is all about that. I don't allow FR material in my games because a lot of it is overpowered. I don't usually allow Eberron material, either, but that's because I don't have Dragonmarks, any of the Eberron races, or use Action Points in my games.

[Forrestfire]

Most of the FR stuff I've seen, like most of the non-FR stuff, runs the gamut from 'strong' to 'weak' to 'overpoweed.' Also, none of it, possibly barring Incantatrix, is stronger than the shenanigans that can be gotten into with Core. :smallconfused:

[Cloud]

On Dragon Magazine I don't own any of them, nor do any of my players...so it's typically a non-issue. If they wanted something from dragon magazine I'd probably allow it...or more likely ask why they want it and probably direct them to some homebrew that does the same thing but better.

On the spell compendium thing above, worth point out that the best spells from the forgotten realms were not included in the spell compendium, and those that did get included got weakened. I find the spell compendium a great book to allow because if you disallow it, while allowing the complete series, you actually end up making magic stronger in general. ...Besides the majority of the best spells are going to be found in core regardless.

[Hurnn]

I allow most everything so long as it's thematically appropriate. While I don't allow much Dragon mag stuff in my curent Pathfinder campaign, which apart from two feats is entirely Pf, no 3.0/5, if I run 3.5 it's on the same level as anything else: ask first. I'll probably say yes. In fact, just about the only thing I ban in its entirety is ToB at the beginning of the game.

You ban ToB but allow core casters? thats fair and fun......

[MrNobody]

Dragon Mag is, as a DM, my secret ingredient. I pick up few thing from it to open new options to my players as a reward after a huge part of campaign.
For example: at the end of a great mission, one of my player became a CN outsider (non-native, a full outsider like a slaad). To help him better fit the "chaos" thing i said: "if you want to, you can pick Anarchomancer PrC from DragMag". He was amazed and accepted with joy.

All the players i've ever had have never asked me to use thing from it: if they would, i won't say yes or no without checking the feat/spell/PrC requested.

[HammeredWharf]

My only requirement is that the mag must be available at the table or given to me before the game starts. That rule also concerns other sources, though.

[hymer]

I judge it on a case by case basis. I say no to more stuff based on fluff than on balance, but I say yes a whole lot more than I say no. Most of it is harmless, after all. But there are the occasional glaring wallbanger, of course.

[BWR]

Do some of you guys really want to turn this thread into another ToB discussion rather than keeping to the OP?
If you do, do so without me. I've read all the arguments and they don't convince me of anything other than that I don't like the mechnics. Power doesn't enter into it.

[killem2]

The hype behind the brokeness of dragon magazine (and even dungeon magazine) is pure hyperbole and it is laughable.

There may be a few corner cases. The over whelming amount of content in there is great. There are some great adventure paths in there too.

The other thing is, a lot of the content you will see actually BECAME splat books.

[dysprosium]

Looking at what's appeared in Dragon Magazine in the past then later appeared in a published book, Dragon Magazine seems to be where things are floated and tested for later "real" inclusion. Also, except for printed typos, there haven't been any Dragon Magazine erratas, as far as I know.


The other thing is, a lot of the content you will see actually BECAME splat books.

The above is why I allow Dragon and Dungeon Magazines at my table. A lot of what we see today originally appeared in an article(s). I've used them for my adventures and NPCs, so if I allow it for me, it is open for them.

Usually though my players don't ask about using these sources--they find their own wacky combos all on their own without having to look for the gems in the issues.

[toapat]

What possible thing are you going to find in dragon that makes a significant negative impact on balance as it stands at base? Keep in mind this has to be actually significant and not just adding insult to injury.

Wild Monk is definitely Completely Overpowered.

Relatively ToB is the third or fourth most unbalanced book in the game, because it is the only system which is virtually barred from everyone else. Martial training limits you to very low level maneuvers thanks to the pre-requisites of all of them, effectively barring the system from anyone (to compare, Incarnum is largely open to other classes) Relative to other combatants its not overpowered but as far as the system as a whole, its the most insular system implemented.

[HammeredWharf]

Wild Monk is definitely Completely Overpowered.

I'm not entirely sure if you're serious or not. Wild Monk is a functional T3-ish class, but it's nowhere near overpowered.


Relatively ToB is the third or fourth most unbalanced book in the game, because it is the only system which is virtually barred from everyone else. Martial training limits you to very low level maneuvers thanks to the pre-requisites of all of them, effectively barring the system from anyone (to compare, Incarnum is largely open to other classes) Relative to other combatants its not overpowered but as far as the system as a whole, its the most insular system implemented.

"Isolated" and "unbalanced" aren't even remotely synonymous. Besides, ToB isn't isolated. ToB classes are up there with Cleric as some of the best dips in 3.5 and PRCs like Ruby Knight Vindicator make multiclassing with Initiators a good idea even for casters.

[toapat]

I'm not entirely sure if you're serious or not. Wild Monk is a functional T3-ish class, but it's nowhere near overpowered.

"Isolated" and "unbalanced" aren't even remotely synonymous. Besides, ToB isn't isolated. ToB classes are up there with Cleric as some of the best dips in 3.5 and PRCs like Ruby Knight Vindicator make multiclassing with Initiators a good idea even for casters.

1: Its very easy to mistakenly apply the unarmed strike modifiers to natural weapons.

2: none of the PRCs are reasonably accessible for non-innitiators. RKV/Jade Dragon mage are overpowered. None of the classes are dip friendly beyond eachother. the book directly invalidates no less then 10 classes while being so generous as to not give them anything near what any other system book does. Martial study is nowhere near as generous as anything similar for other systems.

[Story]

My problem with the Spell Compendium stems from this: The majority of the "new" spells in there are either updates from a Complete Book (in which case, I do usually refer to the SC, as the more recent publication, it is the most valid), or a re-print from a Forgotten Realms source. Forgotten Realms can be fun, but it's higher-powered than most "core" settings. Regional feats, magic/masterwork items as starting equipment, and, of course, higher powered magic.

The spells, feats, and prestige classes from FR are much higher powered than other settings. The Spell Compendium altered the names of a lot of spells (usually to remove FR-specific naming conventions, such as Elminster's Evasion), and just tossed them into the book. I'm fine with the high-magic stuff in FR, the setting is all about that. I don't allow FR material in my games because a lot of it is overpowered. I don't usually allow Eberron material, either, but that's because I don't have Dragonmarks, any of the Eberron races, or use Action Points in my games.

Again, the spells in Core are far more powerful than any splatbook, SC included. It sounds like you've fallen into the "core is balanced" fallacy.



1: Its very easy to mistakenly apply the unarmed strike modifiers to natural weapons.

2: none of the PRCs are reasonably accessible for non-innitiators. RKV/Jade Dragon mage are overpowered. None of the classes are dip friendly beyond eachother. the book directly invalidates no less then 10 classes while being so generous as to not give them anything near what any other system book does. Martial study is nowhere near as generous as anything similar for other systems.

You say "invalidate", but it's really more like a de-facto errata for the core melee classes.

Anyway, with the exception of Divine Impetus, White Raven Tactics, and possibly Iron Heart Surge, there isn't really anything broken in TOB. It's one of the best balanced books in the game.


As far as Dragon goes, I never use it due to difficulty accessing it. The only time I've used anything is one time in game when we were trying to find enough bonuses to stack to disable a difficult trap. Eventually the DM let us just look up and research a spell from Dragon that gives a large skill bonus (probably just to keep things going).

[ddude987]

I would say ToB is very well balanced. It ranged from higher T3 to lower T3, which is probably where most things in the game should be aimed towards.

As far as dragon goes, in my playgroup we just allow dragon completely. There is hardly anything "broken" in it. I suppose taking a two level dip in monk to gain any fighter bonus feat without meeting prerequisites isn't fair, but we're all playing for fun so nobody does that. If anything, dragon adds some things to the game that make it more interesting overall, with all sorts of support to T3 and lower classes. Bards can get a feat to play two musics, there is a cool mounted combat class that melds ranger and paladin, and so much more.

[HammeredWharf]

The ToB discussion is off-topic, so I'll spoiler it up:


1: Its very easy to mistakenly apply the unarmed strike modifiers to natural weapons.

Misreading something is the reader's fault, not the class's.


2: none of the PRCs are reasonably accessible for non-innitiators.

They're available and clearly intended to be taken via dips. For example, Cleric 4 / Crusader 1 is the normal entry for RKV.


RKV/Jade Dragon mage are overpowered.

RKV is not broken at all RAW, because Divine Impetus is a Standard Action. The "infinite actions" thing is just a common misinterpretation. Jade Phoenix Mage is a nice class, but it's not particularly powerful. It's surely a downgrade from going pure Wizard.


None of the classes are dip friendly beyond eachother. the book directly invalidates no less then 10 classes while being so generous as to not give them anything near what any other system book does. Martial study is nowhere near as generous as anything similar for other systems.

That's... just not true. In fact, most of the ToB builds I've seen and made involve other classes heavily. Warblade has great synergy with Barbarian (Pounce/Rage) and Fighter. Swordsage is great in Monk, Rogue and Shadowpouncer builds. Crusader has synergy with Knight, Fighter and Paladin. ToB in no way invalidates any of the core melee classes, but gives them more toys to play with and more versatility. Of course a large part of non-ToB classes, such as Monk and Ninja, weren't valid as main classes to begin with and ToB does little to change that.

To be honest, it sounds like you're not familiar enough with ToB and are making lots of uninformed assumptions. I had someone like that in my group, but he shut up after seeing my awesome Barbarian/Fighter/Warblade guy and now uses ToB a lot in his mundane builds.

[Hytheter]

There's some really cool stuff in Dragon. Banning it altogether is understandable, but you lose out on some fun options.


2: none of the PRCs are reasonably accessible for non-innitiators.

Archmage isn't reasonably accessible for non-spellcasters, so I don't really see what the problem is.

[toapat]

I would say ToB is very well balanced. It ranged from higher T3 to lower T3, which is probably where most things in the game should be aimed towards.

internal balance: yes. External Balance: No. The book is well written, but lazy. Its balanced, but it renders every true mundane irrelevant.

[squiggit]

internal balance: yes. External Balance: No.
Which is wrong. As already pointed out. Initiators are all T3, which is middle of the road and well balanced. Don't see how you can call them poorly balanced against the game a a whole when they're all middle of the pack in terms of power.


The book is well written, but lazy. Its balanced, but it renders every true mundane irrelevant.
Rogues and Barbarians can co-exist with ToB (to a degree), fighters and monks are irrelevant regardless of whether or not you include the book of nine swords (Nevermind that the swordsage and warblade ARE the fighter and monk). So again, not really. Tome of Battle is the only thing that keeps mundanes relevant in the first place, you have it completely backwards.

[Talya]

internal balance: yes. External Balance: No. The book is well written, but lazy. Its balanced, but it renders every true mundane irrelevant.

Every true mundane was already irrelevant. What TOB allowed you to do is make melee-focused characters with no casting/manifesting ability that actually mattered in a party... at least for a few levels, until the tier 1s turn into gods.

[Forrestfire]

I guess what it comes down to is if you consider the extremely poor design of most of the 'mundane' classes in 3.5 to be a bug or a feature.

[Phelix-Mu]

ToB Thingy:
ToB could have integrated better with the existing stuff for mundanes. While Martial Study/Stance are gems for advanced character building and optimizing, they really are kind of limited in what they deliver (like spending a feat for a single spell...cool, but not really as cool as being a wizard). What I would have liked were a set of Dragon Magic/Complete Champion-type ACFs and substitutions levels for the other mundane classes that allowed someone to play a mostly-fighter with a handful of signature moves (like, dunno, WINDSCAR), or stuff like that. Instead, they really went with the "this system is so good that it's going to make that other stuff irrelevant" angle. And while that other stuff (martials from other books) is already fairly irrelevant in the big picture, it still fills significant head-space among many of us that like a nice mix of spellcastery and slashy in our games.

Personally, I actually like ToB stuff a good bit, but I really need something that more directly addresses existing unfairness to mundanes, rather than tossing them out the window, handing their replacements a vancian-lite system, and calling it a day.

I agree that most of Dragon is mainly harmless, but I do think there is something to be said about DMs not allowing it because it is little known or because there is already way too much stuff out there that is more important for the DM to be paying attention to. Also, a good bit of what is stolen from can be misinterpreted or copied incorrectly, given that much of the discussion about x or y from it is fairly informal and done without actual reference to the text in question (precisely because access to those texts is limited).

[VoxRationis]

Because I dislike the mechanics. Not because "durr borken" or anything, I just dislike the mechanics in their entirety. Too pseudo-casting, too MMO for my tastes.

I thoroughly agree. While yes, it is a desirable thing to give fighter-types something else to do during combat, it is not necessary to give them spellcasting-by-another-name, and there are better ways of giving diversity than giving them all Vancian 1-9 spell lists.
And I'd say that non-ToB warriors are relevant for "a few" levels as well; a low-level mage is either going to be reserving his strength and reducing his contributions for several encounters, or burning out on one and then contributing NOTHING for a day. You don't have to be a Warblade to kill enough orcs, gnolls, and goblins to make up for that.

[Phelix-Mu]

I thoroughly agree. While yes, it is a desirable thing to give fighter-types something else to do during combat, it is not necessary to give them spellcasting-by-another-name, and there are better ways of giving diversity than giving them all Vancian 1-9 spell lists.

Especially with the rather atrocious organization used in those chapters with the maneuvers. Ugh. Every time I go to look stuff up in that book (or *gasp* in the .pdf), it just raises my editorial hackles. I mean, couldn't they have just patterned it off the PHB section on spells? Couldn't they have listed the number of pre-reqs in the maneuver lists? Why good stuff written so bad? *tears hair* Why? *beats chest* WHY?

[The Glyphstone]

Not touching the ToB issue.

On SC and power....the people who say its content is unbalancing do have a very good point that I think a lot of people are missing. No one denies that Core contains broken/overpowered magic...but there isn't a lot of it, and most of it is contained to higher levels with a few low-level exceptions like Grease, Glitterdust, and Black Tentacles. SC contains/reprints a gigantic volume of spells, adding versatility - the cornerstone of power - in addition to raw power itself. The Orb of X line, first from CArcane and reprinted in SC, are probably the best example of this - a set of Conjuration spells that singlehandedly make the entire Evocation school irrelevant save Contingency. SC added a couple hundred new/reprinted spells across the entire 1st-9th level, condensed into a single tome out of a dozen+ disparate and often obscure sourcebooks, so on a book/power added ratio, it's the single worst offender of the entire 3.5 line for the classes who least need the boost (mostly...Arrow Mind is God's own gift to Rangers).

[Story]

so on a book/power added ratio, it's the single worst offender of the entire 3.5 line for the classes who least need the boost (mostly...Arrow Mind is God's own gift to Rangers).

Apart from Player's Guide to Faerun and Complete Divine, I presume?

[toapat]

ToB Thingy:
ToB could have integrated better with the existing stuff for mundanes. While Martial Study/Stance are gems for advanced character building and optimizing, they really are kind of limited in what they deliver (like spending a feat for a single spell...cool, but not really as cool as being a wizard). What I would have liked were a set of Dragon Magic/Complete Champion-type ACFs and substitutions levels for the other mundane classes that allowed someone to play a mostly-fighter with a handful of signature moves (like, dunno, WINDSCAR), or stuff like that. Instead, they really went with the "this system is so good that it's going to make that other stuff irrelevant" angle. And while that other stuff (martials from other books) is already fairly irrelevant in the big picture, it still fills significant head-space among many of us that like a nice mix of spellcastery and slashy in our games.

Personally, I actually like ToB stuff a good bit, but I really need something that more directly addresses existing unfairness to mundanes, rather than tossing them out the window, handing their replacements a vancian-lite system, and calling it a day.

I agree that most of Dragon is mainly harmless, but I do think there is something to be said about DMs not allowing it because it is little known or because there is already way too much stuff out there that is more important for the DM to be paying attention to. Also, a good bit of what is stolen from can be misinterpreted or copied incorrectly, given that much of the discussion about x or y from it is fairly informal and done without actual reference to the text in question (precisely because access to those texts is limited).

ToB: And thats why its the least balanced: It didnt try to fix anything, or help anything. Organization people can get past (Oh god Vestiges) but i dont get why people dont understand that the whole book is a thesis on "how not to integrate new material" and i dont get why people dont understand that.

Dragon: Realistically, for every Alternate Spell Source, for Every Chicken Infested, and for Every Wild monk (yes its balanced relatively. that doesnt mean its not broken) in dragon, there are a thousand other options with more reasonable construction. the stuff that is broken beyond reason is at least reasonably rare enough that banning the 100ish issues for third is unreasonable for imbalance. the Anarch Razors themselves have colossal issues offsetting their sweet damage die and near reach. i at least wouldnt be too annoyed if the material is banned because its not that common.



Apart from Player's Guide to Faerun and Complete Divine, I presume?

hey, Paladin gets to fully exploit Complete Divine for its brokenness, although i cant really defend PGtF

[squiggit]

ToB: And thats why its the least balanced: It didnt try to fix anything, or help anything.
Not fixing what you wished it would have fixed has nothing to do with balance though. It's more a "It's bad because its not what I would have done" thing.

Is that what you mean when you say something's unbalanced or broken?

[CIDE]

I still can't wrap my head around how you can possibly think a wild monk is broken...

Your previous explanation falls flat on its face. Please, I want to somehow understand this.

[The Glyphstone]

Apart from Player's Guide to Faerun and Complete Divine, I presume?

Eh, got me there on PGtF, though at least it only contains one OP item. As mentioned, Paladins get some nice stuff out of CDiv, though, as mentioned - and while Divine Metamagic is great, it requires Nightsticks from LibMort to really go bonkers, and Nightsticks without CDiv are fairly boring and situational. My statement does not reflect exponential synergies between supplements, only their contributions relative to core in isolation.

[Dr. Azkur]

I love Dragon so much I consider it a sin to disallow it altogether. It would make sense if they weren't very common, but... let's face it. It's the 21st century. Everything is online.

[Forrestfire]

I still can't wrap my head around how you can possibly think a wild monk is broken...

Your previous explanation falls flat on its face. Please, I want to somehow understand this.

Because it basically invalidates the normal monk. Nevermind that a straight barbarian invalidates the normal monk as an unarmed melee combatant, even in Core...

[Haldir]

Most people still think that full BAB with a spell list is overpowered (an idiotic notion which I think is responsible for both the monk and the fighter), so Dragon is probably out at most tables.

[toapat]

I still can't wrap my head around how you can possibly think a wild monk is broken...

Your previous explanation falls flat on its face. Please, I want to somehow understand this.

A wild monk needs the same attribute investment as a cleric, is harder to kill, and still gets to benefit from unarmed strikes through different means. it can be combined with the acf Raging monk to get barbarian rage as well.

[Dr. Azkur]

Most people still think that full BAB with a spell list is overpowered (an idiotic notion which I think is responsible for both the monk and the fighter), so Dragon is probably out at most tables.

Shame on he who thinks the Duskblade is overpowered.

[Larkas]

I always ask people to show me what they want from Dragon, but I have never banned what was shown to me. Dragon is mostly very reasonable, with a very few things being brokenly bad and even less brokenly good.


ToB: And thats why its the least balanced: It didnt try to fix anything, or help anything. Organization people can get past (Oh god Vestiges) but i dont get why people dont understand that the whole book is a thesis on "how not to integrate new material" and i dont get why people dont understand that.

I can't understand your argument. EPH didn't try to fix anything. Neither did ToM. MoI is quite possibly the most insular subsystem introduced in 3.X. Magic is very inaccessible to non-magic-users. How is ToB worse, or even as bad as, any of the other subsystems?

[ryu]

A wild monk needs the same attribute investment as a cleric, is harder to kill, and still gets to benefit from unarmed strikes through different means. it can be combined with the acf Raging monk to get barbarian rage as well.

And? As I stated earlier that's not effecting balance in any meaningful way. Invalidating monk when monk was already the class every other class in core, including fighters for god's sake, laughed at is no change to balance. Same thing with the other mundanes.

[Jeff the Green]

I allow it (along with Dragon Compendium, other third party, and homebrew) on a case-by case basis, and I have a few that I allow preemptively, such as eidetic wizard, mystic ranger, tibbit, and soulmelds and vestiges. Most of the time I'm actually worried about underpowered options. Particularly new base classes, because casters' lists only pull from core and mundanes are, well, mundane.

I often ban at least tier 1 (or nerf it to oblivion, in the case of my homebrew world), so I like the options like wild monk and mystic ranger that allow someone to take over the druid's functions. I also generally think martial monk is quite fine. Fighter feats have egregious requirements for feats that are less powerful than 2nd level spls.

Of course, this all assumes I can access it. This isn't normally an issue thanks to Scribd and friends who have issues.

i really like Spell Compendium. While it does give tier 1s more versatility, it also gives them more middle of the road options. The orb spells, for instance, are better than fireball (a horrible spell) but worse than core BFC spells, summons, or buff/debuff. It also gives paladins and rangers more options, and while it should have done so in the spell blocks, it also adds much needed spells to shugenjas and healers.

Initiating is not Vancian. Only wizards, archivists, clerics, and Druids are, and even the last two aren't pure.

However, I do wish they hadn't done the whole "nine spell maneuver levels, gain a new spell maneuver level every odd caster initiator level" thing. I'd rather have interesting prerequisites on the maneuvers or multiple functions for each one, akin to tactical feats, unlocked by skill ranks, feats, or BAB.

[Coidzor]

ToB: And thats why its the least balanced: It didnt try to fix anything, or help anything. Organization people can get past (Oh god Vestiges) but i dont get why people dont understand that the whole book is a thesis on "how not to integrate new material" and i dont get why people dont understand that.

Dragon: Realistically, for every Alternate Spell Source, for Every Chicken Infested, and for Every Wild monk (yes its balanced relatively. that doesnt mean its not broken) in dragon, there are a thousand other options with more reasonable construction. the stuff that is broken beyond reason is at least reasonably rare enough that banning the 100ish issues for third is unreasonable for imbalance. the Anarch Razors themselves have colossal issues offsetting their sweet damage die and near reach. i at least wouldnt be too annoyed if the material is banned because its not that common.

It multiclasses well, better than any of the other subsystems they introduced and errataing all of the martial base classes would have been kludgey at best and kind of a nightmare in practice. That said, yes, it would've been nice if it included more ACFs or optional rules for tacking martial adept progression or even some halfway decent adaptation suggestions.

So your argument for Wild Monk being broken is that Wildshape is inherently broken, then?

[toapat]

And? As I stated earlier that's not effecting balance in any meaningful way. Invalidating monk when monk was already the class every other class in core, including fighters for god's sake, laughed at is no change to balance. Same thing with the other mundanes.

invalidating the monk? thats fine because they dont work. Also its an ACF. the same comparison can be said of a Penetrating Attack rogue against a regular one. the problem is you cant name a mundane who can outperform a mid optimization Wild Monk.

the problem i have with wild monk is it invalidates everyone without a casting system. Everyone else still beats it, but its higher power then the ToB classes


So your argument for Wild Monk being broken is that Wildshape is inherently broken, then?

its a bit more complex then that, but it boils down to Wildshape shouldnt be accessible with other ACFs (alternatively, a D8 HD commoner). What a Wildmonk still has access to, and when fully optimized, the class is the highest power mundane in the game. Barbarian doesnt hold a candle.

[CIDE]

Because it basically invalidates the normal monk. Nevermind that a straight barbarian invalidates the normal monk as an unarmed melee combatant, even in Core...


But it's still weaker than a normal core Druid and probably even a wildshape Ranger since even they can get relatively awesome spellcasting on top of it all. Wild Monk is a bandaid to help make Monk useful at something.

Also, I know you were partially being sarcastic. Just... Kneejerk reactions all the way.

GAHH!!!


invalidating the monk? thats fine because they dont work. Also its an ACF. the same comparison can be said of a Penetrating Attack rogue against a regular one. the problem is you cant name a mundane who can outperform a mid optimization Wild Monk.

the problem i have with wild monk is it invalidates everyone without a casting system. Everyone else still beats it, but its higher power then the ToB classes



its a bit more complex then that, but it boils down to Wildshape shouldnt be accessible with other ACFs (alternatively, a D8 HD commoner). What a Wildmonk still has access to, and when fully optimized, the class is the highest power mundane in the game. Barbarian doesnt hold a candle.


There's probably dozens of non-ToB and non-magical martial builds that would slaughter the Wild Monk in a fight. Including but not limited to a Barbar charger build.

[HunterOfJello]

For me:

Homebrew = Almost always banned.
Dragon Magazine = You have to run it by me first, but if it isn't overly ridiculous then it's cool.

[Jeff the Green]

the problem i have with wild monk is it invalidates everyone without a casting system. Everyone else still beats it, but its higher power then the ToB classes

Mundane classes were already "invalidated." And I wouldn't exactly say incarnum classes or binder have a casting system, since they're basically just picking class features from a list each day, not effects each round. Moreover, barbarian is probably the better ubercharger because of pounce and power attack.

And I'd actually dispute "invalidated." Sure, wild monk outclasses subsystem non-users. But it's pretty restricted to a single archetype. If I want to be a knight in shining armor, it's wild monk that's eliminated from the running. Likewise a mounted warrior, a tavern brawler, a Parcival type, or just anybody that doesn't fight in the shape of an animal.

Wild monk allows a valid archetype (ascetic in the woods who changes into animals is fairly common in some groups of literature) that didn't exist before, has middle-of-the-road power, and is probably fun to play. It's not bad design at all just because it's better than bad classes.


For me:

Homebrew = Almost always banned.
Dragon Magazine = You have to run it by me first, but if it isn't overly ridiculous then it's cool.

I find this interesting. Why ban homebrew but not Dragon when at least a bunch of stuff on this site's boards has been looked over by editors (volunteer, sure, but still competent ones) while Dragon... wasn't so much? You have to do the same amount of looking-over in the end.

[Larkas]

the problem is you cant name a mundane who can outperform a mid optimization Wild Monk.

Eh, if you're talking pure damage, an uber-charger can outperform it no problem, specially specific builds like the Little Red Raiding Hood. If you're talking versatility in addition to power, I suspect a wild shaping ranger will also outperform it, specially a ranger/master of many forms/warshaper, though a few of those tricks are admittedly also open to the wild monk (though mystic ranger, or even regular ranger, casting is not).

Don't get me wrong, the wild monk is a good class. It's just not overwhelmingly good (and hence, not unbalanced). To each their own, in any case.

[toapat]

Eh, if you're talking pure damage, an uber-charger can outperform it no problem, specially specific builds like the Little Red Raiding Hood. If you're talking versatility in addition to power, I suspect a wild shaping ranger will also outperform it, specially a ranger/master of many forms/warshaper, though a few of those tricks are admittedly also open to the wild monk.

Don't get me wrong, the wild monk is a good class. It's just not overwhelmingly good (and hence, not unbalanced). To each their own, in any case.

thing is, wild monk can just take Raging Monk. combined with proper selection of form you can just get pounce and match the Ubercharger for damage. Except your a dragon, and the Ubercharger isnt.

the problem is wild monk only locks out a small number of AFCs completely, what remains is still incredibly powerful and can be stacked.

[Larkas]

thing is, wild monk can just take Raging Monk. combined with proper selection of form you can just get pounce and match the Ubercharger for damage. Except your a dragon, and the Ubercharger isnt.

the problem is wild monk only locks out a small number of AFCs completely, what remains is still incredibly powerful and can be stacked.

Hmmm, IMHO, you're greatly overestimating the synergy between those ACFs. Sure, you gain rage - at the cost of flurry of blows. You're reducing the return for the pounce investment, even with whirling frenzy. Furthermore, you're attacking from a lower BAB than a traditional charger. Also, your return from power attack + shock trooper is half from that of a charger for most of your attacks. Lastly, you're still not better off than a wild shaping ranger, who is also a better user of Dragon Wild Shape.

Again, it's a fun and interesting ACF, it's just not broken.

[CIDE]

thing is, wild monk can just take Raging Monk. combined with proper selection of form you can just get pounce and match the Ubercharger for damage. Except your a dragon, and the Ubercharger isnt.

the problem is wild monk only locks out a small number of AFCs completely, what remains is still incredibly powerful and can be stacked.

Except a Wild Monk never gets to be a dragon. That is unless you take Master of Many Forms. In which case it's Master of Many forms that wins and not the Wild Monk winning. Especially since that's basically the weakest character option to even get into Master of Many Forms. And as a Wild Monk with 10 levels of MoMF by level 20 the best you can do is a 20 HD Gargantuan Dragon and all you get (unless you optimized feat selection) are it's Ex abilities. That selection isn't quite as wonderful as you might think it is. I don't think you quite understand exactly how much damage some of these other options can be dishing out.

[Curmudgeon]

Except a Wild Monk never gets to be a dragon.
True, but you can get moderately close with Dragon Wild Shape (Draconomicon, page 105).

[CIDE]

True, but you can get moderately close with Dragon Wild Shape (Draconomicon, page 105).

Forgot about that feat. Either way it is limited to only small and medium sizes and doesn't stack (short of DM fiat) with the MoMF class feature. That said the dragon forms aren't even the best options for a MoMF or the Wild Monk.

[Snowbluff]

I only allow it on a case by case basis. Availability and quality are generally bad, so I rather would not have to deal with a new headache.

[Jeff the Green]

thing is, wild monk can just take Raging Monk. combined with proper selection of form you can just get pounce and match the Ubercharger for damage. Except your a dragon, and the Ubercharger isnt.

the problem is wild monk only locks out a small number of AFCs completely, what remains is still incredibly powerful and can be stacked.

...Rage does not an übercharger make. You need Power Attack, Shock Trooper, and Leap Attack along with a two-handed weapon (or lance, if mounted). Rage gives you +3 damage on primary natural attacks and +1 on secondary ones.